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 S. 2507.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time, and I rise today in tribute to a great American, Ronald Reagan.

We have heard extensive remarks this morning about his two major accomplishments, I believe: the end of the Soviet Union as we know it, and setting in place employer tax rates leading to an economic recovery. If we think about what happened, he was the first to call for the end of the Soviet Union and, frankly, the first to predict the end of the Soviet Union as we knew it. No one in my lifetime has done more to spread freedom around the world than Ronald Reagan, and we all owe him a great debt not only here in our country, but around the world.

His tax policies of the early 1980s led to an economic recovery in the 1980s, and I believe the entire expansion of the 1990s can be traced back to the lower tax rates set in the early 1980s, giving investors a reason to invest in our economy.

But I think Ronald Reagan's greatest contribution to our country was his optimism, his hope, and his belief in the strength of the American people. One only has to look at what we went through in the 1960s and the 1970s and what Ronald Reagan inherited when he took office. America, to say the least, was on its heels. We had gone through the problems of the Vietnam era; we had gone through problems with the Presidency; we had gone through the problems of the energy crisis; and this new animal that came upon our economy called inflation.

America was beginning to wonder about itself, and it was Ronald Reagan who talked about the shining city on the hill and all that America could be. It was Ronald Reagan that knew and said that our best days lie ahead, not in the past, and he was right. The hope that he brought, the enthusiasm he brought, and the belief in the American people was something that did, in fact, renew the American spirit.

His patriotism and the patriotism he brought to our country was something that we have not seen for some time. I know in my case, I and my entire family grew up in the Democrat Party, and it was Ronald Reagan, it was Ronald Reagan, who showed me that I was a Republican. It was Ronald Reagan who encouraged me to take a more active role in my community. I was proud to be a volunteer on his campaign in 1980. And, Mr. President, let me say this: You were my hero then; you continue to be my hero.

It was Ronald Reagan who inspired me to make a commitment to public service and to do my share on behalf of the American people, and forever I will be grateful.

Mr. President, we still love you.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 656, I call up the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and included extraneous material on H.R. 444.

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

Mr. Speaker, the economic news over the last 8 months has been very encouraging. Republicans and President Bush have focused on creating jobs and opportunity, helping working Americans by providing tax relief, improving worker training and education to help Americans without work get back on their feet, and enhancing the competitiveness of employers both at home and abroad to ensure they continue to hire more and more American workers.

As recent data from the Labor Department shows, the U.S. is creating thousands of new jobs every month. The pro-growth agenda has created 1.1 million net new jobs over the last 8 months, and 625,000 jobs, net new jobs, I should say, in March and April alone. Moreover, the national unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent in April, lower than the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.

While this is welcome news for working Americans, we remain committed to ensuring that every displaced worker has the opportunity to find meaningful employment and access to job-training services that will help them find good-paying jobs. As President Bush has said, one worker out of work is one too many, and we have a responsibility to help working families in times when they need it most.

Job training and worker education is more important to this effort in today's changing economy now more than ever before. Every member of our society, including those who are most vulnerable and the hardest to employ, want to achieve independence and self-sufficiency. No American wants endless reliance on our government, and I think the President recognizes that and providing personal reemployment accounts represents one more way we are helping the unemployed by specifically tailoring job training and employment services to meet their unique needs.

Giving displaced workers the resources they need and continuing this economic expansion is critically important. That brings us to why we are here today: to highlight a new and innovative approach to helping the unemployed get back on their feet. The bill before us, the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act, allows demonstration funding under the Workforce Investment Act to be used by States and local workforce investment boards for a pilot project to offer personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000.

With the funds from these accounts, unemployed workers may purchase a variety of different services to help them find a new job and to reenter the workforce, including job training, child care, transportation, housing assistance, relocation services, career counseling, computer classes, just to name a few. And all of these are accessible through the One-Stop Career Center system where unemployed workers already seek job training assistance.

A key component of this plan allows workers who become reemployed within 13 weeks to keep the balance of their account as a cash reemployment bonus. In addition, these reemployment accounts empower individual recipients to make choices appropriate for their own circumstances. Recipients will be able to create reemployment accounts that help them navigate all of the options that are available, such as career counseling or job training for a new profession. In providing choice and flexibility, I think we get people back to work into steady, good-paying jobs sooner.

For those who are struggling to get back on their feet, we in Congress, I think, have a responsibility to look for additional solutions to help them when they need it most. The intent of this bill is clear: this new benefit supplements and enhances the services that are already available for those who are most likely to face obstacles in finding and keeping new employment, whether it be unemployment benefits or the employment training programs offered through the Workforce Investment Act.

The bill before us is a pilot project, a scaled-back version of a more comprehensive proposal that the Committee on Education and the Workforce approved last year. Our goal here is to put this program to a test, see how it works in practice, and determine whether it truly gives unemployed workers an option, a workable option to help them improve their job search. The lessons learned through this pilot project will give Congress more information on how best to serve those who are looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their work on this measure and last year's bill as well. During hearings that we had last year, we heard from State leaders at a field hearing in Nevada about the practical benefits of these reemployment accounts in helping the unemployed. We also heard from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who said that the accounts ``will empower individuals by giving them more flexibility, personal choice, and

control over their job search and career.''

Over the past 2 years, we have taken numerous steps to help unemployed workers, and we are also in the process of reauthorizing the Federal job-training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Millions of jobless workers should not have to wait for job-training reform, and Congress has an obligation this year to improve those job- training opportunities for American workers. Unfortunately, it appears, though, that some in the other body want to block major job-training legislation that would help strengthen training and retraining opportunities for American workers. I think if given the opportunity, we look forward to completing work on that legislation this year.

But Congress must act now to provide new, innovative options to help workers as quickly as possible, and the choice and flexibility available through personal reemployment accounts will help more Americans get back on their feet and find good jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, we probably would not be here today if the other body would actually go to conference on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. But I think all of us realize that they have been unwilling to go to conference, and we believe that we have got every responsibility known to man to help those people who are unemployed and need help.

Secondly, let me say that, once again, we are getting into a debate about the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. What this bill does is set up a pilot project that allows unemployed workers who qualify the option of this $3,000 reemployment bonus. The real key here is that they, the unemployed workers, get to decide what kind of training they need, what kind of education they might need, what kind of services they may need to help them get back on their feet and into good work. They get to decide, not some bureaucrat in some office somewhere. They get to decide.

And this option of allowing them that flexibility, I think, is worth trying. That is what we are asking for today: Let us try this. Let us see what happens. Let us see if this additional flexibility for unemployed workers does, in fact, help them get the training, retraining they may need to find a good job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the original author and I would describe as the father of the Workforce Investment Act. I applaud him on his good work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There was a discussion here about what would happen if workers chose to take a $3,000 personal reemployment account and their ability to access services at the Career One Stops. I just want to set the record straight.

While it is true that recipients would be prohibited from accessing intensive or training services through the One Stop career system for 1 year after the creation of the account, unless, unless the person with the account chooses to purchase services there, however, all individuals remain eligible for the core services provided by the Career One Stop. Such services include job search and placement assistance, including career counseling, where appropriate, and access to labor market information.

Now the idea here is that we allow individuals $3,000, giving them the right to choose the types of services that they think will help them get back on their feet and find a good job. They can purchase those services at the Career One Stop or they can go down the street and go to a community college if they want. But the core services that the Career One Stops provide for all individuals, these persons with the $3,000 personal reemployment accounts, would still be eligible for those core services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

I think all of us realize that the American economy is changing, and I think it is changing at a more rapid pace than any of us would likely know. During a hearing several months ago, I found a number of statistics that I really found unusual. If we all think back for a moment to 1999, the American economy was in full bloom, the stock market was rising, employment levels were at all-time highs, yet in 1999 the American economy lost 35 million jobs. Yes, that is right. The American economy lost 35 million jobs. But, in 1999, the American economy also created 37 million new jobs, a net gain of 2 million jobs.

Now, let us move forward 3 years to 2002. And what happened in 2002? We had a recession, we had the effects of 9/11, we had a war going on in Afghanistan, and the American economy lost 35 million jobs in 2002. The American economy, though, in 2002, only created 33\1/2\ million new jobs.

This churning that we see in the American economy has always been there, but this churning we are now seeing is happening at a much faster pace than ever before; and, as a result, the need for job training, retraining, and educational services for American workers is at an all-time high.

During our hearing, when we had Alan Greenspan in front of our committee, he said this: ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to capture the benefits that flow from that engagement. For reasons that I shall elucidate shortly, one critical element in creating that opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training to all members of our society. This proposal is not novel. It is, in fact, the strategy that we have followed successfully for most of the past century and a strategy that we now should embrace with renewed commitment.''

Education and training and ongoing education and training for the American workforce is absolutely critical, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot said here today about the nature of our economy and what is happening, but in a U.S. News and World Report that is out today, dated June 7, Mort Zuckerman, in his editorial, says this:

``The economy is well on a tear. New jobs are being generated in large numbers. Income is growing at twice the rate of last year. And the exhilaration is such that we will probably see 5 percent growth in the gross domestic product. The jobs reports of the past few months have changed market sentiment. Sixty-one percent of private industries surveyed have added workers. That is the highest in 4 years. Business confidence has surged to a 20-year high, and business spending is exploding, with even American manufacturing joining the party. Companies that once saved every nickel are laying out more and more money as capital equipment to meet growing orders in double-digit rates.''

He goes on to say later in the article, ``We are on a trajectory toward extraordinary growth in the second half of 2004 that will beget stronger job and income growth, stronger retail spending, and accelerating demand at a time when businesses have cut costs, raising profit margins to their highest level in years.

``Higher profits will beget more spending, which will beget more business expansion, which will beget more income for workers which should trigger yet another increase in demand.''

Do not look now, but the surging economy may be the real October Surprise. There is a real surge in our economy; and for Americans to take advantage of that surging economy, the kind of education and training that we allow under the Workforce Investment Act and provide for them should be helpful to them. These personal reemployment accounts are a pilot project to give them the choice about the kinds of services they need, the kinds of training or retraining they need to go out and take advantage of a surging economy to get a real job for the long term.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means that deals with this.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has pointed out, we have extended unemployment benefits on several occasions and have provided tens of billions of dollars in support for those extensions.

The motion to recommit, if Members believe this is going to provide unemployment extensions to people, they are kidding themselves. What the Kildee motion does is create a new program within the Workforce Investment Act to extend unemployment benefits. This is not the usual unemployment system that we have that works really well. Under this proposal, we create a new program that is not funded. There is no funding in this bill for the program that is being created, and all this is going to do is bring false hope to millions of Americans who are out there trying to seek work who are on unemployment.

But the worst part of the motion to recommit is that it totally eliminates the underlying bill. For those of us who believe personal reemployment accounts are a good idea and that projects ought to be initiated to allow people up to $3,000 to find the kind of training, retraining, and education they need in order to gain good employment, that entire bill is eliminated under the gentleman's motion to recommit.

I would urge my colleagues, let us not engage in a facade; let us not make empty promises to people who need our help and need our help badly. This is a new program. It is not funded. It will not extend unemployment benefits. Again, the worse part about it is it would eliminate the entire underlying bill and the personal reemployment accounts that we think will be helpful for American workers who are out of work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1261) to enhance the workforce investment system of the Nation by strengthening one-stop career centers, providing for more effective governance arrangements, promoting access to a more comprehensive array of employment, training, and related services, establishing a targeted approach to serving youth, and improving performance accountability, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for yielding me this time.

Tomorrow, we will consider a bill that is integral to helping return more Americans to work, the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act. As President Bush has said, one American without a job is one too many. This legislation provides a unique approach to helping displaced workers return to good jobs. The bill offers new assistance for unemployed workers in the form of personal reemployment accounts which would help workers who need it the most return to work more quickly.

The Worker Reemployment Account Act is one piece of a larger effort to solidify the future competitiveness of America's workforce by improving education and job training. Later today, we will consider two bills aimed at strengthening teacher training and increasing the availability of highly qualified teachers in high-demand subject areas. These bills, which will be packaged with the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act under this rule, represent a comprehensive strategy for strengthening education at all levels and improving job training.

With 1.1 million new jobs created over the last 8 months and 625,000 net new jobs added just in March and April, it is clear that our resurgent economy is moving on the right track. Indeed, almost every economic indicator tells us the economy is adding momentum every month, and manufacturing jobs have been on the rise for 3 straight months as well. The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in April, lower than the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s.

Despite these encouraging signs, we need to do more to help displaced workers get back on their feet, and it is clear that job training and worker education is more important in today's changing economy than ever before. We want to give workers a hand up, not just a handout. Self-sufficiency and independence from Government is every American worker's goal, not dependency and endless reliance on our government. We recognize this fact, and personal reemployment accounts represent one more way we are helping the unemployed get back on their feet through personalized job training and employment services specifically tailored to meet that person's own needs.

The Worker Reemployment Accounts Act is an innovative approach to helping workers find good-paying jobs. The bill authorizes funding for a pilot project similar to the one proposed by President Bush earlier this year that would provide workers with personal reemployment accounts up to $3,000 to purchase employment-related services to help them find a good job. The bill does not authorize a specific dollar amount for the pilot program but simply makes reemployment accounts an allowable use of funds under the demonstration programs of the Workforce Investment Act. The President requested $50 million for this demonstration program, and I am sure Congress would fund it appropriately.

This is an efficient and flexible approach that empowers Americans to find good-paying jobs. The funds from these accounts can be used for a variety of employment-related services, including job training, career counseling, transportation assistance, child care, and housing assistance.

One of the best elements of the plan is that any unspent balance in the account can be kept by workers who find work within 13 weeks of being laid off. Workers can keep any remaining amount as a reemployment bonus.

The personal reemployment accounts will be administered through the One-Stop Career System established under the Workforce Investment Act where displaced workers already seek employment assistance. States and local workforce boards that want to participate can apply to the Labor Secretary for competitive grants to offer reemployment accounts to unemployed workers. An individual who receives an amount must be receiving unemployment benefits, be identified by the State as likely to exhaust his or her benefits, and be eligible for at least 20 weeks of unemployment compensation.

These accounts are a new benefit option that would work in tandem with unemployment insurance as an additional vehicle to help workers in their efforts to find good-paying jobs. Over the past 2 years, we have taken numerous steps to help unemployed workers, and this is another way we are responding to the needs of Americans who find themselves without work.

As I stated earlier, the U.S. economy is strong and getting stronger. Personal reemployment accounts are yet another important step to help these displaced workers find the jobs that they seek. By giving job- seekers all the resources they need to return to work, we will continue this economic resurgence and help every unemployed American secure the education and skills necessary to take advantage of today's reenergized job market. That is what this debate is all about. Let us not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Let us support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4409, the Teacher Training Enhancement Act, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia [Representative Gingrey] for his leadership on this issue. The bill before us complements the No Child Left Behind Act and will help to improve the quality and accountability of our nation's teacher preparation programs.

In exchange for significant new funding, the No Child Left Behind Act calls on states to place a highly qualified teacher in every public school classroom by the 2005-2006 school year. We can all agree highly qualified teachers play a pivotal role in the successful education of our nation's children, and those children deserve nothing less than the best.

Congress has kept its word to increase funding to help ensure teachers can become highly qualified--in fact, funding for teacher quality grants increased by 35 percent in the first year of No Child Left Behind alone. We're providing the resources, and this bill will build on that effort by ensuring our teachers are highly qualified and prepared to teach.

There is no doubt highly qualified teachers are essential if we are to provide every child in America with a high quality education. In fact, the future competitiveness of our workforce is directly dependent on the quality of education in our schools. Today's students are tomorrow's workers, and highly qualified teachers play a vital role in providing our students with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. Yet the nation's teacher training programs suffer from a serious lack of accountability, and this time it's the teachers who are being left behind.

The bill before us today takes important steps to ensure teacher training programs are giving prospective teachers the skills and knowledge they need to meet the highly qualified standard in No Child Left Behind. Let's be clear on this point: this bill is about supporting our teachers. We're expecting a lot from them, and they deserve high quality training programs that will ensure they are ready to teach when they step into the classroom.

This legislation makes several improvements to Title II of the Higher Education Act to strengthen the programs that train the teachers of tomorrow. This bill is about helping teachers, pure and simple--giving them the tools and training they need to meet the needs of the nation's students.

H.R. 4409 authorizes competitively awarded grants under the Higher Education Act to: increase the quality our teaching force by improving teacher preparation and enhancing professional development; hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers; and recruit highly qualified individuals, including minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force.

The Teacher Training Enhancement Act ensures program effectiveness can be accurately measured and places a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly qualified'' standard found in the No Child Left Behind Act. This includes areas such as: the use of advanced technology in the classroom, rigorous academic content knowledge, scientifically based research, and challenging state student academic standards.

Under this bill, funds can also be used to recruit individuals, and specifically minorities, into the teaching profession. This bill allows for the creation of Centers of Excellence at high quality minority serving institutions. These Centers of Excellence will help increase teacher recruitment and strengthen teacher preparation programs at minority serving institutions.

As we work to place highly qualified teachers in classrooms across the nation, I'm particularly pleased that the Teacher Training Enhancement Act allows for innovative programs that provide alternative options to the traditional teacher training programs. Proposals outlined in the bill, such as charter colleges of education, provide a much-needed alternate route to training highly qualified and effective teachers.

This bill recognizes that individuals seeking to enter the teaching profession often have varied backgrounds. And by creating flexible approaches that step outside the box, these individuals can become highly qualified teachers through training programs as unique as their individual experiences.

H.R. 4409 will also bolster accountability so that the effectiveness of teacher training programs can be measured. While current higher education law contains annual reporting requirements, these measures have proven ineffective in gauging the true quality of teacher training programs. In fact, the current requirements have sometimes been manipulated, leaving data skewed and often irrelevant. This bill will strengthen reporting measures and hold teacher preparation programs accountable for providing accurate and useful information.

A highly educated workforce is critical to America's future competitiveness. And the quality of education is directly related to the quality of teachers entrusted with the vital task of educating our students. I've said it before and I'll say it again; we are expecting a lot from teachers, and they deserve our full support. This bill will do exactly that--support the teachers of tomorrow, and the teaching profession as a whole, by strengthening teacher training. Our teachers deserve it, our schools deserve it, and our students deserve it. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4411, the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act. I'm pleased to stand in support of this bill, which will both enhance graduate education and build on the strength of education at all levels by helping to increase study of subject areas facing shortages at the K-12 level. I'd like to commend Representative Burns for his work on this important bill.

The Priorities for Graduate Studies Act will build on the success of the graduate programs currently authorized under Title VII of the Higher Education Act, and, additionally, the bill will help fulfill the demand for highly qualified teachers at the K-12 level.

Witnesses have testified before the Education and the Workforce Committee that an important key to placing highly qualified teachers in every public school classroom, as called for by the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, is having adequate faculty available to train the teachers of tomorrow. This is particularly important in subject areas facing severe shortages. I believe the importance of this cannot be overstated. If we are serious about ensuring every child learns from a highly qualified teacher, we must address the issue comprehensively.

Elementary and secondary classrooms across the Nation are facing severe shortages of highly qualified teachers, particularly in high- demand subject areas. States and schools tell us they are struggling to find highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers. And as our schools work to educate those whose native language is not English, we need teachers who are prepared to meet the needs of students with limited English proficiency (LEP). To meet these demands, this bill places a priority on these particular subject areas for graduate assistance programs, ensuring that our investment in graduate education continues to improve education at all levels.

Although I believe the role graduate education plays in creating a pipeline of highly qualified teachers is extremely important, the many other benefits of graduate education should not be overlooked. As we enter the 21st Century, the need for advanced education is becoming increasingly vital to successfully maintaining our place in the technologically-advanced economy. Now, more than ever, our citizens are obtaining graduate degrees in order to gain more expertise in their field of study. This bill will help ensure the continued availability of such graduate study opportunities for students.

As we move forward with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must continue to build on the success of these programs that prepare the next generation of scholars. We have expressed our support for our teachers before, and we stand united today to continue that support and urge our colleagues in the other body to do the same.

Graduate education is fundamental to maintaining our competitiveness and economic leadership, as well as ensuring the success of education reform in classrooms across America. And as our economic recovery continues and new jobs are created everyday, the importance of education will only grow. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and the continued success of graduate education.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for the Record:

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 28, 2004.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you for your May 17, 2004

letter regarding H.R. 3908, the ``To provide for the

conveyance of the real property located at 1081 West Main

Street in Ravenna, Ohio.'' I agree that the Committee on Ways

and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning the Social

Security Act and the effect this bill would have on

provisions within your Committee's jurisdiction. While these

provisions are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Ways and Means, I appreciate your willingness to work with me

in moving H.R. 3908 forward without the need for additional

legislative consideration by your Committee.

I agree that this procedural route should note be construed

to prejudice the jurisdictional interest and prerogatives of

the Committee on Ways and Means on these provisions or any

other similar legislation and will not be considered as

precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional

interest to your Committee in the future.

I thank you for working with me regarding this matter and

look forward to continuing our work and cooperation on this

bill and similar legislation. This letter and your response

will be included in the Congressional Record during the floor

consideration of this bill. If you have questions regarding

this matter, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

John Boehner,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity today to have this debate on how to bring some more equitable regulations over at OSHA. Small employers are the engine of job creation in America and for employers of 100 or less, they create about 70 percent of the new jobs that we see in our

country each and every day. Yet these same employers are the ones that are dealing with the ever-rapidly rising cost of health insurance premiums for their employees, the cost of government regulations. They see competition not only from their neighbors down the street but competition from far beyond our seas. And if we want this engine of economic growth to continue to create jobs in America, we as Members of Congress ought to be looking at laws and regulations that affect their ability to compete both at home and abroad.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. He and the members of his subcommittee did a marvelous job in looking at OSHA.

Now, we have made great strides at OSHA over the last 5 or 6 years in terms of OSHA, a government agency, charged with protecting worker health and safety, working in a more cooperative way with employers all across the country. And what has happened? We have seen workplace injuries and accidents decrease. And this voluntary cooperation that we have under way, we believe can be enhanced by the four underlying bills that we bring to the floor today, whether it is giving the review commission a little more flexibility in looking at some regulations; whether it is expanding the review commission so they can speed up the adjudication of disputes between employers and OSHA; or whether it is to say to OSHA, before you bring a lawsuit against a small employer, you ought to consider the impact on it and what it does to the small employer, because if you bring this suit against a small employer and you lose, you ought to pay the legal costs for the employer.

A lot of small employers do not want to take on the Federal Government, do not want to take on the U.S. Treasury or OSHA even if they think they are right because of the giant expense involved. Most of these businesses do not have the kind of capital that big businesses have; and as a result, they are reluctant to really adjudicate what they think is a legitimate claim. And we believe that if OSHA would have to pay those fees if they lose, it would bring more balance to this relationship between OSHA and the employers and maintain the cooperative spirit that we have seen grow over the last 5 or 6 years.

So the four bills that we have before us I think will enhance worker safety, will enhance competitiveness for small companies. We ought to have a debate today, and I think the rule outlines a very fair process for the consideration of these four bills; and I would urge my colleagues not only to support the rule today but to support the four underlying bills that we are bringing to the floor under it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman realizes that here in Washington we do two things every day: We do public policy which represents the work we are bringing to the floor today; and, unfortunately, we also do politics.

This being a presidential election year, much less a congressional election year, means there is an awful lot of politics being played by some of the opponents of political opponents that we might have; but I think if my colleagues were to look at the four underlying bills, my colleagues will see today that we will have broad bipartisan support for all four of these bills. Why? Because they are merely money sense.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the bigger proponent of protecting workers' rights are employers, because American employers understand that the single greatest asset they have are the men and women who work for them each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2728) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for adjudicative flexibility with regard to an employer filing of a notice of contest following the issuance of a citation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 2728.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will debate four important bills that make modest reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. These measures ensure that small business owners who make good-faith efforts to comply with health and safety laws are dealt with fairly and equitably by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Nearly every employer today recognizes that improving workplace safety is good for business and it is good for workers. Employers face relentless competition, both at home and from abroad, and they must compete in the face of high taxes, rising health care insurance costs and burdensome government regulations. These four OSHA reform bills are designed to improve worker safety and enhance the competitiveness of small businesses that are the real engine of job growth in this country today.

The U.S. economy is improving and more and more employers are hiring workers each month. Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that 1.1 million new jobs had been created over the last 8 months, including 625,000 in the last 2 months alone. Eight consecutive months of positive job growth show that the Republican plan for economic prosperity is working. But we want to make sure onerous government regulations do not hamstring the ability of small businesses to continue to hire new workers and to compete in our economy. That is why these bills are important.

Mr. Speaker, since the Republicans won control of Congress 10 years ago, we have undertaken considerable efforts to make bureaucracy more responsive and more accountable to workers and taxpayers. Let me just give you a few examples.

We stopped unwarranted and invasive OSHA regulations proposed by the Clinton administration that would have held employers liable for the safety of their employees who work from home.

We stopped one of the most overreaching attempts at regulation in our Nation's history by repealing an irresponsible and unworkable ergonomics regulation that would have cost employers billions of dollars and killed millions of jobs.

We have dealt with the problem of costly unfunded mandates by ensuring that Congress does not pass expensive legislation and then pass the buck to State and local governments.

This decade of progress on regulatory reform should give Americans confidence that Congress is making positive steps every year to improve government accountability. Today, we take one more positive step, to improve workplace safety, I think a goal that we all share.

OSHA under the Bush administration has made significant efforts to supplement traditional enforcement programs with cooperative partnerships between the agency and employers across the country. I am pleased to report these voluntary programs have proven successful in reducing workplace injuries and illnesses. In fact, workplace injuries and illnesses have declined significantly during the Bush administration.

If we look at these facts on this chart, I think we will see that over the last 3 years, injuries in the workplace have, in fact, declined significantly to their lowest point in history, to a rate of just 5.3 injuries or illnesses per 100 workers. I think that is significant progress.

Moving on to the next chart, we can see that workplace fatalities have made similar declines, again to the lowest amount in history. In fact, the 6.6 percent reduction in workplace fatalities in 2002 is the single largest annual decline ever.

Why have we made such significant progress? It is because under this administration, OSHA and employers have started to work together more cooperatively and more proactively to solve workplace safety problems before injuries and fatalities occur. A GAO report released on March 30 said voluntary partnerships between OSHA and employers ``have considerably reduced their rates of injury and illness and have fostered better working relationships with OSHA, improved productivity and decreased worker compensation costs.''

Now, we strongly support OSHA targeting bad actors that defy the law and compromise the safety of their workers, but we also need to recognize that most employers are good actors who work hard to address job safety concerns. No employer wants to deal with unnecessary OSHA- related litigation and escalating attorneys' fees that result. Most employers want to comply with the law, and the offer of assistance from OSHA is enough to provide the incentive they need to make the investment. Employers will use these resources because safety pays.

Employers in America know that their number one asset is their employees, and every employer, I know, wants to do everything to protect the health and welfare of their employees.

The reform measures we will consider today are proposals that, while fairly modest in substance, are important to small business owners who struggle every day to comply with complex OSHA laws and provide a safe working environment for their workers while facing increasing competitiveness from the worldwide economy. Employers who make good- faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court, and these common-sense bills will help ensure that they receive that opportunity.

The first reform bill on tap today, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court, gives the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission additional flexibility to make exceptions to the arbitrary 15-day deadline for employers to file responses to OSHA citations when a small business misses the deadline either by a mistake or for good reason. This change ensures that appropriate disputes are resolved based on merit, rather than legal technicalities. I think it is a common-sense proposal and deserves every Member's support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

I think all of us in the Chamber and all of my colleagues understand that OSHA has been a good agency and very good law that helps to protect the health and safety of American workers. No employer and, certainly, none of us in the Congress want to see workers placed in a position where their health or safety is questioned.

As I said before, I think employers, by and large, across the country understand that their greatest asset, their greatest value in their business is the value of the good men and women who work for them.

Certainly, what we are doing today in no way denigrates OSHA. As a matter of fact, I would argue that it will enhance OSHA's ability to work with employers in a voluntary way to increase the health and safety of American workers.

The underlying bill that we have before us is real simple. It says that the arbitrary 15-day response time to an OSHA citation can be reviewed by the Review Commission and make a decision about whether the company needed more time, whether there was a mistake made and the deadline was missed. That is all it does. It does not denigrate the law in any way, shape or form. I believe it creates more voluntary cooperation between the employer community with OSHA.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), one of our senior colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, occupational workplace injuries and illnesses have in fact been coming down in a rather dramatic way over the last few years, and this is because we continue to see more cooperation between employers and with the agency charged with enforcing these laws, OSHA.

Looking at this chart here, over the last 4 years, voluntary programs have reduced injuries. If we look at injury and illnesses over the last 4 years, Members will see that the rates per 100 workers have in fact continued to decline, and we believe that is because of the voluntary nature of these agreements between OSHA and the employer community.

Looking at workplace fatalities on the next chart, Members will see that they continue to come down rather dramatically. Today, we are trying to increase the cooperation between OSHA and employers.

The bill that we have before us, I think we need to understand that almost every other court in the Nation has the authority to excuse understandable procedural mistakes when those mistakes would take away someone's right to be heard in court. While most courts have this authority and use this authority, disputes at OSHA are an exception. There seems to be no flexibility in the OSHA Act. The OSHA Act has a 15-day deadline for filing a legal dispute against OSHA after it issues a citation. This is inflexible; 15 days, no changes.

The bill before us is to provide authority for the agency specifically created by Congress to hear OSHA disputes, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, to make exceptions in appropriate cases.

Now, appropriate cases for excusing a missed deadline are only those under which the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct indicates a good-faith effort to comply, but an inadvertent effort to do so. The bill before us accomplishes that using the time-tested legal language with clear, long-standing legal precedent, the same language used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

So the bill before us would have no negative impact on the current safety and health protections in place. All it does is permit a case to be heard on the merits rather than being decided on a legal technicality. It does not change the outcome in any way, shape or form. The review commission is there to act as the court in these cases. We ought to give them the flexibility that every other court in the land has. We believe that this small change, this 11-word change in the law, would provide more cooperation between OSHA and employers and assist in protecting the health and safety of American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2728.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2729) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for greater efficiency at the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 2729.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second bill we will debate today is another narrowly crafted bill that addresses a specific problem which we find in the OSHA law.

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act, H.R. 2729, increases the membership of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission from three to five members to ensure that cases are heard in a timely fashion.

Because a quorum of two out of the current three commissioners is needed for timely decision-making, the commission has in the past been unable to act simply because a quorum was not present. There are a number of reasons for this. The appointment process is sometimes controversial, leading to vacancies, and sometimes commissioners must recuse themselves from consideration of cases, meaning a situation is created where even if there is only one seat open, there is often no working quorum.

For some 20 percent of its history, the commission has been unable to gain a working quorum, and as a result is simply unable to function despite being otherwise fully staffed. Increasing the membership to five commissioners will ensure that cases are reviewed in a more timely fashion, improving the current system of judicial inactivity that only results in government waste.

In short, it will allow the commission to complete the job it was created to do by reducing case backlogs that are as much as 8 years old.

The commission's sister agency, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, has five panelists, and we found it has worked well in reviewing cases more efficiently.

Lastly, the bill permits incumbent members whose terms have expired to stay on until a replacement can be confirmed by the Senate. Most vacancies occur during these turnovers.

We want small businesses hiring more workers and contributing to our economy, not facing years of OSHA-related litigation that they cannot resolve simply because the commission has an endless backlog of cases. This bill simply ensures that OSHA cases are resolved in a timely and efficient manner, a goal that I think we all support.

Employers who make good-faith efforts to comply with OSHA standards deserve to be treated fairly and have their day in court. This measure will help ensure that they receive that opportunity.

Nearly every employer today recognizes that improving workplace safety is good for business and it is good for workers. Employers face relentless competition both at home and abroad and they must compete in the face of high taxes, rising health insurance premiums and burdensome government regulations. All of these OSHA reform bills are designed to improve worker safety and enhance the competitiveness of small businesses that are the real engine of job growth in this country.

The U.S. economy is improving. More and more employers are hiring workers every month. Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that over the last 8 months, 1.1 million net new jobs were created, 625,000 in just the last 2 months. But we want to make sure that government regulations, and especially onerous government regulations, do not stand in the way of small businesses hiring more workers and getting our economy back on its feet.

This bill is narrowly crafted and addresses a specific problem in the OSHA law. I believe it deserves our Members' support and would ask our Members and encourage them to support it today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 2729, makes two very small changes in the OSHA law. One, it says that the OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission panel be expanded from three to five members. We have gone through the various reasons why that is important. We believe that having virtually 8 years without a quorum and these cases languishing there for some time are really unfair to the employers and to the agency. And by expanding the commission from three to five members, we believe we will speed up the efficiency of that review commission.

The second issue in the bill outlines the type of background of people who belong on this review commission. These are commonsense bills that we believe will help worker safety, help improve the cooperation between OSHA and the employer community. Again, commonsense bills that deserve our support.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2730) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for an independent review of citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 2730.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third bill that we will debate today in this series of four is another narrowly craft bill that addresses a specific problem that we found in the OSHA law. The Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act restores independent review of OSHA citations by clarifying that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is an independent judicial entity given deference by courts that review OSHA issues.

In 1970 when they created OSHA, Congress also created this commission to independently review all OSHA citations. The commission was intended to hold OSHA in check and ensure that it did not abuse its authority. Congress passed the OSHA law only after being assured that judicial review would be conducted by ``an autonomous independent commission which, without regard to the Secretary, can find for or against him on the basis of individual complaint.''

Congress even separated the commission in the Department of Labor. It was truly meant to be independent. The bill before us restores the original system of checks and balances intended by Congress when it enacted the OSHA law and ensures that the commission, in other words, the court, and not OSHA or, in other words, the prosecutor, would be the party who interprets the law and provides an independent review of OSHA citations.

Now, let me put this in simpler terms for everybody. If you are stopped by a police officer and you are issued a citation for speeding, would you want the same officer who gave you the ticket to be your judge and jury and decide whether you are guilty or not? Well, of course you would not. And, unfortunately, for small businesses today the law is ambiguous and vague.

Since 1970 the separation of power between OSHA and the review commission has become increasingly clouded because of legal interpretations mostly argued by OSHA in an effort to expand its own authority. Congress intended there to be a truly independent review of the disputes between OSHA and employers; and when this dispute centers on OSHA's interpretations of its authority, Congress intended the independent review commission, not the prosecuting agency, OSHA, to be the final arbiter.

H.R. 2730 restores this commonsense system of checks and balances. Employers are facing enough competition in the workplace. They are facing high taxes, rising health care costs, burdensome government regulations. All of these bills that we have brought to the floor today are intended to help small businesses that are the engine of economic growth in America be all that they can be and to survive in this very difficult economic climate. I would encourage my colleagues today to support this measure.

It is another commonsense bill that would help increase the amount of worker safety and health safety that we see in the workplace each day.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters for the Record:

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2004.

Hon. John Boehner,

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Boehner: On May 13, 2004, the Committee on

the Judiciary received a sequential referral of H.R. 2730,

the ``Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of

OSHA Citations Act of 2003'' through May 17, 2004. In

recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of

H.R. 2730, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives

further consideration of the bill with the following

understanding.

I believe the bill as introduced might have been read to

change the standard of appeals court review of Occupational

Health and Safety Review Commission decisions, a matter that

would fall with the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

the Judiciary. I understand, however, that the intent of the

drafters was simply to make the policy choice that courts

should, in exercising normal agency deference under

established precedent, defer to the Commission rather than

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration itself--not

to change the standard of review. I understand that you are

willing, during floor consideration of H.R. 2730, to add the

following language to the bill: Insert after ``all questions

of law'' the following: ``that are subject to agency

deference under governing court precedent'' and that you will

offer an amendment to do so. With that understanding, I will

not seek to extend the sequential referral of the bill for a

further period of time.

The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the

understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these

provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would

appreciate your including this letter and your response in

the Congressional Record during its consideration on the

House floor.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 2731) to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for the award of attorney's fees and costs to very small employers when they prevail in litigation prompted by the issuance of citations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 2731.

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

Mr. Speaker the fourth bill we will debate today in this series of votes is another narrowly crafted bill that addresses a specific problem that we found in the OSHA law. In short, we strongly believe that small businesses that face meritless OSHA enforcement actions should not be prevented from defending themselves simply because they cannot afford it.

The Occupational Safety And Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act levels the playing field for small businesses and encourages OSHA to better assess the merits of the case before it brings unnecessary enforcement actions to court against small businesses.

Under current law, the Equal Access to Justice Act allows small business owners to recover attorney's fees if the owner successfully challenges a citation. However, if OSHA can establish that its enforcement action was ``substantially justified'' or the result of ``special circumstances,'' small businesses can be refused attorney fees even if OSHA loses the case in court.

Historically, the law's ``substantially justified'' and ``special circumstances'' standards have made it easy for OSHA to prevent recovery under this broad standard, so attempts by small business owners to recover costs often merely exacerbate the financial harm caused by OSHA's dubious enforcement actions. In fact, let us look at some of the records here.

In 2002, OSHA cited 83,760 violations based on its approximately 40,000 workplace inspections. Yet, how many applications were filed for attorney's fees against OSHA in 2002? That number is eight. How many were granted? One. Moreover, for the last 25 years, only 1 year has seen more than 10 applications filed for attorney's fees against OSHA. When you compare that number to the approximately 80,000 violations cited every year, you begin to wonder.

We have heard testimony in our committee on this issue, and what we have found is that the law's ``substantially justified'' and ``special circumstances'' standards have made it easy for OSHA to deny small businesses the ability to recovery attorney's fees.

What these numbers tell us is that small businesses can already see the writing on the wall. They know OSHA has the upper hand; and if the prospect of recovering attorney's fees is as bleak as it appears, then why fight the citations at all?

Small employers should not be forced to knuckle under OSHA's citations and settle up front when they believe they are innocent. This measure simply forces OSHA to carefully evaluate the merits of its case against small employers before they bring its case. If OSHA's case is weak and they bring the case anyway, then the agency is going to have to pay the attorney's fees if in fact they lose the case.

Employers face relentless competition every day in the face of high taxes, rising health care costs, and burdensome government regulations. The last thing they need is a meritless OSHA-related litigation that could take years to resolve. As we have said earlier today, over the last 8 months our economy has created 1.1 million net new jobs; 625,000 net new jobs in just the last two months.

We might want to make sure onerous government regulations do not hamstring small businesses' ability to continue to hire new workers and compete in our economy. Frivolous litigation kills jobs, and this measure will help ensure OSHA carefully considers the merits of the case before they bring enforcement action.

The measure before us is a narrowly crafted commonsense bill that addresses a specific problem in OSHA, and it deserves the support of all of our colleagues.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) talks about how employers can recover the cost of their legal fees if in fact they win. But the fact is, and the gentleman knows and we well know, in the last 23 years, 23 years, exactly 37 employers had their attorney's fees returned to them.

I will tell Members why that is the case, and that is because under the Equal Justice Act and the law around OSHA, unless OSHA was completely out of bounds, employers tend to lose. So here is what happens: employers do not even try.

To give another example of why employers are not seeking legal fees from OSHA, it goes to the fact that if I am a small employer, which I was, am I going to put my capital, my assets, on the line, even if I think I am right, to take on the Federal Treasury and the

Federal Government? I am probably just going to suck it up, go to court, pay the fine, and go on because I am not going to put my company at risk. I am not going to put all of my employees at risk, which is exactly what most small employers in America face today. That is why over the last 23 years only 37 employers ever got any attorney's fees from OSHA.

Members can put themselves in the position of that small employer looking up at the Federal Government and the Federal Treasury and mountains of lawyers. I would not take that risk. I do not blame them for not taking the risk.

All we say in this bill is if OSHA brings litigation against a small employer of 100 employees or less with a capital of less than $7 million, and OSHA loses, the small employer ought to have his attorney's fees covered.

I do not believe that this will reduce the enforcement of OSHA in any way, shape or form; but I do believe it will cause OSHA to consider the strength of that agency, the power of the Federal Government, consider all of that before they come down on some poor small employer who is trying to do his best to protect the health and safety of his employees.

But I do not think it is fair under the current system and the current structure that we have to look up, and to take 2002, for example, one employer, one employer in all of America got his attorney's fees returned to him. One. There were 80,000 citations issued by OSHA, one employer got some attorney's fees returned to him. It is not fair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today during prom and graduation season to recognize The Century Council and the distilled spirits industry for their efforts to fight underage drinking this month and throughout the year.

As we focus on public health and safety issues during prom and graduation season, we must pay close attention to the challenges facing our nation's youth. While many youth under the age of 21 obey the minimum drinking age law and do not drink, other youth unfortunately make irresponsible decisions about beverage alcohol. The consequences can be tragic. In addition to countless non-fatal injuries, statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show there were 516 alcohol-related traffic fatalities among youths under the age of 21 in May and June 2002.

The Century Council, funded by America's leading distillers to fight drunk driving and underage drinking, is kicking off its fifth annual National Prom and Graduation Safety Months Initiative consisting of a series of initiatives aimed at educating students, parents, educators and lawmakers throughout the upcoming months. This includes the nationwide distribution of prom and graduation safety kits and gubernatorial proclamations in more than 30 states.

The Council's programs have been implemented across the country in numerous public/private partnerships to educate parents, educators, youth, lawmakers, law enforcement, and community groups about the problem of underage drinking. The Council's programs are developed by experts to provide the

public with educational tools and programs aimed at reducing underage drinking.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join more than 30 governors from across the nation who have recognized the efforts of The Century Council in declaring May and June Prom and Graduation Safety Months.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision and to draw a parallel from this historic ruling to the landmark No Child Left Behind education reform law.

The words penned by Chief Justice Earl Warren on May 17, 1954 still ring true today and provide a clear roadmap for improving America's public education system in the future. Fifty years ago, Mr. Warren wrote:

In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably

be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the

opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the

state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be

made available to all on equal terms.

By striking down the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' as unconstitutional, the Brown decision flung open wide the doors of public education for all children, regardless of their color or back ground. It ensured every child a seat in an integrated classroom. It guaranteed access to an equal education for everyone. No longer could students be refused an opportunity to receive a quality education simply because the color of their skin.

Two years ago, Congress--in a bipartisan vote--enacted that No Child Left Behind Act as the logical step to improving education for all students. We promised to increase federal education funding while demanding high standards and accountability for all students. As a result of the law, parents are receiving more information than ever before about the quality of their local schools and are realizing new opportunities to improve their children's education.

What was once an unattainable dream for so many parents stuck on the wrong side of the tracks has now become a reality. Parents with children trapped in underperforming schools may now transfer them to better performing schools.

A report released yesterday by the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights found that the No Child Left Behind Act is already creating new educational opportunities for minority students. According to the Commission's report, at least 70,000 students in 47 states are benefiting for the law's school choice provision.

The Commission understands--just as Congress did--the importance of providing parents new options to improve their children's education. They also understand how added school choice options will help the whole education system get better, not worse.

The Commission's findings are fortified by a recent Chicago Sun-Times analysis showing that of the students who were allowed to transfer to a better performing school under NCLB made greater strides on state- designed reading and math tests than students in their former school. The paper also determined that other students' scores did not drop as a result of the incoming students, as many education reform opponents predicted would happen.

However, these are not the only signs of No Child Left Behind's early success. Students are showing considerable improvement in the nation's largest urban schools. A recent report by the Council of Great City Schools attributed much of this improvement to the No Child Left Behind Act.

Earlier this week, Florida and Michigan reported decreases in the achievement gap between African-American students and their Caucasian peers.

There is still much work to do before America fully realizes the dream of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, but we are on the right track. By holding the line against education reform opponents and allowing states and school districts to implement the full scope of No Child Left Behind's reforms, we will ensure a higher level of student academic performance than we have ever achieved.