Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3873) to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide children with access to food and nutrition assistance, to simplify program operations, to improve children's nutritional health, and to restore the integrity of child nutrition programs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3873.

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

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 nutrition services for millions of American children.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the author of this bill and those who have worked closely with him to reach our shared goal of strengthening Federal child nutrition programs. The chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), deserve a great deal of credit for their hard work and cooperation that have brought this bill before us today. I would also like 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 healthy and nutritious meals. 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 the Federal child nutrition programs, and they depend on us to ensure that these programs are being administered with integrity.

The Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act reauthorizes the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs, Child and Adult Care Food program, After-School Snack program, the Summer Food Service program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. Taken together, the reforms in this bill will help ensure we are making the most of Federal child nutrition resources, while being mindful of program quality and integrity.

The bill before us strikes, I think, an important balance between our desire to promote healthy nutritional choices and physical activity among children, and the need to preserve local control for schools, communities, and States. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of this bill, 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 local wellness policies, written at the local level to reflect local needs, marks significant progress that will promote nutrition education and increase physical activity in schools while maintaining local control.

To improve program integrity within 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 are in the Armed Forces and living in privatized military housing to continue to receive free or reduced-price meals in school if they meet the eligibility requirements. It also helps the 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 in families receiving food stamps.

Importantly, the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act also takes steps to reduce paperwork by allowing school lunch certifications to be valid for one 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-price lunches by helping schools make technological improvements such as automated meal card systems that keep students' financial status confidential. That, in fact, will also increase the efficiency of program operations.

These are just a few of the numerous reforms that will ensure eligible children and families access to services and Federal resources that are being effectively leveraged to serve children in need.

I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for their commitment to encouraging partnerships that allow fresh and local produce to go from farms to schools. In recognizing the success and popularity of the fruit and vegetable pilot program, which provides free fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables to children in 25 schools in each of four States and on one Indian reservation, I am pleased that the bill before us authorizes the continuation and expansion of this valuable program.

The act before us will prevent important nutritional programs from expiring, while ensuring that they continue to operate effectively and efficiently. I am pleased to support this measure and encourage my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' and ensuring the availability of nutritional services for millions of vulnerable children and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

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

As we have seen during the debate today, this has been a very cooperative process, very bipartisan process, both sides of the aisle coming together to do what we can do to improve the nutrition services and nutrition programs that the Federal Government operates for millions of American children.

There is a lot more that a lot of people would want to do in the bill that we have before us, many things, unfortunately, that we cannot afford under the current budget to do, but I think it has been demonstrated that there is broad bipartisan support for this bill, and I would encourage Members to not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

We have a good, sound bill before us that will, in fact, ensure that millions of needy children are served either through the school lunch program, the WIC program or the breakfast program. For many of these children, it may be the only meal that they get all day.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members to support the bill. I also thank all of the staff, including Kate Houston on my staff, Stephanie Milburn, Krisann Pearce, Cindy Herrle, Julian Baer, Tyson Redpath who works in my personal office, and Sarah Rittling who works with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and all of our staff, Denise and others on the Democrat side for all of their hard work because they went through months and months of discussions and negotiations.

I also thank all of the groups, the outside groups from the food service administrators to all of those involved in helping us forge this bipartisan agreement. This was not a very easy bill, but it did become easy because there was good cooperation between both sides of the aisle, good understanding of the issues of what we could and could not do. And in the end, bipartisanship does work when Members put their minds together and try to come up with a product that is in the best interest of American children. I would encourage Members to vote for the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 557, commemorating the 1 year anniversary of the liberation of the Iraqi people.

In the past year, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen have performed magnificently, first liberating an oppressed country and now stabilizing peace and security. We could not be more proud of their efforts and dedication, and we thank them and their families for their commitment and sacrifices.

Solid progress has been made in the past year in reconstituting an Iraqi civil society and public infrastructure--after nearly 30 years of oppression under Saddam Hussein.

One sector I want to highlight is the work being done in improving the education system for Iraq's children. This is a critical step in giving them a viable, independent future, and it is necessary in order to secure Iraq's place in the world as a prosperous and peaceful country.

More children are attending school--currently 5.5 million are in school. All universities and technical schools have been re-opened. The curriculum now focuses on teaching reading, writing, and math--not instilling fear of the government.

As far as the Iraqi people have come in the last year, we know there is still more work to be done. Our troops and Iraqis still face threats from terrorists who have no future in a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.

Some during this debate have questioned the wisdom of our decision in liberating Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein as a threat to the international community. Some have focused on what has gone wrong, rather than on what has gone right. The recent terrorist attack in Spain should drive home the point of why we must take the fight to the terrorists--rather than waiting to fight with them here on our soil. This is not a clash of cultures, peoples of religions--this is about fanatic fundamentalists who despise their peaceful fellow countrymen and believers.

The new central front on the war on terror is Iraq. In order to defeat the fundamentalists, who love death and destruction more than they love life, we must stay the course in Iraq and in other parts of the globe where we and our allies work to defeat terrorism.

The war on terrorism is a global effort; it is a long-term effort. Terrorists have many agendas and capabilities. Their supporters hide in dark shadows and are elusive. But the one thing they have in common is the desire to change our way of life.

America is strong in its resolve in fighting terrorism. We will succeed, and we will continue to be patient, deliberate, and consistent in defending our citizens and interests.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3108) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily replace the 30-year Treasury rate with a rate based on long-term corporate bonds for certain pension plan funding requirements and other provisions, and for other purposes, with House amendments to the Senate amendment thereto, insist on the House amendments to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we were pleased to have a hearing on No Child Left Behind and its impact on special education students. For the first time in history, those students in special education will be judged based on results and the fact that we know that children with disabilities can, in fact, learn.

We had four distinguished witnesses from around the country talking about how special education is changing as a result of No Child Left Behind. School districts now must focus in on results for our special needs children. These four witnesses, a parent, a school superintendent and two education experts, talked about how special education students are in fact learning more and improving their capability.

For most children with special needs, there really is no excuse that they cannot read and write and become literate like all other children. Many children in special education can do far more than that; and by focusing in on results for children with special needs, we can in fact meet our goal with No Child Left Behind, which is just that: let us leave no child in America behind.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, under the rules outlined here in the House, we are debating the rule to consider the bill. Once this rule is approved, we will spend, I would imagine, the better part of the afternoon discussing the protections granted to religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think that would be a more appropriate time to have this debate.

If the gentleman will yield further, the Congress in 1964, and as amended in 1965, passed landmark civil rights legislation in America, and it was the Congress in the mid-sixties who saw fit to provide religious organizations with one small exemption, and that in the case of employment, to religious organizations. And if you read the comments of the debate and the record of that debate, it was because those civil rights laws guarantee Americans full access to jobs, to all types of programs in our country.

But they did understand that religious organizations, by their very nature, ought to have an exemption in employment so religious organizations can, if they want, not all do, hire people of their faith.

The only issue here is whether those organizations, faith-based organizations, that do in fact provide community services with Federal funds, whether they should continue to have that exemption.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, let me pose the opposite question to you. Why should a faith-based organization that is providing tremendous community services give up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just because they accept Federal dollars in their mission to help low-income people?

If the gentleman would yield further, if that organization in their beliefs want to hire people of their faith, because in many cases the people they may hire will not only participate in a job training program, they may also teach Sunday school, they may also do other things for that religious organization.

But I would bring the gentleman's attention back to the bill we have before us, and the bill before us, that is the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization bill, last passed and reauthorized by the Congress in 1998 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, that act in 1998 and the President's signature in 1998 contains the identical language that this bill contains.

Now, the Congress passed this overwhelmingly in 1998, and the President

signed it into law. Now here we are 6 years later and we are saying, oh my goodness, there is a problem. If I could just finish, if over the last 6 years it would have been clear that there was a problem with faith-based organizations maintaining their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I think we would have heard about it. I have not heard a word.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this is not the only statute on the books that allows religious organizations to maintain their 1964 protections under the Civil Rights Act; there are at least a half a dozen others.

But the point I would make is that if we want to debate the merits or changes to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, let us do that out of the bill that comes out of the Committee on the Judiciary, where it was rightfully debated and processed. The fact is, the 1964 Civil Rights Act is very clear in providing this exemption to these organizations. And if the gentleman disagrees with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended in 1965, let us take that debate to the Committee on the Judiciary, let us bring the bill out here and have that debate. But that is the law.

What we are trying to do here is to comply with that. And in the underlying bill here, the Community Services Block Grant bill, we have had this exemption, maintained this exemption for those organizations. All we do in this bill today is to maintain it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I clearly recognize that there is a difference of opinion on this. I do not castigate any aspersions on the feelings of my colleagues. But both of my colleagues on the other side here who have engaged in this debate have referred to the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) even used Senator Ervin's name in terms of there was no intent for these organizations to give up, to give up their religious exemption.

I have a quote here from Senator Ervin during that debate and he said, ``This amendment is to take the political hands of Caesar off the institutions of God where they have no place to be.'' I would suggest to both gentlemen that Senator Ervin from North Carolina clearly intended for the hiring exemption under title VII to be there.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.

In answering the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)'s question, the fact is this has been the law of the land in this program for 6 years, and I challenge anyone to come to the floor and say where there has been a problem, because there has not been a problem.

But in the bigger question, let us not forget that these faith-based organizations in many of our poorest communities are doing tremendous work to help needy people. And my concern, by changing the law along the lines of what my two colleagues would like to do, would be to provide a chilling effect on faith-based organizations from participating in programs to help their fellow citizens.

So we will have plenty of time for this debate this afternoon once we get into the bill, but I do think that there are various points of view here. They ought to be heard. The rule allows for a clear and open debate on this question and the rest of the bill, and let us have that debate then.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I get into my remarks on the underlying bill, the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization, let me take a moment to welcome our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the ranking democrat on my committee, back to the House. He had some surgery over the break in December and has been in a period of recuperation. And we just want to welcome him back, back to the House and hope that he is in a very pliable and amenable mood.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3030, improving the Community Services Block Grant Act, a bill that strengthens the popular and valuable Community Services Block Grant program.

I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who is the author of this legislation, who, along with his staff and our committee staff, has worked hard to guide this legislation through the committee where the bill received bipartisan support.

The CSBG provides Federal money to State and local agencies to lessen the

effects of poverty. States pass at least 90 percent of the Federal funds they receive through to community action agencies who run programs to help with finding and retaining a job, getting food on the table, and providing emergency services.

Since 1981, this program and the agencies it funds have helped millions of fellow Americans. Mr. Osborne's legislation makes improvements to this popular initiative by increasing accountability and efficiency while preserving the successful framework of this proven program. The bill requires the community action agencies to set clear, locally determined goals and to work each year to meet those goals. Agencies that repeatedly fall short of their own goals will be subject to action by the States. H.R. 3030 works with the local centers while making sure taxpayer dollars are carefully accounted for.

In the interest of improving the quality of local programs, this bill requires States to reevaluate their lowest performing grantees and justify to the Secretary of Health and Human Services why those organizations should continue to receive Federal funding. Again, this bill makes sure that agencies using Federal funds are delivering high- quality services.

Finally, this bill maintains the current law regarding faith-based organizations. We are all aware that some of the finest social service organizations in this country are run by religious charities; and I, along with a majority of my colleagues on the committee, believe that these faith-based organizations ought to be able to continue to provide help to their neighbors in need.

In 1998 when this bill was last reauthorized, then President Clinton signed into law the same language that we have in the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) today. It allows faith-based community services to continue to maintain the character of their organizations with regard to their own hiring decisions. In fact, a broad group of faith-based organizations including Catholic charities, the American Association of Christian Schools, the Salvation Army, World Vision, and the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom have expressed strong support for the faith-based protections included in this bill.

There are some on the other side who would like to strip these rights to deny religious charities the rights they are granted under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and current law.

Now, should the minority succeed in depriving these groups of their rights, I do think it would have a chilling effect on the participation of faith-based organizations in the Community Services Block Grant program.

We can expect that at least some of these groups would choose not to participate in CBGC, rather than compromise their character. As we all know, the group most likely to suffer the consequences are the most vulnerable in our society, those who need the help most.

This legislation makes some key improvements to ensure quality and accountability in the Community Services Block Grant program but leaves the essential character of this popular and successful program unchanged.

I want to urge my colleagues to support this valuable antipoverty program that the funds in this bill promote and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3030 to improve the Community Services Block Grant program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the author of the bill before us.

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

Mr. Chairman, it should be clear to our colleagues today that the underlying bill, the reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant program, has been done on a broad bipartisan basis. The only issue here of disagreement in the Chamber is the issue of whether faith-based providers would give up their title VII exemption in order to continue working in this program.

As I mentioned before, for the last 6 years this language allowing faith-based providers to receive federal funds and to maintain their exemptions under title VII has in fact been the law. And to my knowledge, there has been no complaints. Now, it is pretty clear to me, and I think to most of my colleagues, that faith-based organizations, whether they are using their own money or they are using federal funds, I would venture to say that the vast majority of them probably would never take up their title VII exemption or need it. But the fact is that that is the law.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it very clear that religious organizations did not have to give up their rights to hire the person of their choice under that act. And all we do here is maintain that and we have been doing this, as we said, in the welfare reform law, a number of other laws, over the past decade or so. And for those who have differences with this law, and I certainly respect their opinion, the fight should not be here on this bill. If they really feel strongly that the title VII exemption for religious organizations should be taken away, they should go to the Committee on the Judiciary and move a bill to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But let us not do it on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has worked diligently on this program, not only here as a Member of Congress, but in his prior life of Governor of the great State of Delaware.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time under general debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are debating the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), our good friend and committee member; and the only difference between the substitute and the underlying bill is the issue of whether faith-based providers can continue to maintain their title VII exemption under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The gentleman from Massachusetts made a case for the fact that we should not continue to allow this to occur. The fact is that the Congress in 1964, and as amended in 1965, went out of its way to say that religious organizations, when it comes to their hiring, can, in fact, make a decision and use religion as a basis of hiring. That is the law; and for our colleagues who disagree with that, as I said before, let them take this case to the Committee on the Judiciary. Let us go amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but it is not the issue here.

Secondly, I would point out that these faith-based organizations in many cases are very effective organizations, helping needy people who need our help, and they do tremendous work; and in many cases, these organizations, faith-based community organizations, hire people who have multiple jobs.

My concern with the language that is being offered in the substitute is that it will, in fact, have a very chilling effect on these faith- based organizations when it comes to their willingness to participate in Federal programs to help meet their mission and our mission of helping poor people that are in crisis.

These organizations have been doing this work for a long time. Many of them have participated in Federal programs where they were protected, like the program we have before us. The Community Service Block Grant program going back to 1998 has the same language in it that the bill has in it today. I have not heard one complaint from anywhere in the country that because they are allowed to have their 1964 civil rights protections that they have discriminated against anyone.

The fact is that these organizations do very good work in our communities. We ought to allow them to participate, as we have.

And it is not just this program. There are at least a half dozen other programs, including the 1996 Welfare Act, that allows faith-based organizations to provide these services while maintaining their protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So all we are asking in the underlying bill is to maintain the current

law and continue to allow these organizations, who are doing great work, to keep doing what they are doing. I think that is a reasonable assumption, and I believe that most Americans would support what we are trying to do with the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One of the points the gentleman made is that organizations should not be forced, faith-based organizations should not be forced to hire people that do not share their same opinions. As a matter of fact, in a hearing, a field hearing, a Reverend Tony Marciano, Executive Director of the Charlotte Rescue Mission in Charlotte, North Carolina made this statement: ``The first 677 words of our mission is to minister the good news of Christianity. So yes, in our application, we ask for your church affiliation. Our statement of faith is attached to the application so that there are no questions who we are and who we are hiring. We expect people, as they sign off on the application, to sign on to our statement of faith. And that is key,'' he says, ``because even though we have people from different denominations, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, et cetera, we need to make sure that everybody is on the same page, you know, as we work with the chemically addicted homeless.''

It is not just these organizations, faith-based organizations, that are doing such great work and who are supportive of this language. We have a number of associations: Agudath Israel of America, American Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, Call to Renewal, Catholic Charities, Catholic Health Association of the United States, Center for Public Justice, Christians for the Faith-Based Initiative, Christian Community Health Fellowship, Christian Legal Society, Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, Evangelicals for Social Action, the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Heritage Foundation, Latino Coalition for Christian, Community, and Faith-Based Initiatives, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, Prison Fellowship, the Salvation Army, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, We Care America, World Relief, and World Vision, all of these organizations are supportive of the underlying language in the bill.

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

As we near the end of the debate on the Woolsey substitute, let me remind my colleagues that the two bills that we have before us are identical, with one exception, that exception being the language that we preserve in the current law to allow faith-based organizations to participate in Community Service Block Grant programs without giving up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is the only difference.

We have worked the rest of the bill out in a bipartisan basis, but this one issue that we have argued on this floor, we have done so on numerous occasions, whether it be the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, several times last year when we considered the Workforce Investment Act, and when we considered the reauthorization of the Head Start bill, we had the same debate here in the House about whether faith-based providers using Federal funds would have to give up the protections granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

As we have heard today from numerous Members, these faith-based organizations do very good work with the poorest of the poor in many of our communities. And to deny them their protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we believe would in fact have a chilling effect on their willingness to take Federal funds and to work in the community to help deal with many of the problems that are there.

When I listen to the debate today, there are a lot of examples used of discrimination, discrimination in hiring. And I would suggest to most of my colleagues that use these examples, if you don't like the 1964 Civil Rights Act that provides religious organizations an exemption in hiring, then we ought to change it. But that is the law. And what we are trying to do is trying to continue to comply with the law, and we should not deny those organizations that are faith-based the protections that are granted to them under the 1964 Civil Rights Acts.

I would ask my colleagues when we near the vote on this substitute, that we vote no on the substitute and to support the underlying bill which, in fact, has been the law since 1998.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the Community Services Block Grant program has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations in the coordination of poverty reduction services, and we should continue that tradition of inclusion and reject attempts to add new barriers to faith-based organizations who are already serving in this program.

This amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott) does two things. It adds new language that is duplicative and redundant to the current program or the current operation of the CSBG program; and, second, it complicates the operation of the program by adding a new paperwork requirement only for faith-based providers, I might add, and requiring them to certify to the funding agency that they are in compliance with the law.

On the first issue, the amendment seeks to add language regarding the voluntariness of participation by beneficiaries in religious activities and the separation of these activities from the services under the program. Both of these issues are duplicative and redundant to the current requirements of the program.

Specifically, under section 1050.3(b) of the Community Services Block Grant regulations, the requirement is clear that direct funds under the program may not be expended for inherently religious activities such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytizing. The same section goes on to state that if an organization conducts such activities, it must offer them separately in time or location from the programs or services directly funded under any applicable program, and participation must be voluntary for program beneficiaries.

The second issue is purely a new paperwork requirement, again targeted only at faith-based providers, and based on the unsubstantiated assumption that these organizations are somehow violating the current requirements

of the law. This requirement seeks to erect new, unnecessary barriers to the participation of faith-based providers by requiring that they, and only they, certify to the funding agency that they have read the law and will comply. Other program operators that are not faith-based will not have this requirement under the language offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Unfortunately, its real purpose, I think, is likely a bit more insidious. In adding this new requirement solely for faith-based providers, it creates further barriers designed to limit the participation of faith-based providers and will likely lead to a chilling effect for both current and potential faith-based providers.

Should this amendment pass, we expect at least some of those groups would choose not to participate in the Community Services Block Grant program. As we all know, the group most likely to suffer the consequences are the most vulnerable in our society and those who need the help most and those who the Community Services Block Grant program is designed to serve.

So I would suggest to my colleagues that we do not need this language. It will drive faith-based providers away from the program, and the amendment deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, our friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott) offers the second amendment, which is very close to the language that was contained in the Woolsey substitute, striking the ability of faith-based providers from their protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The current law, which was signed by President Clinton in 1998, makes clear that when faith-based organizations participating in the Community Services Block Grant program take religion into account in their hiring practices, they are not discriminating. That language is consistent with the protections provided to religious organizations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

What the gentleman seeks to do is to take that protection away from those faith-based providers who would participate in the Community Services Block Grant program. It has been the subject of debate for hours here on the floor today; and to save all of us a little time and effort, the amendment would, in fact, have a chilling effect on the willingness of faith-based providers to participate in the Community Services Block Grant program; and, therefore, I believe it is a bad amendment and does not deserve our support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not know where to begin. I have been around the political arena for the better part of 20 years, and I have seen every political stunt that I think there is; but I have never seen a more cynical attempt to exploit American unemployed workers for political gain.

Now, let us talk about the facts that are contained in the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment would create a new program within the Community Services Block Grant program. This is nothing more than an authorization. It has no money attached to it. The Community Services Block Grant program helps poor people in all of our communities across the country. They have no capability to pay out unemployment benefits. So we have only here an authorization for a program that cannot deliver the funds. And if they were to deliver, it would take years to implement such a system. Yet there is no money that has been appropriated to actually pay these.

Now, these are the kinds of political stunts that occur in the middle of even numbered years divisible by four. But to exploit American workers here in

the House of Representatives is wrong, and the gentleman fully well knows that unemployed workers will wait years to get their extended unemployment benefits under the language that is being offered here today.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that last March this Congress provided $8 billion additional to the States for the extension of unemployment benefits, $8 billion. As of January of this year, the States were sitting on $5.4 billion of that money. The States were sitting on it. Thus, if you look at nearly 2 years since Congress provided this $8 billion in Federal funds, States have spent less than half of this to assist unemployed workers. A total of 45 States still have some of their share of the original $8 billion. 31 States, 31 States still have over 90 percent of the money that Congress allocated to them still in their accounts today.

Now, what we ought to be doing is encouraging the States to take care of those who have extended unemployment problems. But my colleagues know and all the Members ought to know that this is not the way to do it and that this is nothing more than a hollow, empty promise, exploiting American workers for political gain; and I do not think this Congress is worthy of that kind of gamesmanship.

We as a House ought to stand up and say no. If we want to have a debate about extending unemployment benefits and to help those who are in need and looking for a job, then let us have that debate. But this is not the place to do it, and the gentleman knows this is not the place to do it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, over the course of this debate I am sure that my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means that have jurisdiction over the extension of the unemployment benefits and the unemployment program will be here to handle that debate. But to hold up the Community Services Block Grant program, a program that helps the community action agencies in all of our communities, helps them with their assistance to the poorest of the poor, to hold it up over this kind of a political stunt, I think, is regrettable. It does not deserve the support of our colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit the remaining time on this amendment and all amendments thereto to 30 minutes equally divided between myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Mr. Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are debating the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization program that funds the community action agencies in all of our communities to help the poorest of the poor, Meals on Wheels, other coordination of social services, to help those that are very needy. It is a very important program and a program that needs to be reauthorized.

But out of nowhere, at the 11th hour, we get this cynical attempt to talk about extending unemployment benefits. It has no business on this bill. As I said before, this is an authorization. There is no money attached to it; and for goodness sakes, no unemployed worker in America ought to count on anything happening out of this bill because it never will be funded.

The gentleman from California, my good friend and colleague, although we do disagree and we are disagreeing today, knows that this has no chance of becoming law. We are here scoring political points today at the expense of unemployed workers, and I really do think that is a sad use for the U.S. House of Representatives, not that there is never politics played here, but they are not usually played on the backs of the unemployed. I think that is what causes me such distress as I stand here today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Two years ago, when we sent this $8 billion out to the States for unemployment out of the Federal unemployment trust fund, we told the States they could do a number of things with that money. They could increase benefits. They could add additional workers. They could increase the amounts or they could extend unemployment benefits for those whose were expired.

As we have heard in the debate today, 45 States have almost all of the money that we sent them, 45 States; and so the money is there and the States, in my view, are acting to help those people. Why are we here?

Even if this were germane and it were in order, the money would go out to the States. The same States that already have the money, would they really help any more unemployed workers? The States ought to get off their rear ends and help those who need help. We know there are people out there whose benefits have run out, and those State legislators and those Governors ought to step up to the plate and use the money we sent them out of the Federal unemployment trust fund to help them.

In the meantime and back to this debate, this amendment does not deserve to be here. This amendment does not deserve our vote. I will not vote in a cynical way to try to tell unemployed workers we are going to extend their benefits when I know, when I know that this bill will never be funded, and this program, even if it were funded, would take years and years to actually implement the extension of benefits for these workers. It is not fair to them, and playing politics on the backs of unemployed Americans is beneath the dignity of this institution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 492) honoring the contributions of Catholic schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 492.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 492, offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). This resolution honors the contributions of America's Catholic schools, which are dedicated to not only educating their students academically but to developing their moral, intellectual, physical, and social values.

January 25 through the 31 is Catholic Schools Week, an annual tradition jointly sponsored by the National Catholic Education Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and it is in its 30th year.

The purpose of this resolution and Catholic Schools Week is to celebrate the vital role that Catholic elementary and secondary schools play as they provide a values-added education with high standards of quality and excellence to many of America's children.

As President George W. Bush noted earlier this month in recognition of the National Catholic Education Association's 100th anniversary, ``Catholic educators share the basic conviction that every child can learn,'' a principle that we are extending to public education through the No Child Left Behind Act.

The President also pointed out that high expectations that characterize Catholic education have provided students with overwhelming results. More than 99 percent of students participating in Catholic education graduate from high school and the majority of those go on to college.

As a product of Catholic education from elementary school through my education at Xavier University, I have found that my foundation in Catholic education has helped me strengthen my sense of purpose in life and prepare me to achieve my goals. My home State of Ohio has more than 500 Catholic schools, including my alma mater, Moeller High School. In Ohio, the Catholic schools serve more than 180,000 students, including more than 56,000 students attending 135 Catholic schools in the archdiocese of Cincinnati that is part of my district.

I appreciate the great work being done by Catholic schools, their administrators and teachers, as well as their parents and volunteers. And as the President noted earlier this month, ``Catholic schools carry out a great mission, to serve God by building the knowledge and character of young people.'' I commend my colleague from Louisiana for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of one of our subcommittees of the Committee on Education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the author of the resolution that we are considering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues who have come to the floor today to help us celebrate Catholic Schools Week. As I said, not only am I a graduate of Catholic education, but so are my 11 brothers and sisters. If it were not for the commitment of my parents to send us to Catholic schools,

I do not think that we would be what we are today.

I cannot really go on much further in talking about Catholic education without admiring the work of Cardinal McCarrick here in Washington, D.C.

While there are many Catholic schools here in Washington, there are 13 very special Catholic schools here in Washington called the Consortium Schools that are in low-income neighborhoods. They are 95 percent minority, 80 percent non-Catholic. Cardinal McCarrick and the volunteers at the consortium have worked to keep those 13 schools open for the benefit of those children in those neighborhoods.

Last year, Senator Kennedy and I worked to help raise money to keep these 13 schools open. I made a commitment to go see all 13. I made it to four. I have got nine more to go. But there is amazing work that is going on at these 13 schools here in Washington where we all know the condition of the public schools. I just want to take a moment to thank Cardinal McCarrick and those at the City Consortium Schools for the work they are doing to help minority and poor children here in Washington, D.C.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the sponsor of this resolution for the time and congratulate him for his leadership on the very important issue of mentoring.

As he pointed out very rightly, many children in America need the help and support that many times they do not get at home, and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) has led the efforts over the 3 years that he has been here in Congress to bring our attention to the need for more mentors, and probably no one in the Congress is more qualified to talk about the need for mentors than someone who mentored a young man on the football field for many years.

But beyond his prowess as a coach and mentor of a lot of young men, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.

Osborne) spent much time around his State of Nebraska helping to establish mentoring programs there, and during the years he has been in Congress, has continued his efforts, and I want to congratulate him for all of his work.

Mentors do provide affirmation and a guidepost for many children who do not get affirmation and do not get the kind of guidance that they need. I know in my home State of Ohio we have a program called Ohio Reads. Many schools in my district have grants where it is a mentoring- based program to help children who need help in reading, and many people throughout my community and communities throughout my district and the State mentor in many schools to help young people achieve more proficiency in their reading.

Here in Washington and other cities around America, there is a program called Everybody Wins, and here in Washington, that program involves many staffers here on Capitol Hill and Members who read to children in various schools throughout the city. I am proud that many of my staff, both of my committee staff and my personal staff, are mentors to young people, again trying to help them read and to provide guidance for them.

One of those mentors is my assistant in my office, Amy Hobart, who for 5 years, has read to a young girl at Tyler Elementary School here on Capitol Hill, and the child has her share of problems, but every week, Amy goes over there and spends an hour helping that young lady master her reading skills. But those are just several mere examples of the millions of Americans who do, in fact, volunteer.

The last point that I would make is that many of us as Members, as we go around our districts and around the country, people always ask, well, what can I do, what can I do to help, and everybody in America has something to offer to some young person in America. So I would suggest to my fellow Americans that they can volunteer, whether it is reading to someone, whether it is going to a Boys Club or Girls Club, whether it is going to a juvenile detention facility. There are many ways that the people can help, and I would urge them to do that.

I congratulate my colleague for bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time and congratulate him and all of his committee members on a job well done. We can look at a lot of the things that we do around here as though it were a half a glass of water. We just heard a description of the bill from our colleague and friend from Wisconsin describing the glass half empty. I would suggest to all of you that we should really look at this bill today before us as a glass that is half full. The committee, under very difficult circumstances, had a lot of decisions to make; and I think they have made them very well.

In the area of education, an area that I am very interested in as the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act in a broad bipartisan way, our commitment was to adequately fund the reforms in education. There was never any discussion about fully funding to the authorized levels. The commitment was to adequately fund our efforts to renew American education.

In this bill we continue that effort. In the area of Title I, we increase Title I spending by $700 million to $12.4 billion annually. This is more in the last 2 years than we saw in 8 years under former President Clinton in terms of increases to Title I. We should be very proud of that commitment.

Another major area of our concern in education comes to children with special needs, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, where we attempt to fund a portion of the cost for those students that have special needs in our local schools. Congress has been involved in this since 1975, and from 1975 to 1995, as this chart will show, we move spending from zero to about just a little over $3 billion. And since 1995, we are not only just shy of $10 billion, but in this conference agreement the number is now $10.1 billion; $10.1 billion, over a 300 percent increase since 1995. That is something that I think this Congress ought to be very proud of.

Let me make one other point about the bill we have before us. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who just spoke, who chairs the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, and that is the effort to help children in the District of Columbia who are stuck in very bad schools, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I worked diligently over the course of this year to help the Mayor and the School Board who requested our help in helping children that were stuck in failing schools. Of all the big urban systems around the country that have problems, and there are a lot of them, there is none that have bigger problems than the schools right here in the District of Columbia. The children here deserve as good a shot at an education as the children in our own districts. And for those children who are trapped in very bad schools, we believe they ought to have some choice. They ought to have a chance to go to a real school and get a real education. And the $13 million that is in this bill will help about 1,700 students here in the District of Columbia be able to choose a school of their choice, and I do believe this is good for those children, and it will be good for the DC schools because when we bring competition into where children can actually go to school, we have seen the public schools do improve. And I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and certainly, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his cardinals and the members of his committee for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, the significant pension underfunding problems that we face in this country have critical implications on the retirement security of American workers. Traditional defined benefit pension plans promise workers a set monthly benefit at retirement, and we have a responsibility to ensure that these important pension benefits for millions of American workers will be there when they retire.

The tax extension package that we have before us today includes a key pension funding change that was included in the Pension Funding Equity Act, the bipartisan measure that passed the House previously on October the 8th. It would have replaced the current 30-year Treasury bond interest rate that is used by many employers to calculate the amount of money they must set aside in their pension plans with a blend of corporate bond index rates for the next 2 years, through 2005. Because the current fix expires at the end of 2003, there is an urgency on the part of employers, unions, and workers to address this issue.

Let me explain why this change, I think, is so important. Strengthening the funding of defined benefit pension plans in the short-term will reduce the likelihood that the Federal Government will have to step in and pay benefits for underfunded plans, often at lower benefit levels for American workers. Moreover, employers who are making major short-term financial decisions need greater certainty to make key decisions about how to allocate scarce resources. Doing nothing could jeopardize employers' willingness to continue their defined benefit programs that provide a stable and secure pension benefit to workers during their retirement. Doing nothing is not an option, and for the good of our economy and for the good of American workers we need to act.

This measure also includes an additional item that would reduce additional payments that airlines must make to their pension plan when their funding falls below 90 percent of liabilities, called deficit reduction contributions, and we would reduce those contributions by 80 percent for just the next 2 years.

I remain concerned about the possible consequences of reducing deficit reduction contributions. Certainly, it is a last-resort approach. I would prefer not to single out any one industry for special relief, but enough of our colleagues in the other body feel differently, and we are nearly out of time. So I am pleased the DRC relief included in this measure is limited to 2 years, and I plan to support this measure for the good of our economy and the overall health of our Nation's pension system.

I am committed to ensuring that any DRC relief we enact is responsible and limited in scope to avoid compromising the defined benefit system as we look at broader, long-term reforms in both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 and in particular Title VX, which sets forth a Renewable Fuels Standard to advance renewable fuel development in this country.

As a representative of the nation's third-largest ethanol consuming state, I congratulate my colleagues on incorporating this standard into a national energy policy. In my view, a renewable fuels standard achieves two policy objectives simultaneously--it begins to break out nation's dependence on volatile sources of foreign oil, and it creates new market opportunities--with a tremendous upside for America's farmers.

This provision has been criticized because of its costs. But let me remind those critics of another cost--the cost of farm program payments. By reaching 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012, the RFS will provide a tremendous boost to annual farm income and add substantial value to the corn market--value that will reduce the amount of money going out of the federal Treasury in the form of price support payments. The RFS and expanded ethanol production will add value to agriculture and provide price and income support to our nation's ailing farm sector in the most sustainable way possible--through the marketplace.

In addition, this bill sets the foundation for a correction to a flawed highway funding formula that penalizes ethanol consuming states to the tune of $2 billion a year, including my home state of Ohio, which loses nearly $160 million per year in valuable transportation infrastructure dollars.

I congratulate the Chairman on his hard work to make comprehensive energy policy a reality, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 280, the National Aviation Heritage Area Act.

One hundred years ago, the Wright Brothers made Ohio the ``Birthplace of Aviation.'' It was in their bicycle shop in Dayton that the Wright Brothers researched and designed the first successful, heavier-than- air, manned, powered aircraft. It was there in Dayton, on the Huffman Flying Prairie, where the brothers learned to fly--where they learned to control and maneuver their aircraft.

Today, the tradition of the Wright Brothers lives on in the Miami Valley community. Engineers, scientists, and inventors continue to research, develop, and test the latest advances in air power at the Wright Patterson Air Force laboratories. At the Air Force Institute of Technology, they learn the technical skills to build the aircraft of the future. And at the United States Air Force Museum, three hangars attest to the commitment the community has to preserve the history of the Air Force and its contributions to the advancement of powered flight.

In addition to the public sector efforts, the Miami Valley has been fortunate to have numerous dedicated individuals and private organizations who work to provide an educational and recreational preservation of the area's aviation heritage.

In 2003, the 100th anniversary of Powered Flight, Ohioans have come together in unprecedented ways to celebrate, preserve, and promote the dream of Wilbur and Orville Wright. I can think of no better tribute to their efforts than to establish this heritage area, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill.

In the Miami Valley, the legacy of aviation is celebrated for its critical contributions to the

economy, to business and personal travel, and to our military. I join my Miami Valley colleagues, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Turner, and other Ohio Members in saluting our constituents' hard work in preserving a nationally important story, a story which captures the dreams and imagination of the young and old alike--the dream and the reality of powered flight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and thank a great resident of the Buckeye State, Joe Nuxhall.

To fans of the Cincinnati Reds baseball franchise, Joe Nuxhall is-- quite simply--an icon. To his family, he is a terrific husband, father, and grandfather. And to his neighbors in the Cincinnati area, Joe is a true community leader.

Born, raised, and still residing in southwest Ohio, Joe is nothing short of a Cincinnati sports legend. As a lifelong Reds fan myself, I place Joe's name among those of other all-time Cincinnati baseball greats like Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, and Frank Robinson. From the moment Joe stepped onto the pitcher's mound at the history- making age of 15 to his current work beside Marty Brennaman in the Reds' radio booth, ``The Old Left Hander'' is as synonymous with Reds baseball as anyone in the organization's long and storied history. And this summer at the Reds' new Great American Ballpark, the team erected an impressive statue of Joe to prove it.

Next week, the community foundation in Joe's hometown of Fairfield, Ohio will honor him at a reception being billed as ``All-American Evening Honoring an All-American.'' Certainly, those attending the event will celebrate with Joe his unique accomplishments on the baseball diamond. But just as importantly, donations will be collected at the event to benefit the Joe Nuxhall Character Education Fund, an organization that highlights Joe's role as a leader off the baseball diamond as well.

Mr. Speaker, for more than five decades, Joe has served and represented Cincinnati as well as anyone in the community possibly can. The only fitting way to end my remarks is to applaud his continued service to the Reds and to Cincinnati--and to borrow his trademark phrase of ``rounding third and heading for home.''

I congratulate Joe and wish him and his family a wonderful evening next Tuesday in Fairfield.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 300, recognizing the contributions of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian colleges and universities.

The month of October is recognized by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities as ``Christian Higher Education Month.'' The United States has benefited tremendously from the over 1000 Christian colleges and universities that have been founded since the Nation's first Christian college was founded in 1636. My home state of Ohio has a number of Christian institutions, including my alma mater Xavier University.

In a national survey by the Council for Christian College and Universities of Council member schools' alumni, 95 percent reported that their Christian college education helped them develop moral principles that guide their actions and 90 percent said their Christian college helped them develop a sense of purpose in life. I have found that my foundation in Catholic education, including higher education, has helped me to strengthen my sense of purpose in life and prepared me to achieve my goals and ambitions.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important resolution. The postsecondary education experience is enriched when students have the opportunity to determine their educational environment. H.R. 300 supports the goals and ideas of Christian Higher Education Month by recognizing and honoring the important work of all our Christian colleges and universities.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few decades, our Nation has made tremendous progress in improving the opportunities of individuals with disabilities I am proud to say that Congress has significantly improved the ability of individuals with disabilities to become more involved in their communities.

We have passed historic legislation securing the rights of individuals with disabilities, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have clearly demonstrated our support for individuals with disabilities, and continue to be committed to improving opportunities for all individuals with disabilities.

However, we know that there are millions of individuals with disabilities that face significant challenges in their daily lives. Those individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities who want to maximize their ability to live independently, find meaningful employment, and join the mainstream of American life continue to need our support and commitment.

As a Congress, as a Nation, we must strive to help these individuals explore new and challenging opportunities. We must encourage people to pursue careers working with individuals with disabilities. We must provide opportunities to individuals with disabilities to make meaningful decisions about the jobs they pursue, the places they live, and the education they receive.

We have made important reforms to key pieces of legislation this past year. In the Improving Results for Children with Disabilities Act, we have provided greater coordination of services for students as they transition away

from school to postsecondary education, the workforce, or community living. We have made it easier for States to provide quality services, and enhanced the ability of individuals with disabilities, and their families, to choose what services they receive.

In the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act, we have given individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate more meaningfully in the workforce by enhancing their ability to receive training, and we have increased the emphasis on serving individuals with disabilities.

I strongly support this important resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Before we vote on this rather meaningless motion which I will probably support, I think it is important that we try to frame it in a proper context. I think what we have tonight is a vote that is politics, pure and simple. Virtually every Member supports providing the highest possible funding for the key programs in No Child Left Behind, and I fully expect whatever agreement we are able to reach with our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol will meet this goal. We will, once again, provide another major increase in funding for Federal education programs, the third major increase since No Child Left Behind was enacted into law.

We have heard all year about this so-called under funding of education programs. I would point out that we have a dual process in this Chamber of authorizing and appropriating. The authorized level is the cap, the maximum amount that can be spent. At no time during my experience, the 13 years that I have been here, have we ever fully funded, as Members would describe it, these education programs.

As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1995, the last year that Democrats ran the Congress and had the White House, the authorization for title I was $13 billion, and yet the actual funding for that program came in at $10.3 billion. I do not recall any Member of the House, Republican or Democrat, or the Senate, claiming we were underfunding our education commitment.

Now, when it comes to the issue of whether we have kept our promise under No Child Left Behind, let us recall what the promise was. The promise was to have a significant increase in spending to help support the goals of No Child Left Behind. So what did we do? Fiscal year 2001, $24.5 billion. What happened when we passed No Child Left Behind, an increase of $5.4 billion to $29.9 billion. That is a real increase.

Then we went to $32.8 billion, and this year we are at $34.6 billion. Now, these are the numbers. They are real. No one can say we have not kept our promise because we have had a significant increase in Federal education spending.

Let us look at the largest of these programs where a lot of the money is, and that would be in title I, the money that goes to poor students and poor schools across the country. These bars here in yellow are the years when the Clinton administration was in office, and the red years are the Bush years. What do we see, significant increases since No Child Left Behind was put in place.

As a matter of fact, to put it in even better perspective, during the 8 years that President Clinton was President, half of the time Democrats controlled one or both Chambers, the increase during those 8 years under President Clinton, $2.4 billion in title I funding over 8 years. That was the increase. What has been the increase over the first 3 years of the Bush administration, $2.9 billion.

Now, to say we have not dramatically increased our commitment to education is just not true. But as I said before, all of us in this Chamber support trying to fund these programs at the maximum allowable level to get as much money as we can out there to help poor children have a chance at a good education.

But as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and others sitting here would attest to, if money were to have solved all of the problems in K-12 education, we would have solved them long ago. Some of the biggest spending levels in our country are in urban centers which happen to have the worst schools.

One only needs to look in Washington, D.C., the third highest level of spending in any urban district in America, and without a doubt, the worst schools in America. Money will

not solve the education woes in our country. It is attitudes. It is attitudes and a commitment and a discussion about whether we, as a Nation, are willing to educate all of our children.

We have had this discussion for a long time, and we all talk about public education and how important it is, but our Nation has never attempted to educate all of our people. We have never had a real commitment to educate all of our children. We have embarked on an effort to try to get to that goal. It is not going to be easy, and I am not sure we even know what the answers are in terms of how we educate all of our children. But I think we are going to learn those answers.

Again, I am not sure that money is going to solve those problems. We need to have real changes of attitudes in our schools, in our communities, about really helping poor children have the same chance in life that all of us have had. They deserve that chance, just like our children deserve that chance, to get a good education. It is not happening today. I do think with the passage of No Child Left Behind, one of the most bipartisan bills of this session of Congress, we can begin to move toward that goal. We are meeting our commitment on the Federal end, and I know the States are having problems meeting their commitments to their local schools. We wish they would do more; but please, do not come here and say we are not meeting our commitment to helping every child get a chance at a good education.