Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for H.R. 3232, which would extend the authorization for the expiring portions of child nutrition legislation for an additional six months. This bill, which was introduced by my colleague Mr. Castle, is also cosponsored by the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Woolsey, Ranking Member on the Education Reform Subcommittee. I thank all of them for their support.

The Child Nutrition programs include the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (or WIC); the Child and Adult Care Food Program; the After School Snack Program; and the Summer Food Service Program.

These invaluable programs--which are responsible for providing nutritious meals to millions of children and adults every day--are due for reauthorization this year. In order to ensure that the Committee has the opportunity to consider the reauthorization process carefully, we are seeking to extend the current authorization an additional six months.

This bill contains one provision of particular importance to our nation's soldiers, sailors and airmen. If this legislation is not approved, the children of Armed Forces members who live in privatized military housing and who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch will lose their school meal subsidies. This would be an insult to these parents who work every day to secure our nation's freedom.

In addition, this legislation contains a provision that allow for- profit child care centers to continue to participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and to continue to provide meals and snacks to centers where at least 25 percent of the children enrolled meet the income eligibility requirements for free and reduced-price lunch.

Parents will always bear primary responsibility for their children's health and nutrition, but this bill provides assistance for those who are having trouble making ends meet. The overall goal of all of the child nutrition programs is to make sure that low-income children and families have access to low-cost meals and snacks that are safe and nutritious. The reauthorization process is a chance for us to look at the current system and see how well it is meeting those goals. We must take into account a number of actors, including efficiency, nutrition, cost-effectiveness, and protecting school revenue. We would like to take this additional six months to be sure that we address all of these issues to the best of our ability.

This bipartisan bill is a simple, straightforward tool to make sure that we are serving the millions of low-income children who depend upon the programs contained in the Child Nutrition and Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Acts. I hope you will join me and my colleagues in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 3232.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support for H. Res. 378. This resolution recognizes independent colleges and universities that participate in prepaid tuition plans that give families options when paying for the cost of postsecondary education. I thank Representative Granger for sponsoring this resolution that calls our attention to the need to give families and students these payment options and to the independent colleges and universities that participate in these prepaid tuition plans.

Our economy is changing. The manufacturing economy of the 20th century is being replaced with a knowledge- and information-based economy in the 21st century, and our workforce must adapt accordingly. The demand for individuals with at least some postsecondary education has been growing, and is expected to continue growing more rapidly than the demand for individuals with only a high school diploma.

When coupled with our current college cost crisis, it is clear that in order to meet this demand we must make a postsecondary education more affordable for more individuals. Our economy is increasingly dependent on the availability of skilled, well-educated workers, and the need to increase access to higher education is a critical part of that equation. This resolution recognizes those that make postsecondary education more attainable.

H. Res. 378 draws attention to prepaid tuition plans. These plans allow families to prepare for the cost of a postsecondary education by planning ahead, saving wisely, and reducing the tax burden on such academic savings that will be used to send students to college in the future.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, and specifically Representatives McKeon's subcommittee, is in the midst of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Members are carefully examining a range of issues, including dramatic tuition increases, the need to expand access--particularly for non-traditional college students--and what appears to be a troubling lack of transparency in higher education.

Often, I expect, we hear from concerned parents that college costs are out of hand and that they will not be able to afford a postsecondary education for their children. Keeping college affordable is no simple task, and finding solutions will not be easy. However, I believe that prepaid tuition plans offer parents some options for dealing with the college cost crises. I urge my colleges to support this resolution that recognizes the schools that participate in these plans.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 63 which will renew the Compact of Free Association with both the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). I am pleased that Chairman Hyde and Chairman Pombo worked with me to find a solution to continue funding for education programs in the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

H.J. Res. 63 provides a new supplemental education discretionary grant for the FSM and the RMI to receive funding from one source. This supplemental education grant provides funds for the FSM and RMI to use for education programs under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, part B of IDEA, Title 1 of the Workforce Investment Act, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Title 1 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and the Head Start Act. These funds will be subject to the Fiscal Procedures Act negotiated by the U.S. government and the FSM and the RMI. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education, as a member of the Joint Economic Management Team, will ensure that academic performance measures are developed for standards and assessments appropriate for the FSM and RMI in order to increase academic achievement for the children receiving educational services under this grant. H.J. Res. 63 also continues eligibility for the FSM and RMI under the Pell Grant program and continues to allow the FSM and RMI to compete for competitive grants at the U.S. Department of Education.

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear. This new discretionary supplemental education grant is the source, and only source, for funds for education programs for the FSM and RMI. They are no longer eligible to receive separate funding from any formula grant run by the Department of Education, the Department of Labor or the Head Start Act administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. In my view, this new supplemental education grant is a signal that funds for the FSM and RMI should be addressed within the Compact, rather than through a disjointed system of domestic formula grants. The United States owes an enormous debt to these nations and efforts to improve their educational system should be a top priority.

I urge my colleagues to support this Compact.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3076, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act. I'm particularly pleased that this bill has the potential not only to enhance graduate education, but to build on the strength of education at all levels by helping to increase study of subject areas facing particular shortages at the K-12 level.

I'd like to first applaud Select Education Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra--the author of this measure--for his leadership in bringing this bill forward. He has crafted a bill, with bipartisan support, that ensures our Federal investment in graduate education is money well spent. I'd also like to thank Mr. Miller, the ranking member on the Committee, and Mr. Hinojosa, the ranking member on the subcommittee, for their cooperation and leadership in bringing this measure forward.

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

Witnesses have testified before the Education & 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). For those reasons, this bill places a priority on these particular subject areas, ensuring that our investment in graduate education continues to improve education at all levels in America.

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 cannot 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.

I'd like to thank members of my staff for their hard work in brining this bill forward today; particularly Krisann Pearce, Alison Ream, Kathleen Smith, Alexa Marrero, and Rebecca Hunt with Mr. Hoekstra's staff. Additionally, I would like to thank the Democratic staff, including Ricardo Martinez, Alex Nock, Ellynne Bannon and Moira Lenehan with Mr. Hinojosa's staff. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Hoekstra, the bipartisan cooperation from members on both sides of the aisle, and the hard work of our staff, we have before us today a bill that will allow for the continued success of graduate fellowships that enrich student knowledge while building up our teaching workforce.

As we move forward with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must continue to build on the success of these valuable programs that prepare the next generation of scholars. Graduate education is essential to maintaining our economic leadership, as well as ensuring the success of education reform in classrooms across America. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and the continued success of graduate education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act. This bill is part of our comprehensive efforts to strengthen and renew higher education, and it will make real improvements to international and foreign language studies programs in campuses across America.

I'd like to commend my colleague Mr. Hoekstra, chairman of the Select Education Subcommittee, for his work on this bill. Thanks to his efforts, the measure before us today has received bipartisan support, as well as a positive response from those in the higher education community who are administering these critical international and foreign language programs. I'd also like to thank my good friend Mr. Miller, the ranking member on the committee, and Mr. Hinojosa, the ranking member on the subcommittee, for their cooperation in bringing this bill before us today.

The International Studies in Higher Education Act renews and reauthorizes the international and foreign language studies programs under title VI of the Higher Education Act. These programs are not only an important part of our postsecondary education system, but they are also a critical piece of our national efforts to fulfill national and international security needs.

Today, in the post-9/11 era, our Nation has been confronted with a new reality. Now, more than at virtually any other time in our history, we must understand our national interests and security concerns within an international context. We do not live in a vacuum, and our higher education system must reflect this. That's why the bill before us today is so important.

International and foreign language studies programs are often responsible for training experts with the skills and knowledge necessary

to meet our changing national security needs. Grants provided through title VI of the Higher Education Act allow colleges and universities across the country to offer programs that foster this type of learning, and help students gain significant understanding of international perspectives and foreign languages.

The bill before us today will allow the continued success of these programs by allowing for increased undergraduate study, including study abroad. In addition, the bill allows for the creation of national resource centers to serve as information sources for international and foreign language at the K-12 level, encouraging international studies at all levels of education. The bill also seeks to enhance diversity among those participating in the Institute for International Public Policy, requiring that all underrepresented populations be included.

Because of the increased prevalence and importance of international and foreign language studies programs, particularly in meeting our changing national security needs, this bill creates an important new resource for information and guidance through the establishment of an advisory board for international education. This advisory board will serve as a valuable information source for Congress and the Secretary of Education as we work to strengthen these programs and ensure their continued success.

I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of members of my staff in bringing this bill forward today; particularly Krisann Pearce, Alison Ream, Kathleen Smith, Alexa Marrero, and Rebecca Hunt with Mr. Hoekstra's staff. Additionally, I would like to thank the Democratic staff, including Ricardo Martinez, Alex Nock, Ellynne Bannon and Moira Lenehan with Mr. Hinojosa's staff. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Hoekstra, the bipartisan cooperation from members on both sides of the aisle, and the hard work of our staff, we have before us today a bill that will allow for the continued success of international and foreign language studies programs at campuses across the Nation. I'm pleased to support this measure, and encourage my colleagues to join me in our efforts to ensure international and foreign language studies continue to thrive at colleges and universities across America.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act.

This bill authorizes a total of $108 million in FY 2004 for higher education international studies and foreign language programs. It also establishes a seven-member International Education Advisory Board to provide advice and recommendations to the Education Department and Congress on all title VI programs but specifically states that nothing in it should be construed as authorizing the advisory board to ``mandate, direct or control'' the specific instructional content, curriculum or program of instruction of any institution of higher education.

I would like to highlight two amendments that I offered in the Higher Education Committee and were accepted in the committee's final version of the legislation. One of the serious challenges facing our nation today is that our country lacks people who are fluent in a foreign language and also have a background in science and technology.

There are few Americans who can understand technical documents, including research studies and scientific papers, written in foreign languages.

If we are to stay competitive with emerging economies in Asia, Central and South America, and Africa, this will have to change.

That is why I offered one amendment, which would support programs with curricula that combine studying science and technology in a foreign language.

This amendment would allow universities to use grants to set up immersion programs here in the United States where students take science technology-related course work taught completely in foreign languages.

It also would provide for other programs, such as summer workshops, that emphasize the intense study of a foreign language and of science and technology.

Funds can further be used to support immersion programs for students to take science and math courses in a non-English speaking country.

To stay on top of innovations in science, mathematics, and technology, more professionals in these fields will also have to be proficient in a foreign language.

It is only with the knowledge of technical terms in foreign languages--words not taught in the average high school or college language class--that America can stay technologically and economically competitive.

I would like to thank Chairman Boehner for accepting this amendment. I hope in the future Congress will be able to expand upon this amendment and authorize new funding for the study of science and technology in foreign languages.

The second amendment would allow the Department of Education to conduct a national study to identify heritage communities with native speakers of critical foreign languages. This will enable us to identify the foreign language capacity currently existing in the United States.

Members of heritage communities are better and less expensive educational investments than nonnative speakers with no previous foreign language experience.

More importantly, cultivating native speakers is critical to national security. The 9/11 Joint Inquiry released in July reports that the American intelligence community is only at 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national security. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I find this statistic quite troubling.

The al Qaeda terrorist network currently operates in over 75 countries where hundreds of different languages and dialects are spoken.

Unfortunately, 99 percent of American school, college, and university programs concentrate on only a dozen languages, most of which are European.

In fact, more college students currently study Ancient Greek (16,402) than Arabic (5,505), Korean (4,479), and Farsi (614) put together.

We need to raise these numbers. Unfortunately, for nonnative speakers, learning languages like Arabic takes years of intensive effort and years of in-country study.

In this time of heightened awareness of national security and intelligence capabilities, we need to identify the foreign language resources already existing in this country, especially native speakers of languages that are rarely taught in our schools.

The only way to know what we have available to us in terms of native language speakers--and we can take advantage of this knowledge--is by conducting a comprehensive study. The results of this study should be extremely valuable to the intelligence community, to educators, and to Congress.

I again want to thank my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, and I want to express my strong support for this bill. I hope the leadership of this Congress will see fit to properly fund it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and others who have put together, I think, a very good resolution to help ensure that we are successful in our efforts in Iraq.

But as I listened to the discussion over the last several weeks and to the debate over the last 24 hours on this specific resolution, I think many of my colleagues are losing the perspective of just how big an issue this is. I think we need to remember what happened over the last several decades as the Middle East grew increasingly unstable: Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, the Taliban movement during the 1990s in Afghanistan, the weapons of mass destruction that were being proliferated throughout the region and, certainly, the effects of 9-11 and our effort to rid the world of terrorism. All of this instability in the Middle East was threatening the world economy, and let us not kid ourselves.

I think President Bush did the right thing when he led the effort for us to go into Iraq. He could have done what Presidents have done over the decades, and that is gone to the U.N., trying to persuade the U.N., which he did, but they never really quite had the gall and the nerve or the courage to do what needed to be done in Iraq. So the President decided on his own, with his administration and the support of this Congress, to go to Iraq and do what needed to be done.

The American people ought to applaud his actions. It is the most dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy in our 200-year history, to go in and preemptively take out a foreign leader and to try to bring some sort of democracy to a region of the world that has never known any type of democracy. All of this was made possible because of the men and women in uniform willing to go in and fight on our behalf and now willing to be there to try to secure the peace.

The President made his point very clear early on that peace was going to be more difficult than war, and certainly it has. But I would argue to all of my colleagues that we have no choice but to succeed. Our grandchildren and their children are the ones who will know whether decisions we have made over the last year were right or not, not us in our lifetime. And the $87 billion that we have on the table to help ensure success ought to be supported.

For those who want to make these loans rather than grants, just let me suggest there is not a Member of this body who does not know that none of this money is ever going to be repaid. We can call it what we want; but the fact is, these are grants, they are going to be grants, and we can play with the folks back home, we can make politics out of this. The people of Iraq cannot afford to pay this back. And if we are going to be successful and if we are going to help our troops get home as quickly as possible, let us play no games. Let us stand tall, let us stand proud, let us support the resolution and bring our troops home as soon as we can.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the prior order of the House of October 7, 2003, I call up 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, 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. 3108.

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the Committee on Ways and Means would control the first 30 minutes of debate on H.R. 3108, but considering that the chairman is not here as yet, let me, under my 15 minutes, yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have a pension underfunding crisis in this country; and it has significant implications on the retirement security of the American workers. This chronic underfunding crisis we face among traditional defined benefit pension plans, the type that guarantees workers a set monthly benefit when they retire, is jeopardizing the pension benefits of millions of American workers who have worked all their lives for a safe and secure retirement.

The committee hearings we have conducted on this issue, which have included a joint hearing with the Committee on Ways and Means, demonstrated the critical nature of this problem and the need for a solution that will give workers a renewed sense of confidence that their pension savings are on a sound financial footing. This is precisely why I was joined by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson), who chairs our subcommittee, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), my good friend and colleague, in producing legislation to address this underfunding problem.

The Pension Funding Equity Act, the bipartisan bill to be considered today, would protect the retirement benefits of millions of American workers in the short term while committing Congress to immediately proceed with efforts to identify permanent long-term solutions to this underfunding crisis.

This underfunding crisis has manifested itself in several ways. The termination of large underfunded pension plans in the steel and airlines industries, for example, has led to growing anxieties about the financial condition of the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and its ability to ensure the pension benefits of American workers across the country. Those concerns were sufficient to lead the General Accounting Office in July to include the PBGC on its list of high-risk programs that require increased Federal scrutiny because the PBGC's mounting deficit had grown to $5.7 billion, the largest in history.

To make matters worse, the PBGC recently announced that there are some $80 billion in unfunded pension benefits looming on the horizon among financially weak companies, pension benefits that may ultimately have to be paid by the PBGC; and this poses a serious question of whether a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC would be necessary if the alarming trend of underfunded pension plans and company plan failures continue.

One of the several reasons that defined benefit plans are in financial jeopardy is because the interest rate used by employers to calculate the amount of money they must set aside in their employee pension plans, the interest rate on the now discontinued 30-year Treasury bonds, has been at artificially low levels, therefore, inflating plan funding liabilities.

Congress enacted a temporary fix in March of 2002 by allowing employers to use a higher interest rate. But because this fix expires at the end of 2003, there is an urgency on the part of employers, unions, and workers to address this issue because of a growing consensus that this problem is putting the pension benefits of American workers at risk.

The bipartisan Pension Funding Equity Act represents a responsible short-term approach that would replace the 30-year Treasury interest rate with a blend of corporate bond index rates for 2 years through 2005. If Congress fails to provide a pension funding solution by the end of 2003, the benefits of millions of workers could be jeopardized.

Strengthening the funding of defined benefit pension plans in the short term will reduce the likelihood that the PBGC will have to step in and pay benefits to underfunded plans. 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 the defined benefit programs that provide stable and secure pension benefits to workers during retirement.

The act before us today would help ensure the financial integrity of America's defined benefit plans in the short term while Congress takes a broader look at the defined benefit system and considers permanent solutions to the pension underfunding problems that are jeopardizing the retirement security of America's working families.

I again want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for working together in a bipartisan manner on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with them and the administration as we move ahead, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill we have before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on our side.

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

Let me thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work in moving this very important piece of legislation to help strengthen the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and, more specifically, to help strengthen defined benefit plans. Making this change in the 30-year bond rate to a corporate bond index rate will, in fact, strengthen a lot of defined benefit plans, single-employer plans. Multiemployer plans use a different index.

There has been some discussion on the floor today about this fact that this is temporary, that it is only 2 years. Frankly, that is by design. Putting this in place we all know needs to happen because the current temporary fix is about to expire. It has been my intention, as the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who shares jurisdiction with our friends on the Committee on Ways and Means, to continue our work on defined benefit pension plans, both single employer and multiemployer plans. There are long-term issues that have to be dealt with.

Congress, over the last number of years, has kind of shoved this off and shoved it off. Allowing for a 3-year fix or a 4-year fix, in my opinion, provides far too much time. It gets people unengaged in the process, when, in fact, we need to stay with this difficult process in order to come up with a longer term solution.

We have to walk a very fine line, as all of my colleagues know, in terms of getting the appropriate funding levels in many plans, securing the retirement security for millions of American workers, without unduly or unnecessarily pushing employers out of the defined benefit system. These are voluntary plans offered by employers to their employees. It is very critical, I believe, and others believe, that we find the right balance in terms of restructuring the regulatory system for how these plans operate and the contribution levels that need to be made.

While others want to make changes, and we have heard some of the suggestions made on the floor today, to fix the lump-sum problem, to fix the mortality-rate issue, all of these issues in defined benefit plans are interrelated. And as you begin to pull on that string, what we do not want to have happen, and what usually happens around here, is that the law of unintended consequences jumps up and bites us.

I know that our committee is going to take a very serious look at what needs to be done to improve the health of these plans, to ensure that the money is there to pay the benefits to American working families and to try to maintain some stability so that employers will continue to offer these plans. I suspect my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means will do the same. It is my plan, Mr. Speaker, to have a bill through the House next year. And I do believe that this 2-year temporary fix will, in fact, keep pressure on us to do the heavy lifting that needs to be done.

There have been calls for a commission to look at this. In all honesty, I do not know that we need a commission. What we need to do is the heavy lifting of legislating. And to legislate, we need to talk to people in the administration and in the real world about the kind of changes that need to be made in order to make sure that these systems, these defined benefit plans, are there for American working families and that they work properly and are funded properly.

Mr. Speaker, I intend in our committee to do the work that is necessary, and I believe our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means will do likewise. I urge Members to support the bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House 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; the bill shall be considered as read for amendment; the amendment in the nature of a substitute that I have placed at the desk shall be considered as adopted; all points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived; the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: one, 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled among the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Education and the Workforce and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions; and that the amendment that I have placed at the desk shall be considered as read for purposes of this unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding me this time and remind our Members that there is an awful lot of rhetoric that has been said on the floor today. If you had listened to all of it, you would think that the Labor Department was out to eliminate the overtime pay in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know that the Fair Labor Standards Act that controls who gets overtime and who does not, what all the workplace rules are, has not been updated since I have been born, 1949. We all know that for decades we have had difficulties, employees have had difficulties, employers have had difficulties understanding the regulations in terms of who is entitled to overtime pay and who is not.

When you have all this confusion, guess who decided to come into the middle of this? The trial lawyers, of course; and they are filing class action lawsuits, trying to make some determination about what the law is.

So the Department of Labor has taken the courageous position of going out and issuing, or attempting to issue, regulations about bringing clarity to the situation so that workers will know whether they are entitled to overtime pay and employers will know what the law means, who is covered and who is not.

I think that the regulations that we have, the draft regulations that have been issued, needed a little work. I think most Members would agree. That is why the Department of Labor got 80,000 comments on their proposal. The Department currently is in the process of looking at those 80,000 and trying to determine whether they need to make adjustments.

Under the proposal, those people who today make a little over $8,000 are guaranteed overtime, regardless of what their position is. Under the proposal, that number would rise to $22,100. If you make that amount or less, you are guaranteed overtime. That would affect over 1 million American workers who will be guaranteed overtime who may not be guaranteed that they will get it today.

But why do we want to stop this proposal from moving? We do not have to do that. We do not know what the final regulations are going to be, and we do not know when they are going to come. We have got the Congressional Review Act if you disagree with what they finally propose, but I think bringing clarity to this situation is very important.

Let me also say that the effect of the gentleman's motion to accept the Harkin language from the Senate would effectively only do one thing, allow the Department to do one thing, and that would be to raise the threshold from over $8,000 to $22,100. Because it also goes on to say in the Senate language that any proposed regulation that would eliminate one person's ability to get overtime means that the proposal cannot go into effect. No job reclassifications. No new titles. It effectively eliminates all the modernization that we are trying to seek in these new regulations. That is unfair to American workers, and it is unfair to employers who are stuck in the dilemma today that we need to resolve.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to all of my colleagues today that we ought to allow this procedure to go ahead. Let the Department of Labor look at those 80,000 comments and make decisions about what the draft says and what the final regulations really ought to be. If in fact they issue regulations, we have the Congressional Review Act instituted in this Congress in 1995 to allow us under an expedited procedure in both the House and Senate to look at the regulations; and, if we disagree with them, we can overturn them just like we did with the ergonomics regulations that were issued 1 week after President Bill Clinton left office.

Vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 570) to amend the Higher

Education Act of 1965 with respect to the qualifications of foreign schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 570.

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

Today I rise in support of the bill, S. 570. The legislation is very simple in its purpose. It will correct a drafting error made years ago during the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

When drafting the legislation in 1998, an amendment intended to extend eligibility to a for-profit veterinary school inadvertently removed the eligibility of not-for-profit and public foreign veterinary schools from participation in the Title IV Federal Family Education Loan Program. S. 570 corrects the problem by clarifying that the in- State clinical training requirement, intended only for for-profit institutions, does not apply to not-for-profit or public foreign institutions. These institutions still must meet all other statutory and regulatory requirements to be eligible for participation. S. 570 simply makes clear that not-for-profit and public foreign veterinary institutions need not have their approved clinical training take place in the United States.

The legislation is noncontroversial. It is bipartisan, and this error should be corrected immediately. Students are now feeling the effects of this glitch, and it is unfairly hindering students seeking to complete their education. As they return to school, they should not have studies thwarted by a legislative drafting error. The effects of this problem are being felt by several of my constituents, one specifically being Ms. Beverly Breeden, a resident of Celina, Ohio, and a veterinary student at the Royal Veterinary College in London. She is extremely concerned that she may not be able to complete her studies should this legislation not pass. She has worked hard, and I want to ensure that she is able to return to school in October and finish her studies.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today on S. 570 and allow students to complete their education and training without unintended interruptions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle for the good work that has been done on this bill.

This year millions of Americans will visit a museum in America and millions more will visit their local library for books and other community services.

Libraries and museums play a vital role in educating our children and in promoting our communities. Throughout our Nation libraries are at the forefront of reading and family literacy programs. Libraries are critical to many people with disabilities, providing them with specialized materials and resources that are obtainable in a single accessible location.

For those of limited financial resources or who live in remote areas, libraries provide access available nowhere else to books and reference materials, computer services and other community-based services.

Museums across the country work with our local schools to provide K through 12 educational programming. They are an important source of cultural and historical knowledge, helping to promote learning about the history and traditions of our country and other nations around the world. In addition, museums serve as places where people of different backgrounds come together to share information about history, culture, and civilization.

In the last Congress, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) worked in a bipartisan manner to report the Museum and Library Services Act of 2002 and he worked very closely with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). In this Congress, these gentlemen continued to author H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003, that passed the House by a vote of 416 to 2, and that happened earlier this year.

Since then the two gentlemen have been working with the Senate on a bipartisan compromise bill that has the support of the Bush administration and has been endorsed by the American Library Association, the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, and the American Association of Museums. The Senate passed that compromise bill by unanimous consent on August 1 of this year.

I just want to commend both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) and the staff on both sides of the aisle for all of the work that they have put into this very important piece of legislation.

This legislation before us today funds the Institute of Museum and Library Services, a Federal agency devoted exclusively to museums and libraries which partner with our Nation's schools. It consolidates the Museum and Library Board activities to reduce unnecessary paperwork and duplication and prohibits projects that are determined to be obscene from receiving funding.

In addition, the reauthorization of the Museum and Library Services Act is an important next step in ensuring that the President's education reforms signed into law last year are properly implemented. The bill requires that all library activities are coordinated with activities under the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's landmark education reform legislation.

Let me also thank my good friend and colleague, the ranking Democrat on our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), for his support of this bill as we moved it through committee and as we have gotten agreement with our colleagues in the other body. I think all of the Members on both sides of the aisle under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) have an done an outstanding job in bringing us to this point. I want to congratulate them on their efforts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that I will not use the 5 minutes, but we need to understand that the Davis proposal that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and I have cosponsored is supported by the Mayor and supported by the President of the school board and other members of the city government. It is also overwhelmingly supported by the people of D.C.

But do not take my word for this, because this is really not about the politicians and it is really not about us; it is about poor kids in poor schools who are being denied an education. We hope, we hope that the Mayor and the school board do a great job trying to improve the city schools. But while they are out there working, trying to improve the city's schools, why should we not take the chance, why should we not take the chance of offering 2,000 children a chance to go to a better school? Because in the end, that is what this is about, these kids. And these kids today are going to have no future if we do not stand up and begin to help them.

So I would ask all of my colleagues today, when you vote, think about these children and think about their future. All of their parents want, and what these kids want is the same

things that we want for our children, and if we stand up here today and vote ``no,'' I want you to look into their parents' eyes and say, I am not going to help you, and your children are not going to have the same opportunity as ours. Please vote for Davis.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the lead sponsor on this amendment, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who has worked closely with us to bring some hope to children who today do not have hope.

Eighty percent of the kids in America go to public schools, and we are doing everything we can to help those public schools improve, and we are all hopeful that they do improve. But we also know that the problems in the D.C. schools are severe. In spite of spending over $10,000 per student, we have the worst schools in America. And what this amendment does is to say let us create a scholarship program for 2,000 of them.

This debate today really should not be about the teachers unions. There is

no diversion of public money here. This debate today is about one thing: the plight of poor kids who lost the lucky lottery of life in terms of who their parents were or what household they grew up in or what school that they got assigned to.

How can we continue to turn our heads and look the other way when we know that children's lives are being ruined because they are consistently put in a school that is not performing? I, for one, cannot look the other way anymore.

Let me tell a story that I think illustrates all of this as best I can illustrate it for all of you. I have been long involved with a group here in town called D.C. Parents for School Choice and the Washington Scholarship Fund. Every year the D.C. Parents for School Choice have a picnic somewhere up here on Capitol Hill, and hundreds and hundreds of mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, come to this picnic with their child hoping that their child's name will be drawn out of a hat for a scholarship.

I cannot go to the picnic anymore. I cannot go. Because when I went to the picnic and I looked into the faces of these women with their children, looking for hope, the only hope they were ever going to have for that child was to get a scholarship to be able to go to a school where that kid would have a chance to succeed. These mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers, they were there and they knew that their child, if they did not get that scholarship, the chances for them to succeed were almost nil in these schools.

I sob, and I am doing everything I can not to sob here today. These kids need our help. This is criminal neglect on the part of public policy makers to continue to look the other way when we know that kids are in schools, that they cannot learn, and they are not learning.

I have been in hundreds of schools and so have all of my colleagues. We see these bright young faces in the first and second grade, eager to learn, and then you look around some of these buildings and they have no chance.

Without an education you have no chance at the American dream. These kids need our help. They deserve our help. And when I vote today I will be looking into the face of those mothers, grandmothers and great- grandmothers, and I am not going to disappoint them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act, important legislation that will help close the readiness gap that exists between Head Start children and their more affluent peers.

This rule clears the way for consideration of a consensus agreement reached among Members who believe children in Head Start deserve the very best that our Nation can give them. It clears the way for steps supported by the President that will strengthen the academic components of Head Start, ensure that well-qualified teachers are helping Head Start children get ready for school, and encourage coordination between Head Start and other successful State programs.

These changes are badly needed. Children in Head Start are learning, but

they are not learning as much as they deserve to be learning. There is still a significant school readiness gap between children in Head Start and their peers when they enter kindergarten, and that is simply not acceptable. Children in Head Start deserve the same shot at a good education as every other child in America. These children are capable of achieving the same things, and they deserve that chance and nothing less.

When Head Start was a new program in 1964, it aimed to give disadvantaged children a ``head start'' by allowing them to begin learning earlier than everyone else who started in school in the first grade. Now, most States run their own pre-kindergarten programs and virtually every child attends kindergarten.

Unfortunately, Head Start has not changed with the times. As this chart shows, Head Start's graduates beginning kindergarten are more than 25 percentile points below in average skills like recognizing letters, numbers, shapes, and colors. And when compared to what other children are learning before they start school, disadvantaged children are not getting an even start, much less a head start. Too many children in Head Start are being left behind.

The average child entering kindergarten today is right here, at the 50 percentile, and if we look at the numbers across the bottom of this chart, we can begin to see where Head Start children are in each of these subject areas. We can do better and we must do better.

And it is not because there is a lack of funding. We have almost doubled funding for Head Start since 1995. What is holding Head Start back is that it has become isolated from change and improvement. It has been walled off from other good programs that it should be coordinated with.

Today, States administer the vast majority of programs that provide early childhood care and education. Even programs funded by the Federal Government, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child care and development block grant funds are administered by State governments. Head Start is the only program that lies outside of this network.

If we are going to ensure children in Head Start get the best our Nation can give them, qualified States need more freedom to coordinate Head Start with these programs. There is an agreement on this across the ideological spectrum, from the Brookings Institution to the Heritage Foundation, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, from faith-based organizations to State school leaders.

The rule would allow for consideration of the bill that will strengthen Head Start by addressing this need in up to eight States, so long as those eight States meet tough new rigorous standards. The bill also ensures that Head Start children can benefit from the full talents and compassion of America's faith-based organizations by restoring civil rights protections for such groups and removing barriers that discourage them from participating in the Head Start program.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act established that faith-based organizations have the right to hire workers on a religious basis; for example, a Catholic organization can intentionally hire Catholic individuals under the law. Over the years, though, many Federal programs have trampled on this right, including Head Start. It is just wrong; it is just as wrong to deny any civil right to any other group or individual. If a Catholic group operating Head Start intentionally hires Catholic individuals, that organization should not have to worry that it may be breaking the law.

The rule allows consideration of the measure that would restore this protection to faith-based organizations and ensure that they are full participants in the effort to prepare disadvantaged children for school. The rule allows for consideration of a base bill that will address these pressing needs.

President Clinton signed four different bills during his Presidency that do exactly the same thing that the faith-based provision in this underlying bill does. Yet, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle disagree with that proposal. The rule accommodates their concerns by allowing for an open debate on an amendment that would strike this provision from the bill. It also allows for a substitute offered by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the underlying bill.

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. 2210.