Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ready to Teach Act of 2003, introduced today by Representative Gingrey. The Ready to Teach Act is the first, in what will be a series of bills, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will consider in our continuing efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act.

The No Child Left Behind Act calls for a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, lending new urgency to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act as we seek to ensure that teacher colleges are producing highly qualified graduates. Provisions in the Ready to Teach Act complement the No Child Left Behind Act and will help to improve the quality and accountability of teacher preparation programs to ensure that highly qualified teachers are teaching our children.

As we work to place highly qualified teachers in classrooms across the nation, I am particularly pleased that this legislation allows for innovative programs that provide alternative options to the traditional teacher training programs. Proposals outlined in the bill, such as charter colleges of education, provide a much-needed alternate route to training highly qualified and effective teachers. This bill takes the important step of recognizing that individuals seeking to enter the teaching profession often have varied backgrounds--and by creating flexible approaches that step outside the box, these individuals can become highly qualified teachers through training programs as unique as their individual experiences.

The key to producing highly qualified teachers is not the path by which they travel, but the destination they reach. Teachers trained through innovative options, or certified through alternate means, will still be held to the same standards of accountability and quality, but will not be constrained by artificial requirements that could place barriers between high quality individuals and the classrooms where they are desperately needed.

In addition to innovative options such as alternative training and certification options to prepare highly qualified teachers, the Ready to Teach Act makes several improvements to the programs responsible for training the teachers of tomorrow. The bill authorizes three types of grants, each with a specific and important role to play in the training of America's teachers.

State and partnership grants under the Act must be used to reform teacher preparation

requirements, coordinate with teacher activities under Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act, and ensure that current and future teachers are highly qualified. Authorized grant activities will place a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the highly qualified standard: the use of advanced technology in the classroom, rigorous academic content knowledge, scientifically based research, and challenging state student academic content standards. In particular, states are authorized to use grant funds for innovative methods for teacher preparation programs, such as charter colleges of education, that exchange flexibility in meeting state requirements for institutional commitments to produce results-based outcomes for teacher education graduates--measured based on increased student academic achievement.

The Ready to Teach Act authorizes partnership grants to enable effective partners to join together, combining strengths and resources to train highly qualified teachers and achieve success in the classroom. These partnerships will require faculty of participating teacher preparation programs to serve with a highly qualified teacher in the classroom, allowing effective in-class experience to ensure that highly qualified teachers are truly prepared to teach.

Teacher recruitment grants under the Act will help bring high quality individuals into teacher preparation programs and gives a funding priority for applicants that will emphasize measures to recruit minorities into the teaching profession, providing a teaching workforce that is both highly qualified and diverse.

The Ready to Teach Act will also hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers. While current higher education law contains annual reporting requirements, these reporting measures have proven ineffective in measuring the true quality of teacher preparation programs. In fact, the current requirements have often been manipulated, leaving data skewed and often irrelevant. The Ready to Teach Act includes accountability provisions that will strengthen reporting measures and hold teacher preparation programs accountable for providing accurate and useful information.

This bill makes needed reforms to improve the quality and accountability of our nation's teacher preparation programs. I would like to commend Mr. Gingrey for his work on the Ready to Teach Act. I would also like to thank Mr. McKeon, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, for his continuing efforts to improve all aspects of our country's higher education system. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and believe that this legislation will enjoy broad support in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker I am pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the Gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, on the introduction of the School Readiness Act of 2003, which reauthorizes the Head Start program. This legislation demonstrates a tremendous commitment to strengthening Head Start. It represents a great accomplishment not only for Mr. Castle, but for disadvantaged children and their families from across this nation.

As many of you know, President Bush's biggest domestic priority has consistently been education reform. In his State of the Union address in January 2002 the President outlined his plan (known as the Good Start, Grow Smart initiative) for ensuring that children are prepared to read and succeed in school. This proposal focused on strengthening Head Start, increasing partnerships with States, and providing information to teachers, caregivers and parents. The Bush Administration's proposal laid the foundation for many of the reforms in this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Bush for his leadership on this issue.

I think we all recognize that Head Start is a great program that has helped millions of low-income children access the resources they need in order to help them succeed in school and later in life. I was troubled to learn, however, that while children in Head Start show improvement when compared to other disadvantaged children who are not enrolled in the program those same children are still far behind their more advantaged peers when it comes time to enter school. The School Readiness Act of 2003 will address this ``readiness gap'' in much the same way that the No Child Left Behind Act addressed the ``achievement gap'' between low income and middle class students.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation increases Head Start's emphasis on school readiness allows us to align the goals of Head Start with recent reforms of K-12 education, while continuing to maintain the comprehensive services that are provided by the program. The No Child Left Behind Act made it clear that children should be reading successfully by the end of the 3rd grade. The School Readiness Act of 2003 makes it clear that Head Start should be providing economically disadvantaged children with the opportunity to enter school with the literacy, pre-reading, and pre-math skills that are essential for success in school.

I am also pleased that the School Readiness Act of 2003 focuses on improving teacher quality in Head Start. Research has demonstrated that having a well qualified teacher in the classroom is one of the best predictors of student success. This is why the School Readiness Act of 2003 requires 100 percent of all new Head Start teachers to have at least an Associates Degree in early childhood education or a related field within three years. The legislation also requires 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide to hold at least a Bachelors Degree in early childhood education or a related field by 2008.

In order to provide an incentive for states to continue investing in early childhood education, the School Readiness Act of 2003 also creates a state demonstration project that allows a limited number of states to voluntarily apply for and receive the option of coordinating Head Start programs with their own early childhood education programs, in exchange for an agreement to maintain or expand funding for early childhood education. This state demonstration project would be limited to states with a demonstrated investment in early childhood education and an established, pre-existing preschool system. Participating states would be barred from making funding cuts to early childhood education programs as a condition of their participation. Current Head Start grantees in participating states would be guaranteed funding during the first year of implementation of the demonstration project. In addition, States would be strongly encouraged to continue utilizing current service providers that have demonstrated the capacity to provide high quality Head Start services consistent with State guidelines for school preparedness for children entering kindergarten.

I am confident that this type of state control and collaboration will allow states to increase all-day Head Start classes, better coordinate state pre-school programs with Head Start, and improve the alignment of Head Start instruction with state K-12 standards. These types of reforms will not only improve the school readiness of participating children, but will also allow States that are held accountable for student performance under the No Child Left Behind Act to have the opportunity to do everything possible to ensure that their students succeed.

Once again, I would like to congratulate Mr. Castle on the introduction of this legislation. I look forward to working with him, and other members of the House, as we continue our efforts to strengthen Head Start and ensure that our nation's neediest children are prepared to succeed in school.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1170, the Child Medication

Safety Act, which will prevent school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a medication in order to remain in the classroom.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Georgia, Representative Max Burns, for his leadership in introducing this legislation to address this significant issue. I would also like to thank Lynn Woolsey for her help to improve this legislation. I am please to support this bipartisan legislation and am thankful for their efforts.

We have heard from numerous parents and grandparents that have been coerced or pressured by school districts into placing their child on medication in order for the child to attend school or receive services. I recognize the difficulty that children with attention or behavior problems bring to school, but no one should react by automatically assuming that the child should be on drugs. And certainly an individual without a medical license should not presume to understand the severity of a problem and simply assume that the child would be better off with drugs.

I'm sure that in these situations school personnel think they are doing the child, and the parents, a favor. But they are not. Instead they create new problems, unintended problems, and add to the culture where a pill should magically solve all of the child's problems. Worse, the quick fix of a pill fails to account for the potentially harmful effects of these drugs when not properly administered.

The diagnosis of a disability or emotional or behavioral problem requires the careful examination and discussion with a licensed medical practitioner. This bill protects that dialogue and ensures that parents are not forced to decide between their own preferences and a school official who is acting inappropriately.

I think it is also important to point out that we have provided strong safeguards to protect appropriate communication between the parent and the teacher. Teachers will still be able to share their observations with parents about the child's behavior in the classroom and the school. Teachers and parents will still be able to discuss the child's academic performance. This bill does not stifle appropriate communication.

This bill has the clear and simple goal of preventing school officials from requiring children to be medicated with a controlled substance in order to attend school. This is a goal we can and should all support.

H.R. 1170 is an important bill that will provide security and comfort to both teachers and parents to ensure that our children are protected. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act, which authorizes Federal assistance for programs that serve and protect runaway and homeless youth and missing and exploited children.

H.R. 1925 contains the reauthorization of both the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This legislation strengthens these programs in order to address the unique needs of these at-risk youth. With this bill, we will ensure the protection of runaway and homeless youth, keeping them off the streets and away from dangerous circumstances by providing both emergency shelter programs and long-term supportive assistance. Additionally, we continue to support the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and its efforts to locate and recover missing children and help prevent child abductions and sexual exploitation.

H.R. 1925 reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), and will continue to fund the Basic Center Program, the Transitional Living Program, and the Street Outreach Program. Grants are used to develop or strengthen community-based programs that are not part of the law enforcement, juvenile justice, and child welfare system. The Act has been successful in meeting the needs of runaway and homeless youth and in reuniting these youth with their families. There are, however, some specific improvements in H.R. 1925, including adjusting the funding allocation between the Basic Center Program and the Transitional Living Program to address the increased need for transitional services and enable more communities to serve the long-term needs of runaway and homeless youth. This legislation also clarifies that group homes in the Transitional Living Program may provide parenting youth and their children with a supportive and supervised living arrangement in which the pregnant or parenting youth learn parenting and other skills to promote their long-term economic independence and self-sufficiency in order to ensure the well-being of their children.

The Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act also addresses the needs of missing, abducted, and sexually exploited children by reauthorizing the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This legislation increases the authorization level of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from $10 million to $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008, extending the authorization that was begun in the PROTECT Act, and extends the authorization of the remaining activities under the Act through 2008.

I would like to thank Congressman Gingrey for his leadership as the sponsor of this bill, Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra for his guidance on this bill, as well as Mr. Miller and Mr. Hinojosa for working with us in a bipartisan manner from the very beginning of the process.

This legislation includes provisions worked out by Members on both sides of the aisle, and reauthorizes programs that should be supported by the Congress. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my House colleagues of the past and present and especially those with whom I have served on the House Agriculture Committee, to extend my best wishes to Larry Combest as he embarks on a new direction in life after serving the people of Texas' 19th District with distinction and honor for 18 years.

Over the course of our 12\1/2\ years together on the House Agriculture Committee, I enjoyed the relationship we were able to build and the spirit with which we pursued the best policy for rural America and for America's farmers and ranchers.

There can be no doubt that Larry has been a strong voice in Congress and a consistent advocate for our nation's agriculture community. I congratulate my friend Larry on all of his accomplishments here in Congress and I know that all his friends and House colleagues will sorely miss him.

Mr. Speaker, the telecommunications sector of the economy has taken a real battering. Market caps are a fraction of what they were 2 or 3 years ago. Companies such as Lucent continue to lay off employees and cut back operations. Even the large telephone companies have taken significant hits in the market and laid off thousands.

The Federal Communications Commission had an opportunity to give these companies a boost. In its Triennial Review decision, it could have eliminated some regulations that have stifled investment and created uncertainty.

Unfortunately they did not, and to make matters worse, here we are 3 months later and we still have not seen the FCC's final order. The telecom sector continues to languish under burdensome outdated regulations.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital to our nation's economy that we promote policies that will encourage investment and create jobs and reviving the telecom sector is an important part of rejuvenating the nation's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 870) to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to extend the availability of funds to carry out the fruit and vegetable pilot program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 870.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 870, a bill to extend the period of time for which participating schools may provide free, fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables to children in schools. This pilot program, which was authorized as part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, provides fruits and vegetables to children in an effort to increase their consumption of these healthful foods.

I am proud that Ohio was selected to be one of the four States participating in this pilot program and that two of these schools are in Ohio's 8th district, which I represent, Nevin Coppock Elementary School in Tipp City, Ohio, and Stebbins High School in Riverside, Ohio.

On April 10, the other body passed S. 870, which allows additional time for the current funds to be expended. It does not authorize new money to be spent on the pilot. S. 870 enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the other body and is supported in the House on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, a recent evaluation of the fruit and vegetable pilot program by the United States Department of Agriculture says that this pilot was popular amongst parents, teachers, and students, and successfully increased children's interest in making fruits and vegetables a regular part of their diet. Now, this is an encouraging finding at a time when rates of overweight and obesity amongst children are at an all-time high and that these rates are continuing to rise steadily without any sign of a reverse in this troubling trend.

Growing scientific evidence demonstrates a strong link between nutrients found in fruits and vegetables and the reduced risk of several chronic diseases, including cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and others. According to the Office of the Surgeon General, diet-related diseases cost this country approximately $117 billion each year, and several other estimates are even larger.

Nutrition experts strongly encourage Americans to consume a variety of fruits and vegetables on a daily basis, yet data from the national nutrition and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that only one in four Americans, about 24 percent, eat five or more fruits and vegetables a day, and children tend to eat less fruits and vegetables than adults. This evidence makes clear the importance of our efforts to encourage children to develop an interest in fruits and vegetables at a young age.

Today, I am pleased with the strong level of bipartisan support received by this pilot program and urge my colleagues to support S. 870 to extend this pilot into the next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 230, I call up the bill (H.R. 1000) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional protections to participants and beneficiaries in individual account plans from excessive investment in employer securities and to promote the provision of retirement investment advice to workers managing their retirement income assets, 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. 1000.

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

Mr. Speaker, last year the Congress responded to the Enron and Global Crossing financial collapses by passing bipartisan legislation to strengthen worker retirement security and enhance corporate responsibility. And thanks largely to the work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and a bipartisan team of legislators, President Bush signed into law corporate accountability legislation that holds companies to the highest standards of auditor independence and ethics for America's investors.

But on the issue of pension security, as the chart shows, we have got some unfinished business yet to complete. Last year the House responded quickly to these corporate failures by passing the Pension Security Act, the comprehensive pension protection bill backed by President Bush that would give millions of Americans new tools to help them better manage and expand their retirement security. We passed the bill with significant bipartisan support, with 46 Democrats joining 209 Republicans in supporting the bill. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on any pension reform legislation last year.

Before I talk about the protections included in the bill, I am proud to say that two key Pension Security Act provisions were signed into law last summer as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability law. These provisions bar company insiders from selling their own stock during blackout periods when workers cannot make changes to their own accounts and to require companies to give 30 days' advanced notice before a blackout period would begin.

These provisions give workers parity with corporate executives and should provide workers with additional security of knowing that Congress is acting to better protect them. But we have more work to do.

Let us be very clear. Worker retirement savings remain vulnerable to corporate meltdowns today, and it should not take another Enron or WorldCom for Congress to act on bipartisan pension protections. That is why we are here today. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and I introduced the Pension Protection Act because workers desperately need access to professional investment advice and the ability to diversify their 401(k) savings and other safeguards to help them enhance their retirement security, as this chart shows us.

Enron barred workers from selling company stock until age 50; and as a result, thousands of Enron employees watched helplessly as their retirement savings were lost. The Pension Security Act gives workers new freedoms to sell their company stock within 3 years. This is a dramatic change that gives workers unprecedented control over their retirement accounts and personal savings.

Today, the vast majority of American workers receive no investment advice on how best to structure their 401(k) retirement plans, and most cannot afford to pay for it on their own, like company executives can. Not surprisingly, Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and others did not provide their workers with access to professional investment advice. This type of investment guidance would have alerted these workers to the need to diversify their accounts and enabled many of them to have preserved their retirement savings.

An Enron executive acknowledged before our committee that she diversified out of Enron stock before it collapsed and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why are we denying rank-and-file employees the same opportunity to receive access to high-quality investment advice? And the answer to that is quite obvious. We should not be.

The Pension Security Act changes outdated Federal rules and encourages employers to provide their workers with access to this type of advice. With the 30-day blackout protection now the law of the land, investment advice becomes even more critical for employees who cannot make changes to their 401(k) accounts during a company-imposed blackout period. Importantly, the bill includes new fiduciary and disclosure protections to ensure that workers receive quality advice that is solely in their best interests. The average investor will have much more protection under our bill than under current law.

The bill also requires companies to give workers quarterly benefits statements that include information about accounts, including the value of their assets, their right to diversify, and the importance of maintaining a diverse portfolio. And lastly, the bill empowers workers to hold company insiders accountable for abuses by clarifying that companies are responsible for workers' savings during blackout periods.

Congress should take action to protect Americans' retirement benefits, not endanger them. On a bipartisan basis, Congress has rejected extreme proposals, such as efforts to place arbitrary caps on company stock, that could jeopardize Americans' retirement security or spell the death of 401(k) accounts altogether. The bill before us is a balanced one that protects workers, but does not jeopardize the willingness of employers to offer retirement plans to their employees.

American workers deserve the security of knowing that their savings will be there when they retire. This bill could have made a real difference for the workers at WorldCom or Global Crossing or Enron. Current pension laws are simply outdated, and we have a responsibility to change that.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), my colleague and friend, who has once again

proven instrumental in moving this issue forward here in the House, and I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) on the Committee on Ways and Means for their cooperation in helping us bring this bill to the floor today.

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

House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the

Workforce,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2003.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you for your May 6, 2003 letter

regarding H.R. 1000, the ``Pension Security Act of 2003,''

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the

Workforce and in addition the Committee on Ways and Means.

The Education and the Workforce Committee ordered the bill

favorably reported on March 6, 2003 and I filed the report on

March 18, 2003, House Report 108-43. I thank you for working

with me, specifically regarding the provisions amending the

Internal Revenue Code. While these provisions are within the

sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I

appreciate your willingness to work with me in moving H.R.

1000 forward without the need for additional legislative

consideration by your Committee.

I agree that this procedural route should not be construed

to prejudice the jurisdictional interest and prerogatives of

the Committee on Ways and Means on these provisions or any

other similar legislation and will not be considered as

precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional

interest to your Committee in the future.

I thank you for working with me regarding this matter and

look forward to continuing our work and cooperation on this

bill and similar legislation. This letter and your response

will be included in the Congressional Record during the floor

consideration of this bill. If you have questions regarding

this matter, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

John Boehner,

Chairman.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

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

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

There has been a lot said today about the fact that this bill may not go far enough, and the substitute that we are about to debate in the coming hours goes much, much further.

The issue here that Members need to understand is that our pension system is a voluntary system on behalf of employers for their employees. And while we will have much more debate on this when we get into the substitute, we walk a very fine line when we bring pension issues to this floor.

The retirement security for American workers in most cases is one of their largest assets. It has to be treated with great respect. And all of us who have served in a legislative body, and especially here in Congress, know that we always have to deal with the law of unintended consequences. If we make one mistake, we could cost millions of Americans the right to their own retirement. So we have to be very careful.

That is why, if we look at the bill that we have before us, we make modest reforms to correct problems that we found in the wake of Enron and WorldCom, and others. We do not do a wholesale overhaul of our pension security laws, because, in honesty, it is not needed.

Now, the most substantive part of this bill would allow employers to offer to their employees real investment advice. We have over 60 million Americans who have self-directed accounts today, and most of whom have no access to real investment advice. The substitute that we are about to consider, given all of the rules they have around advice, will mean exactly what we see in the marketplace today: no advice.

Yes, we do allow those who sell products to offer advice. We do require them to provide notice to the employees of potential conflicts. We hold them to the highest fiduciary duty. If there is any difference in fees, they have to let the employee know. But our goal here is to get real investment advice into the hands of everyday, working people who want and need this advice, and they need it now. With these new self-directed accounts, if they are going to really have the kind of retirement security that they expect and that we want, they need real investment advice.

Current law, written in 1974, before the birth of the current financial services firms, barred those who sell product from giving advice. Now, if you are not in a retirement plan, and you are going to spend your money, you can get all the advice you want from all of the people in the world who sell products. But, oh, no, we cannot do that if you are in a qualified retirement plan. That is wrong. We should not lock out those firms that are the most successful firms in the country from offering their advice and their expertise to American workers. Workers do not have to take it.

Secondly, in the bill we have an above-the-line tax deduction for employees in order to go out and seek their own investment advice if they do not want what the employer offers.

Now, I think between both of these issues employees need to have options to go get the kind of advice that will benefit their own retirement security. The underlying bill is a very good bill. It had passed this House with broad bipartisan support about a year ago, and I expect that it will have broad bipartisan support today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have before us a pension security bill that passed the House last year with broad bipartisan support. That is the underlying bill, with two exceptions, two issues that were contained in last year's Sarbanes-Oxley bill, the 30-day notice of a blackout period and the prohibition on company insiders selling stock during a blackout period. Those issues have been signed into law. But the balance of that bill is what we have before us today. It is a reasonable and responsible approach to address the problems that were identified during our investigation of Enron, WorldCom and others. More specifically and more importantly, it does not overreach and begin to delve into areas where there are likely to be very serious unintended consequences.

The substitute that is being offered by my friends on the other side is well-meaning, well-intentioned, and we have worked closely on these issues for many years, but the fact is that if Members look at the substitute that we have before us, it will cause serious concern in the employer community, and I would suggest many employees across the country will no longer have pensions because of the onerous regulations and excessive litigation that would result if the substitute that is offered were, in fact, adopted and signed into law.

Specifically, it does, in fact, increase liability for employers under ERISA, new rights to sue, additional penalties that I think are unnecessary. The current protections within ERISA provide a solid framework for addressing grievances from employees.

Secondly, it would require every plan fiduciary to have insurance to meet whatever the size of the pension plan is. It would be expensive, costly, and would create a situation where no one will want to serve as the fiduciary; and if, in fact, they can find someone, the cost of providing the insurance will drive up the cost of providing pensions.

We have worked for years in this body to try to make it easier for businesses to set up pensions. We have tried to encourage businesses to cover more employees with pensions. The last thing we want to do is to dump cold water on this movement by again increasing cost and increasing regulation. We could talk about the regulatory bombardment in here when it comes to company insiders selling stock, regardless of what the reason is. Under this bill they would have to report it within 1 day. Employees would be getting these notices on an ongoing basis, and to what purpose? I do not know.

But, more importantly, the substitute tries to regulate corporate salaries and corporate governance issues, but through the pension system. The Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill last year that dealt with large corporate governance issues. Most all Members of this body on both sides of the aisle supported it. It was a very good bill. One could argue it might be overreaching in some areas, but by and large addressing the serious issues that were uncovered during Enron and WorldCom. I do not think that we need to readdress corporate governance issues and executive pay issues in a pension bill.

But most importantly, the substitute that we have before us guts the serious investment advice language that we have in the underlying bill. We have heard a lot today about the need for investment advice for the 61, 62 million Americans who have self-directed accounts who have been so protected by this law passed in 1974 that their ability to get investment advice is almost nil. As I have said before, the only place they can really get investment advice is from Bob at the coffee shop. What we seek to do in the underlying bill is to provide a framework and safeguards for them to get investment advice from the real experts in the industry. If they do not want to take employer-provided investment advice, the Committee on Ways and Means as part of this bill provides a tax deduction, an above-the-line tax deduction for them to go out and get their own investment advice. But I think all of us agree that having real investment advice in the marketplace for those with self- directed accounts has to happen, and the sooner it happens, the better.

But under the bill that we have before us, it says you can only get third-party independent investment advice. There is no reason to even have it in the bill because that is what you can get today. And you do not get real investment advice because, one, employees do not want to have to pay for it; and, secondly, the so-called independent advice that is out there today is generic, very generic, whatever your

age is, whatever your income is, whatever the assets in your plan are.

I would suggest to my colleagues that if we are serious about having real investment advice in the marketplace today for America's employees, that this will not get there. I would ask my colleagues and urge them to look at the substitute and vote against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Sacramento, California (Mr. Ose).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot that has been said here today about the need for pension reform. Certainly, in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals and the collapse of the stock market, Congress had a duty and a responsibility to look at our pension system, and we did. That was over a year ago. Out of that we learned that there were some deficiencies in our current pension system, such as the fact that company insiders could sell the company stock during a blackout period, while employees could not sell stock in their 401(k) plan. That has been fixed and signed into law. We found that there was no notice of a potential blackout period, not enough notice to employees of these blackout periods. Again, that has been fixed, both issues signed into law in the Sarbanes-Oxley bill.

But there are other issues out there that need to be addressed, and I think the underlying bill addresses them in a fair and expansive way. With all due respect to my friends on the other side, the substitute that we have before us is nothing more than overkill.

Now, if we are worried about people's pensions in America, then people who have pensions in America ought to be really worried about the substitute that we have before us, because if the substitute were to become law, virtually no employer in America could offer their employees pensions. And that is not an exaggeration at all.

Pension plans are voluntary plans offered by employers to their employees, and the fact that they are voluntary means that we have to walk a delicate line. All one has to do is look at the regulatory impact, the legislative impact, well-meaning, well-intentioned during the 1980s that Congress and the agencies imposed on defined benefit plans. We nearly are making them extinct because of the cost, the litigation, and the regulatory nightmare that is involved with offering a traditional defined benefit plan. That is why we see this huge conversion from defined benefit plans, the traditional plan, to defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans. And nothing that we do here today, in my view, is going to slow that conversion down.

And for many of us who are concerned about defined benefit plans, the traditional benefit plans, we ought not take up the issue that is contained in the substitute that would defy the conversion to a cash balance plan. A cash balance pension plan is a defined benefit plan. Those employers and those employees are covered under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. They pay premiums to the employer, and the employee's pension is protected, and the cash balance plan is protected there. And there has been no convergence of these over the last 2 years, as there is a moratorium in effect as the Treasury Department and others try to determine what the appropriate rules should be for conversions.

Well, let us be honest. There have been over 500 conversions over the last 15 years. In virtually every single one of them, the employer made every employee whole. And it is almost impossible to find a case where an employer did not keep an employee whole. And, as we have heard before from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson), 80 percent of workers do better under cash balance plans than under traditional plans. Let us not forget, under a traditional plan, if you are a younger worker and you leave, you take nothing with you, zero. Under a cash balance plan, if you are a younger worker and you change jobs, you can take the net benefits that you have got vested and move them just like you can with a 401(k) account.

So we can sit here and castigate one or two examples of companies who tried to do it the wrong way, who fixed it, but let us not castigate the other 500 plus employers across the country who made these conversions and did them successfully, working with their employees.

When it is all said and done, Mr. Speaker, we want to encourage more employers to cover more of their employees with pension plans. We will not accomplish that goal, and that is a bipartisan goal, if we overregulate and drive up the cost of operating these plans. The substitute offered by my friends across the aisle will do just that. It is overkill. It should be defeated, and we should pass the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the Members.

We all know that pension plans are voluntarily offered by employers to their employees. For those of us that have worked in the pension area for some time, we know that we have to walk a very delicate line in terms of the regulations that we put around these plans so that we do not drive employers and their employees out of the system.

We spend a lot of time on a bipartisan basis here trying to find ways to encourage more companies to offer plans to their employees. Most of those plans today would be defined contribution plans, like 401(k) plans.

The traditional defined benefit plan that we would have and all Federal employees would have is in serious trouble in America today. In 1986, we had

176,000 defined benefit plans in America. Today, we have less than 50,000, and the conversion from traditional pension plans to 401(k)- type plans is going to continue. Why? We have so overregulated and driven up the cost of offering defined benefit plans that these conversions continue.

The whole issue of cash balance plans boils down to this: Cash balance plans are a way to save defined benefit plans. Cash balance plans are those where employers pay premiums into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Employees who have cash balance plans are protected by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. So for those of us who have tried to find ways to help save the traditional defined benefit plan, the cash balance conversions are a way to save them.

There have been over 500 conversions over the last 15 years. Virtually every single one of them have been successful, where employers have found ways to make sure that all employees are made whole. But do not be misunderstood. Eighty percent of employees benefit greater under a cash balance plan than they would under a defined benefit plan, and for younger workers who change jobs under a defined benefit plan, a traditional plan, they do not get to move anything with them, zero, but if they are vested in their cash balance plan, they can move that, and it is much more portable than a traditional plan.

What the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) seeks to do is to require employers to offer two plans, the traditional plan and the cash balance plan. What this means is that the employer has to continue offering both plans, which will mean we will not have conversions, and if we do not have conversions, here is what will happen: The defined benefit plans will continue to be scrapped. Let us watch when the market begins to recover and the plans are healthier, companies will eliminate their defined benefit plan and move to a defined contribution plan, like a 401(k) plan. I do not think that is what most employees in America want.

I would ask all of my colleagues, because on a bipartisan basis we have worked to make sure that these cash balance plans worked, and they worked fairly, my colleagues should also know there have been no conversions the last 2 years, and that is because there is a moratorium in effect. The Treasury Department had regulations out for comment. They got lots of comments. They withdrew them. They are continuing to work to find the right set of regulations to regulate these conversions to cash balance plans. Let us let them do the technical work.

For Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked on these pension issues in a bipartisan way, we understand that these conversions will help save these plans. The underlying bill passed this House with 209 Republican votes and 46 Democrat votes a year ago. The underlying bill is a good bill that would help protect the pensions of American workers. Let us stand up for American workers today.

Defeat the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the reauthorization of the Workforce Reinvestment Act and we will get into a broader debate about that once we pass this very fair rule that we have before us. But as we can see, the debate is coming down over an issue of whether faith-based organizations can maintain, maintain their Title VII religious exemption.

When we wrote the civil rights laws in this Congress back in the 1960s, we made it clear that religious organizations could, in fact, discriminate in hiring for their church and church-related services, and the only thing that we do in this bill is to allow those organizations to continue to be faith-based organizations. They can provide services in terms of providing job training or retraining, and they can maintain, they can maintain their Title VII exemption.

Now, we are hearing all of this noise about this is the first time and this is such an abridgement. Let me just point out for my colleagues that there are a number of programs that allow organizations to accept Federal dollars and to maintain their religious identity. They are the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Title V of the abstinence education grants, Older Americans Act, the job opportunities for low-income individuals, abandoned infants grants, child abuse and neglect discretionary grants, runaway and homeless youth basic center programs, religious organizations can take Federal money and keep their Title VII exemptions which allow them to hire whom they want to hire within their organizations.

Now, if this is not enough, how about the four bills that President Bill Clinton signed into law that allow these same organizations to take Federal dollars and continue to maintain their Title VII exemption. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act, the Community Services Block Grant Act, the Personal Responsibility of Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act all allow organizations to take Federal money and to maintain their Title VII exemption.

Now, this is a debate that has been going on in this Congress over the last several years since President Bush made the case that faith- based organizations, which are integral in many of our inner city communities, that we ought to allow these organizations to provide services. And the big debate that we have here is that people want to say, well, yes, we want them to provide services, but if they take one Federal dollar in providing their services, they ought to give up all of their civil rights protections. Hogwash. These organizations are doing wonderful things in many communities in America and we should not deny them the civil rights protections that were granted to them in 1965 just because they take a Federal dollar in the pursuit of their mission of trying to help people in their own communities.

So I would ask my colleagues and urge my colleagues to support the rule today and support this bill and to support allowing faith-based organizations to do the job they are doing in many of our communities.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Congress in 1965 when they wrote the civil rights laws decided to allow these organizations to maintain their right to hire whom they please. All we are trying to do with this bill today is to allow that to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1261.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we stand here today, hundreds of thousands of Americans are searching for good, stable new jobs. The unemployment rate in April rose to 6 percent. As the economy works toward recovery, hundreds of thousands of Americans are searching for jobs and careers that can help them ensure security and safety for their families. The President has made it clear that we need more jobs and we need a stronger economy. The backbone of economic growth is a strong workforce. As we move towards enacting the President's jobs and growth initiative this week, we also have a chance to strengthen job training opportunities for American workers.

The legislation before us is H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. The bill would reauthorize and strengthen the Workforce Investment Act, or WIA, major legislation passed 5 years ago that provided important reforms to Federal job training programs. Prior to 1998, the Nation's job training system was a mess. It was fragmented, contained overlapping programs, and did not serve anyone very well, job seekers or employers. WIA consolidated employment and training services at the local level and produced a more unified workforce development system.

WIA provides funding for States and local communities to establish one-stop shops for workers seeking new jobs and new careers. Through the WIA system, job seekers now have access to labor market information, job counseling and job training to help them get back on their feet. WIA has generally worked well, but it could work even better. Duplication and confusion are keeping the WIA system from reaching its true potential for American workers. Duplication of services under the current law results in significant resources being squandered, resources that could be used to help those in need at a time when they need the help most. Overlap in training programs under the current WIA law has contributed to the growth of a confusing patchwork at the State and local level. Governors and State and local officials need the flexibility to target these resources toward the unique needs of the men and women in their communities.

The legislation before us would give our Nation's Governors and communities new tools to meet the unique needs of these people that they serve. It would streamline the bureaucracy to give workers better access to WIA benefits. Congress has an obligation this year to improve worker access to these WIA benefits and provide Americans with an even stronger job training system at a time when it is needed most.

State and local communities should be given greater flexibility to tailor their WIA systems to their own unique

needs. Currently, the WIA adult, WIA dislocated worker, and Wagner- Peyser funding streams serve very similar populations. Combining these funding streams into a single grant, as proposed in this bill, would result in more effectiveness at the State and local level and significantly greater efficiency for workers searching for new jobs and new careers. It would also give States and local authorities greater flexibility to integrate WIA with their welfare-to-work programs. The bill also strengthens adult education by focusing on core skills such as reading and math. Workers need these building blocks to thrive in a knowledge-driven economy.

Lastly, I would note that the bill allows faith-based institutions to be included in the Federal worker relief system.

Faith-based institutions have a proven track record of helping people find jobs, but they are essentially barred from the current WIA system simply because they have religious identities, and this is unfortunate and unnecessary because under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as amended in 1972, faith-based organizations are already explicitly allowed to hire on a religious basis. These outdated barriers should be removed to ensure that every available resource is being committed in the effort to help Americans find jobs.

The bill before us simply reiterates the existing exemption that religious organizations have had for more than three decades under the civil rights laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as amended in 1972 reads as follows: ``(These requirements) shall not apply . . . to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.''

This portion of the Civil Rights Act, which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, explicitly allows faith-based organizations to hire on a religious basis and any Federal legislation governing Federal social service funds should continue to protect the rights of religious organizations to do so. The measure before us simply applies the same standard to the Workforce Investment Act so that every available resource is being tapped to help Americans find jobs. If we do not make this change, we are essentially telling out-of-work Americans that they deserve something less than 100 percent of our support.

I think that would be a horrible message to send. Workers and families are the backbone of our economy. The backbone of economic growth is a strong workforce. Congress has an obligation to improve worker access to the benefits that the Workforce Investment Act offers and to provide Americans with an even stronger job-training system again when it is needed most.

Passing this bill will send another clear message to the American people that we are taking action on jobs and the economy. And again I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his excellent work in bringing this bill to the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the father of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on each side?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another alumni of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

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

Let me again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and all the Members who have helped to work to put this bill together.

I want to congratulate the members of our staff, Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, Stephanie Milburn, Melanie Looney, Travis McCoy, Elisabeth Wheel, and James Bergeron of the gentleman from California's (Mr. McKeon)

staff. They have done a great job in helping us bring this bill here today.

Though the legislation is important for us as legislators, we have a chance today to provide out of work Americans with more than just a temporary fix. We can provide them with the tools they need to get and keep a job.

Some of my colleagues have talked about the need to extend unemployment insurance. Indeed, providing unemployed workers with assistance while they are out of a job is critically important, and that is why we supported and continue to support appropriate extensions of unemployment insurance.

However, the legislation before us today is an opportunity to provide job seekers with what they really need to get back on their feet. We can provide them with the tools, the training and the resources that will help them find meaningful and permanent employment. As the old cliche goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. You teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. The reason that we all know this cliche is because it happens to be true.

We have an opportunity to provide unemployed Americans with access to job training and skills that they need to provide permanent security for themselves and their families. H.R. 1261 addresses the real hardships that unemployed Americans are facing by strengthening programs and targeting most of the needed help by expanding the number of providers that can serve job seekers.

The legislation before us today happens to receive strong support from the States that are administering the programs, the local workforce boards who are directly providing these services to job seekers and the businesses who actually hire the workers. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has pointed out, ``As economic growth accelerates, the need for skilled workers will only increase. The Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act provides increased flexibility and strives to create programs that are responsive to businesses' needs now and in the future.''

The backbone of a strong economy is a well-developed workforce, and providing job seekers with the skills and training they need to thrive will strengthen our economy and they are also needed to help us spur economic growth.

So I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and we look forward to entertaining the number of amendments that have been made in order.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me clarify some of the remarks that my good friend from Wisconsin was making during his presentation.

Right now we have taken the 63 Federal job training-retraining programs back in the late 1990s and ran them into three funding streams to the States. What we propose to do in this bill is to reduce that to one funding stream. This idea of we are block granting this to the States and giving full discretion to the governor is just not true.

Under the bill, we require that half of the funds go directly to the local boards. Of the half that stays at the State, the State must use 50 percent of that money to assist and provide services to local boards.

So when we begin to look at how this program will be enhanced, at least 75 percent of the money will be spent by our local boards. The other 25 percent is given to the governors based on their need to react to unemployment problems, sudden unemployment problems somewhere else in the State where additional assistance may be needed.

In the bill we also provide much more local control by our local boards. Our vision when we started this was to give local businesses and local community leaders the ability to control what happens in terms of how these monies are spent and the types of services that are provided. I do believe that it is going to result in not only better services, but better outcomes for our workers.

Let me make one other point that has been referred to several times where we eliminate the funding in this bill for in-school youth activities. There are a tremendous number of programs already designed to deal with in-school youth who could possibly be in danger or risk of dropping out. We should focus the limited youth resources we have in this bill to out-of-school youth or in-school youth outside of school time because there is not as much money as we would like to spend in these programs. There are sufficient programs for in-school youth during the school day.

We are trying to better target our resources to get better results for those at-risk students who may in fact be thinking of dropping out of school.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) makes a valuable contribution to the bill. I believe Members ought to support the amendment, and we would be happy to include it.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Vitter amendment, but let me just clarify for Members what we are doing here in the reauthorization of WIA.

This is nothing more than a fine-tuning effort, further streamlining the funding stream, further clarifying that we expect the local boards to get most of the money to provide the resources, and to give the local boards the flexibility to provide high quality services to men and women in their communities who have needs.

I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) says we need to consider what the needs are in the local communities and is in fact a valuable contribution. But no one should believe that we are doing a complete overhaul of the Workforce Reinvestment Act. These one-stop shops around the country by and large have begun to work very well.

What we are trying to do here in this reauthorization is to make those changes to help the one-stops do a more effective job in their local communities, and to provide the governors and the local boards with the kind of flexibility they need to look at the broad needs of the workforce, whether it is training, retraining, preparing people for better jobs in their communities.

We believe that the underlying bill does in fact make this much more likely because services will be offered more efficiently, the use of the resources will be more efficient. Thus, we believe that the outcomes, the results of all of this, will give us better services and better outcomes at home.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague and new member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), for his important contribution. Many of us believe that the language was sufficient in the bill, but clearly there were questions raised about how the determination was going to be made over how much each of the participating partners were going to contribute to the infrastructure. The amendment that is offered here does in fact make it clear to the Governors that there is a proportionate share that each of these groups will contribute.

Why is this necessary? Unfortunately in some parts of the country, some groups just decided they were not going to be participating partners. Our goal here is to have one-stops where all of the providers of services are there. We are talking about providers of services that are funded by the Federal Government. They need to be participating. What we do here is to make sure that they have a financial commitment to the well-being of these one-stops as well.

The gentleman from Michigan makes a point that not all of these mandatory partners have administrative funds. Most of them do. Their participation in the funding of the infrastructure would come from their own administrative funds. But the one point that he did bring up was the veterans programs. They have administrative funds and it is done by regulatory process as opposed to being outlined in statute. And so we believe that because each of these groups has administrative funds by some means, the Governors and the statewide WIA board would take that into consideration in terms of what the proportionate share of costs should be for each of these groups. I do think the gentleman from Minnesota makes an important contribution, helps clarify the bill, and we should support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate my friend and colleague from Georgia for his amendment and make it clear that I support his amendment.

The amendment ensures that States and local areas have flexibility in creating their own out-of-school youth program. For instance, a State may find it beneficial to allow youth who begin participating in an out-of-school youth program to continue in the program beyond the 21st birthday in order to complete the program. Often 22-, 23- and 24-year- olds have many of the same basic educational and job training needs as youth under the age of 21.

And I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) aligns the eligibility age with other programs serving youth, including JobCorps and Youth Build, and this will allow greater coordination amongst programs serving youth and could ease the transition for these youth into employment and self-sufficiency programs. So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Under the bill 80 percent of the funds are, under formula, to go to the local boards. This would bring that to 85 percent. I do think it gives the local boards more certainty over exactly the kind of funding that they should expect from year to year, would reduce the amount of dislocation or expectation as to what is coming in. I think he makes a valuable contribution, and we would be pleased to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman does make an important contribution to the bill and clarifies that these out-of-work homemakers and single mothers do in fact play a role and do need services and should in fact be considered in a higher level as funds are being distributed to the local boards, and I ask Members to support the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me ask my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from Ohio's amendment. I think for those States that do not provide the technical assistance to the local boards, they need that help, especially in terms of the financial integrity of the funds that they are dealing with. I do believe that the Department is in a position to do that. I would obviously think the sharing of best practices, that forum needs to occur, and somewhere at the Department of Labor is the most likely place for it to occur.

I should note with regard to the other amendment that the gentlewoman had offered that was not made in order under the rule dealing with the financial integrity of the monies that move from here to the States, that we do clarify the issue of obligations versus expenditures, which we think is an important step in ensuring that there is a clear picture of what the drawdown numbers are, which today I do not think is as clear as it could be.

We will continue to work with the gentlewoman as we get into conference at some point with the Senate in terms of ensuring that these Federal funds are used for their intended purpose.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is about helping job seekers find meaningful employment. And we know the one-stop shops have worked. And the underlying bill seeks to fine-tune that process, to make it more effective in helping more people find and keep meaningful employment.

Now, the motion to recommit is about the issue of unemployment insurance, something that is not in the purview of our committee. Now, Members in this House on both sides of the aisle have worked together to extends unemployment benefits on a regular basis, and I have full confidence that we will continue to do that if the need persists.

We are going to continue to meet our commitment and our resolve in this Congress to help those who are in fact unemployed. But let me just point out that if anyone thinks that the motion to recommit is going to result in one unemployed worker getting one additional dollar this year, they are wrong. This does not extend unemployment insurance through the unemployment insurance system. It would take the money and send it to the local one-stops, who have no system for distributing unemployment, and require them to distribute the money.

I will guarantee you there is not one dime that would flow to one unemployed worker within 2 years under this mechanism that was set up within the rules of the House in order to try to get this issue on the table today.

And if there is something that is even worse than that, in the motion to recommit it refers it back to the committee and we are promptly to deal with it. For those of you who are not that familiar with the nuance, that means the bill is dead forever.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1261, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time and for his great work working with myself and the members of our committee and others to help craft the bill that we have before us today.

Let me also thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for their consideration of what I think is a very fair rule for Members on both sides of the political aisle. There is great opportunity for Members to offer amendments.

Let me also thank my good friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Education Reform, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for the tremendous work that he did, and the members of our committee and our staff, by the way, for all of their hard work in getting us here today.

I will have a lot more to say about the bill when we actually get into the bill, but we are on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation this morning about the issue of mandatory spending versus full funding. I just want to say that the amendments that were offered that were not made in order with regard to mandatory spending were not made in order because they violated the rules of the House. You cannot bring a mandatory funding amendment here without getting a waiver of the Budget Act. The fact is that neither of these amendments were crafted in such a way that they did not violate the rules of the House. That is why they were not made in order.

Let me also say that mandatory funding for this program is the wrong way to fund the program. We would not be here today making the improvements in this bill to help children with special needs and to help our teachers, principals, school board members and superintendents if it had not been for the fact that we have this bill on a 5-year reauthorization track. It forces the Congress to step back and look at this Act and to determine, is it working the way we intended it? Are there better ways to achieve our objective?

I would suggest to all of my colleagues that if it had been under mandatory spending, we know what happens with those programs; they get put on automatic pilot and are very seldom looked at. That is not in the best interests of special needs children, and it is not in the best interests of our schools.

Let me also say what my colleague from California pointed to. The first 20 years of this Act Congress never really stepped up to the plate. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge. Even in 1993 and 1994, when they had control of the House and Senate and the White House, there was no move made to make this a mandatory funding program. So why do we hear about it now?

I would just suggest to my colleagues we do two things here in this town; we do public policy and we do politics. We would like to get the politics out of it, but it is kind of hard to take politics out of politics. But when we hear all of the discussion about mandatory funding, trust me, it is nothing more than politics.

Since 1996, all you have to do is look at the chart next to me and see the dramatic increases in funding. 1997, a 33.7 percent increase in IDEA spending. In 1998, a 22.3 percent increase in spending; then we raised it another 13.2 percent in 1999; how about the year 2000, 16 percent more on top of that; the year 2001, a 27.1 percent increase; or how about 2002, an 18.8 percent increase; or how about this year, 2003, a 17.8 percent increase.

All of these are built on top of the previous increases. And in the budget resolution that we adopted just several weeks ago we called for a 24.8 percent increase in IDEA spending.

For someone to suggest that we are not doing our job, we are not trying to meet our responsibilities, I think, misses the point entirely. In this bill that is before us, we have a glidepath to get from the 20 percent of funding, in round figures, 21 percent at the end of this year, to 40 percent. I think that is a reasonable approach, it is the right way to go, and none of us, none of us, should hang our heads when it comes to the question of whether we are meeting our obligations to fully fund IDEA.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have a chance today to consider the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act, H.R. 1350, legislation that will strengthen our Nation's education law for children with special needs.

I am very grateful for the work of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on this important legislation, and for all of the hard work all of our committee members have put into this project over the last 18 months.

I also want to thank the ranking member and my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for his work during this process. While we are not in complete agreement with the bill that we have before us today, his efforts have been extraordinary and very helpful.

The issues addressed in this bill are important ones for our constituents. I hear more comments from Members about IDEA than I do about any other Federal education program. Today is a chance to do something that will make a real difference in our schools.

The bill that we have before us today is an important bill for our children and our schools. It is the next major step in education reform and the next step in the process of ensuring that Washington no longer spends billions of dollars a year on education programs without insisting on results for our children.

This bill is important as an opportunity for us as legislators. The reforms in H.R. 1350 are strongly supported by teachers, school administrators, principals, and other educators, those who have been asked to do the most under the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. This bill gives teachers and school leaders better tools to meet the high standards in No Child Left Behind, and they support it.

When Republicans and Democrats came together some 16 months ago to pass No Child Left Behind, we vowed to bring a generation of failed Federal education policy to an end. We acknowledged that money alone has failed to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. We declared that Washington would no longer pump billions of dollars a year into education without insisting on results for the children those dollars are supposed to serve.

No Child Left Behind was the beginning of this process, not the end of it. The No Child Left Behind law requires that every child in America be given the chance to learn and succeed, including children with special needs. When we passed the law, we promised we would follow up by giving teachers and educators the tools they need to meet these high standards.

We promised that we would revise laws like IDEA to ensure that the focus is on results being produced for our children, rather than on compliance with complicated rules and paperwork. We said that these things we could finally do, now that an accountability system was in place to ensure that parents know when their children are learning.

Mr. Chairman, we are here today to make good on that commitment. The measure before us provides powerful reforms requested for years by teachers, principals, local educators, the people on the front lines of education in our

country. The American Association of School Administrators, which represents some 14,000 educational leaders nationwide, calls H.R. 1350 ``the best special education policy revisions we have seen in decades.''

The legislation aligns IDEA with No Child Left Behind and gives our school districts greater flexibility in reviewing the progress of a child by replacing benchmarks and short-term objectives with regular reporting requirements that are contained in No Child Left Behind.

The bill before us reduces the paperwork burden on teachers. Good special education teachers are leaving the profession in frustration because of the IDEA paperwork burden, and there is a growing shortage of quality teachers in special education. This legislation before us allows parents to choose the option of a 3-year individualized education plan instead of an annual one.

And it is at the option of school to offer it and at the option of parents if they want to move to a 3-year plan. And the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) has been promoting this idea for several years. I want to thank him for his contributions in this bill.

H.R. 1350 will reduce the numbers of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special education, a problem that particularly effects minority children. As the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University has shown, African Americans are nearly 3 times more likely to be labeled as mentally retarded under the current IDEA system and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Thousands of children every year are inappropriately identified, while many others are not identified at all.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our colleague, gave us compelling testimony during committee sessions in the last Congress to help us address this, and I am proud to say that it is being addressed.

H.R. 1350 gives local school districts new flexibility and resources to improve early intervention and reduce misidentification of children into special education. The bill before us would reduce destructive lawsuits and litigation in special ed, it encourages the use of mediation as early as possible, and creates new opportunities for voluntary binding arbitration.

The bill encourages parental involvement and allows IDEA or school districts to use IDEA to support supplemental services for students with disabilities in high priority schools. It also allows parents to choose to keep their children with the same educational provider from the beginning of service until the child reaches school age. And I am grateful for the help from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) who helped devise these provisions.

The bill also charts a clear path to full funding within 7 years. Thanks to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), it authorizes a systematic increase in special education aid to the State that would result in the Federal Government paying an unprecedented 21 percent of the total cost of special ed in America next year. And as the chart shows, as this chart shows, we have had unprecedented increases over the last 7 years. And the budget resolution that we passed just several weeks ago brings an increase this year of over $2 billion and authorizes an additional $2.5 billion next year. This is by far the highest percentage in history; and the Porter language will allow appropriators to increase IDEA spending through the traditional spending process, the same process that Congress has used to increase IDEA spending by almost 300 percent over the past 8 years.

H.R. 1350, the bill before us, will enhance school safety, requiring districts to continue to provide educational services to students with disabilities while allowing the school district personnel to have one uniform discipline policy for our children. And the gentleman in Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been a very effective member in leading the Congress to deal with this issue for many years. And I really do want to thank him for his willingness to work with the committee to craft the discipline provisions that we have in our bill.

Let me just say as I close, I want to commend my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to this point. It is an excellent bill that will make a positive difference in the lives of parents with special needs children, teachers, school boards members and others, and I urge all of my colleagues today to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friend from California (Mr. George Miller), one of the authors of the original underlying legislation, there is a point that is being missed here.

In all, the conversation that we heard from my friend from California revolved around the current system and how the current system works and the changes to the current system. But there is one very large dynamic that is being changed, and it changed under No Child Left Behind when we require school districts to disaggregate data and we require them to disaggregate the test data by subgroups including special education children. For a school to succeed under No Child Left Behind, all the sub-groups have to show improvement. And so school districts under No Child Left Behind are going to have to ensure that their special needs students are improving and showing progress.

This is a dramatic change in terms of how we are going to deal with special ed students. And as a result, the changes that we are putting in the bill will allow school districts to have more flexibility to move this program to one that will bring results for our special ed students as opposed to being locked in the process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a friend and member of the committee as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), another member of our committee and a subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and all of the members on our committee who have played an important role in bringing this bill to us today.

I also want to congratulate the members of our staff, including Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, David Cleary, Melanie Looney and Elisabeth Wheel; Sarah Rittling, a staff member of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and Jacqueline Norris, a staff member of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), for all of their hard work and dedication over the last year or so as we were bringing this bill together.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult piece of legislation. It has been very difficult for Congress to deal with it ever since they first brought it up in 1975. But I think that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked closely together to craft a bill that will help special needs children all across our country.

I think it is important to note that that is our goal here. It is to make sure that children with disabilities get the free and appropriate public education that they are entitled to in the least restrictive manner. We believe that the bill that we have before us today does, in fact, provide that, and does not weaken any safeguards for those children or their parents.

Let us not forget the importance of the requirements under No Child Left Behind where school districts are going to have to focus in on results for these children. This is a huge shift in dynamics for how schools are going to have to deal with their IDEA children. As a result, being able to change the paperwork requirements, to ease those for classroom teachers, to make the process more simple for school districts and administrators to enact, will not diminish the services for these students, because these same schools are going to have to show results for these children.

So this is a very big change, and I do believe it will lead to much better results for our special needs children.

The last point I would make is this is a bipartisan bill. We will talk about more of it as we get into the amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, for offering this amendment and congratulate him on his effort in promoting new and innovative ways to deal with children with special needs.

These children require the utmost in flexibility in their education; and the amendment before us encourages innovative options and provides States with much-needed flexibility.

The amendment would accomplish three goals. First, it encourages States to establish innovative solutions by providing seed money to develop new programs. Second, it answers the call of parents of children with disabilities to ensure that educational opportunities are not withheld and that States may choose to implement as much or as little flexibility as the State deems appropriate. Third, it allows States to use Federal dollars in flexible programs already utilizing State resources to provide services for children with special needs.

The amendment does not, as has been claimed by some critics, provide vouchers. It simply affords States the flexibility they are seeking to provide individualized options for students with disabilities.

This amendment is not a mandate in any way, shape, or form; but it makes new options available for States who choose, these are only for States who choose, to want to look at new options and new technology and more flexibility in terms of meeting the needs of special needs children, of all of their children in their State.

Each participating State must determine which approach and what type of program will best serve the children with disabilities in their State, including options such as public schools, charter schools, or private schools, whatever is in the best interests of the child. So children with disabilities today deserve every effort that can be made to provide them with a high-quality education, and their options and the options of the States should not be limited.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to our Members that our friend from the State of Washington makes a valuable contribution to the bill, and I would urge the Members to support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with my friend from Oregon. We have worked on this amendment during committee, and we have worked on it since. The committee and I are in full support of the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the opportunity to work with him to help fine-tune this and would recommend to our colleagues that we adopt the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) offers a very good amendment to the bill. We are, over the next 7 years, doubling the amount of money we will be spending on special ed. I think it is right to take a look at what are the total costs associated with this program, and I think the gentleman makes a good addition to the bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I include two letters for the Record on H.R. 1350.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, April 29, 2003.

Hon. John Boehner,

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Boehner: In recognition of the desire to

expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1350, the Improving

Education Results in Children with Disabilities Act of 2003,

the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of

the bill. Section 205(i) makes changes to the attorneys' fees

provisions for IDEA cases, and these provisions fall within

the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction.

However, given the need to expedite this legislation, I will

not seek a sequential referral based on their inclusion.

The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the

understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these

provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would

appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional

Record during consideration of H.R. 1350 on the House floor.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

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