Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by many of my colleagues in introducing the Pension Security Act. One year ago, President Bush sent a clear message to Congress that he is committed to preserving American workers' pensions by calling for new safeguards to help workers preserve and enhance their retirement savings. The House responded to the President's call and passed the Pension Security Act on April 11, 2002 with strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the legislation before adjournment. I am pleased to reintroduce his proposal today.

One of the tragic realities of the corporate scandals of last year is that it rattled the confidence of American workers in the country's pension system--a system that by and large has served employees and their families well. A Pew Research Poll released on February 21, 2002 indicated that 77 percent of Americans believed the Enron case was an important issue, and 47 percent of them believed the worst thing about the Enron case by far was the employees had lost their retirement funds.

Even more tragic is the possibility that much of it could have been avoided. At least some of Enron's workers might have been able to preserve their nest eggs if Washington had taken some basic steps to update our nation's pension laws. We should not have to wait for another Enron or WorldCom before providing workers with new protections that can help them enhance and protect their retirement security.

As more and more employers provide 401(k) plans to their workers, rank-and-file employees are shouldering more of the risk of their investment. Unfortunately these employees rarely have the time or knowledge to actively manage these investments and most have no access to quality investment advice through their employer. Millions of employees who have seen their 401(k) balances dwindle might have been able to preserve their retirement savings if they'd had access to a qualified adviser who would have warned them in advance that they needed to diversify. The Pension Security Act would fix outdated federal laws and allow employers to provide their workers with high- quality, professional investment advice as an employee benefit, but also includes key safeguards to protect the interests of workers and investors.

That is why today, my collegue Sam Johnson (R-TX), chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee, and I are re-introducing the President's proposal on behalf of America's workers. Workers must be fully protected and fully prepared with the tools they need to protect and enhance their retirement savings.

Specifically, the Pension Security Act includes new measures that give employees the freedom to diversify their portfolio and would provide them better information about their pensions. Under the bill, employees may sell company stocks and diversify into other investment options after they have worked for their employer for three years. In addition, it requires companies to give workers quarterly benefit statements that include information about accounts, including the value of their assets, their right to diversify, and the importance of maintaining a diverse portfolio.

In addition, the Pension Security Act includes the provisions of the Retirement Security Advice Act (H.R. 2269), which passed the House in November 2001 with a large bipartisan vote. Current law continues to needlessly deny rank-and-file workers access to quality investment advisers to help them make sound investment decisions. The Pension Security Act encourages employers to make investment advice available to their employees and allows qualified financial advisors to offer investment advice only if they agree to act solely in the interests of the workers they advise. The Senate failed to act on this legislation prior to adjournment, though it passed the House with the support of 64 Democrats.

Lastly, the bill clarifies that companies have a fiduciary responsibility for workers' investments during a blackout period. Under current law, employers are not responsible for the results of workers' investment decisions. This ``safe harbor'' from liability does not apply during a blackout period. Under the Pension Security Act, employers will be responsible for the consequences of the workers' inability to control their investments if they violate their fiduciary in implementing or administering blackout periods.

Congress has taken some positive steps in the recent past to update our nation's pension laws, and this committee has been central to those efforts. Last year, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill regarding corporate accountability, which incorporated two of the provisions in the Pension Security Act dealing with notice and trading during blackout periods. The House also passed the Pension Security Act last year by a margin of 255-163, with the strong bipartisan support of 46 Democrats. We also passed the landmark reforms authored by my friend and colleague, Representative Rob Portman (R-OH), that gave workers more pension portability, faster vesting, and a host of other needed changes. We passed the Retirement Security Advice Act to give rank-and- file workers the same access to professional investment advice that wealthy executives have. But in spite of these efforts, a lot of work still lies ahead. We need to pass the remainder of the President's plan this year.

I am optimistic that common ground can be reached with Democrats because there is bipartisan support in Congress for the reforms I have just outlined. The nation's private pension system is essential to the security of American workers, retirees, and their families. Congress should move decisively to restore worker confidence in the nation's retirement security and pension system, and this reform proposal will do just that. I urge my colleagues to respond to the needs of America's workers by supporting the Pension Security Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, the 1996 welfare reform law that we are reauthorizing today has been an unprecedented success, one of the most important pieces of social policy since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. We transformed the welfare system from a permanent

entitlement system that tolerated government dependence to a temporary assistance program which helps people earn a new start, find a job and become self-sufficient.

Today, with the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act, we are prepared to build on that success. This bill marks the beginning of a second phase of reform that will help even more Americans find productive jobs.

The colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, The system is working, why fix it? Why argue with success? Here is why. Welfare caseloads have fallen dramatically since 1966; but as this chart shows, some 58 percent of TANF recipients still are not working for benefits, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The bottom line is approximately 2 million families remain on welfare rolls today, and we need to do something about it. Over the last 2 years, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has held five hearings on the success of welfare reform and the new challenges that we face today. Last year our committee approved a bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the Working Toward Independence Act, which is now part of this overall bill which is before us today.

It strengthens work requirements to ensure that we move welfare recipients on the path to self-reliance. As Connecticut Governor John Rowland has said, ``The most compassionate way to break the cycle of poverty, dependency, and hopelessness is through work.''

The bill requires welfare recipients to participate in work activities 40 hours a week. But within these new requirements, there is significant flexibility for States and recipients themselves. Welfare families will have 16 hours a week to pursue education and job-training opportunities. They can also attend school full-time for up to 4 months over a 2-year period. This measure also increases the percentage of welfare families in each State that must be engaged in work-related activities, currently at 50 percent, moving to 70 percent by 2008.

Some have questioned whether States can meet these new requirements, suggesting that we are setting the bar too high. But I agree with what President Bush said, ``If it brings dignity into someone's life, it is not too high of a goal.'' And remember, the bill gives States 5 years to comply with the new work requirements.

The bill also includes significant funding increases for child care, boosting spending for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $2 billion over the next 5 years.

In addition to this new money, it is important to remember that States have half the case loads that they had in 1996, which means that they have twice as much money available to spend on work programs, child care, transportation and other services that are necessary in order to help move people from a life of dependency toward the mainstream of American society.

H.R. 4 also incorporates key elements of President Bush's Good Start, Grow Smart plan to improve early childhood education. It encourage States to address the cognitive needs of young children so they are developmentally prepared to enter school.

Finally, the bill includes a promising new plan to empower States and localities to develop innovative solutions to help keep needy families working towards independence. It would give States and local agencies the opportunity to coordinate certain welfare and workforce development programs and improve their efficiency and their ability to help move people from welfare to work.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to echo the sentiments of President Bush when he said that no level of despair should be acceptable in our society. With this bill we are going to help some of the most vulnerable members of our society to help them achieve independence and self-sufficiency, and I urge Members to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of our leadership team.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a valued member of the committee.

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

The success of the 1996 welfare reform law is beyond dispute. Even the New York Times has called it an ``obvious success.'' The debate today has been about how to build on that success and how to put even more Americans on the path to self-reliance.

While it is true that the 1996 reforms significantly reduced welfare caseloads, we still have a lot of work to do. A majority of TANF recipients today are still not working for their benefits.

The Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act builds upon the best aspects of the 1996 welfare reform law. It strengthens work requirements, enhances flexibility for States and localities, and it does so while providing States with significantly more funding for child care, which is crucial for welfare families transitioning into the workforce.

President Bush stated that no level of despair should be acceptable in our society. With this new legislation we help some of the most vulnerable members of our society achieve independence and self- sufficiency.

I urge my colleagues today to support the welfare reform law, H.R. 4.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

For our colleagues who have listened to the debate today on the reauthorization of H.R. 4, the welfare reform law, I probably do not have to remind my colleagues that the sounds of the debate, the points that have been made, were all made in 1996. Members on our side of the aisle and, frankly, half the Members on the Democrat side of the aisle who supported the 1996 welfare reform law were confident that we could help move people from a life of dependency, despair and hopelessness to a life where they do have hope, they do have opportunity and can move into the mainstream of American society.

As my colleagues have seen over the course of this debate, the 1996 welfare reform law has been a tremendous success, even to the point where the New York Times called it an obvious success.

The substitute that is before us today undermines every major 1996 welfare reform law improvement, reversing recent historic gains in work, independence, family flexibility and in funding. I think it hurts our most vulnerable recipients. I think we create a costly new entitlement with the substitute that we have before us. It undermines work requirements and goes back and creates the same kind of dependency that we saw prior to 1996.

Yes, work is not something that most people would prefer to do, but the most important thing we did in 1996 was to encourage people to work, to encourage them to put their foot on the first rung of the economic ladder, and we agreed that we would provide assistance to help them up that ladder, whether it was transportation, whether it was child care, education, training to help them along while allowing them to keep their government-paid medical insurance; and what the program being offered here as a substitute to our bill would do would be to create the same kind of dependency.

People would leave work and go back to welfare under the proposal that we have before us because one of the provisions in the substitute says that if a person is not earning at least 250 percent above the average poverty rate, they are entitled to go back on to TANF. There are a lot of working Americans and hard-working Americans who do not earn 250 percent above the poverty rate.

We do not want to create the kind of dependency that we had before. We have a great success. There is no reason to turn tail and throw in the towel when, in fact, we have helped 9 million American families move from welfare to work, increased their dignity and gave them the hope of a lifetime to be in the mainstream of American society.

We should reject the substitute offered by my colleague from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), one of the real promoters of the original 1996 welfare reform law.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a valued member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) invoked the No Child Left Behind bill, the education reform plan which aims to educate every American child. We have increased funding for education over 200 percent over the last 5 years, including 30 percent in the last 18 months. But the issue in education is not about more money; it is about attitude, and it is about whether we as a Nation want to insist that all of our children get an education.

I will tell the gentlewoman that we have worked hard to increase funding and we are continuing to work hard to increase funding to help make this plan real in every American school. But let us leave no doubt about it: if money alone would solve the problems in our Nation's schools, they would have been solved decades ago. This is not about money. It is about whether we as a Nation are going to demand that all of our children get a chance at a good education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, as we said before, the 1996 act has been a huge success in helping 9 million American families move from welfare to work, lifting their spirits, allowing them to participate in the mainstream of American life.

The proposal that is before us, the substitute offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would literally take us back to the pre-1996 welfare reform bill that trapped people in dependency and never really allowed them the opportunity to be all they could be.

We have the lowest African American child poverty rate in history as a result of the 1996 changes. We believe that we will make more advances in giving States more flexibility, more child care money, stronger work requirements to help move more people from welfare to work. Even though welfare rolls are down 60 percent from where they were in 1996, the States are getting the same amount of money, so Members can argue that they will be able to spend twice as much as they have in helping those on the system. Let us not go back, let us move ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and let me congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), his staff, the committee members, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff, for a product well done, considering the handicaps of never having a budget and never having appropriation bills from the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has promised to do its part on behalf of America's school children, and the spending bill we debate today more than delivers on those promises. Much like the President's budget itself, this agreement is particularly generous towards education. It will provide yet another large increase in Federal education funding on top of record increases provided last year and the years before. This means that more than enough is being provided for States and public schools to carry out the reforms in the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.

Not only are we providing enough money, we are providing more than enough. For 35 years, this Congress spent billions of dollars in education without ever insisting on results for the children that it was meant to serve. Just over a year ago, on this very floor, Democrats and Republicans stood proudly together to bring that era to an end. And as my colleagues rightly pointed out, we made a commitment to our children on that day.

But maybe some of us need to be reminded of what that commitment was. What No Child Left Behind promised was that politicians would stop using money as an excuse for a 35-year failure to close the achievement gap. Thirty-five years and $150 billion later, the achievement gap has not changed at all over that period of time. We have now significantly increased our funding for education, twice since the bill was signed into law, and there are no more excuses. Our children need results.

Let us look at title I. Under this agreement, aid to needy and disadvantaged schools through title I is increased by another $1.4 billion. And this is on top of the $1.5 billion increase provided as a result of last year's spending bills.

In other words, title I has virtually doubled since fiscal year 1995. Are we spending too little? I do not think so.

Let me look at the second chart which is even more striking, and this is on special education, IDEA. As the chart shows, we have increased IDEA in this agreement by $1.4 billion. That is on top of the $1.2 billion that we increased it last year. Since fiscal year 1995, we have increased funding for IDEA 400 percent. That quadruples the amount of money that we are spending for our special-needs children.

In addition to that, we put another $100 billion increase in the Teacher Quality Program. We increased Pell grants and pay off the shortfall from the prior year, and we increased Head Start funding by another $131 million.

Mr. Speaker, if money alone can solve the problems in education, they would have been solved a long time ago. What we need to do is work to change attitudes in America that says that all of our children deserve a chance at a decent education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution; but more than that, I rise to honor my dear friend and colleague, Sam Johnson of Texas,

Thirty years ago today, Sam was released from captivity as a prisoner of war in Hanoi during the Vietnam War. He spent nearly seven years as a prisoner--half of that time in solitary confinement. His experiences in Hanoi were nothing short of remarkable.

For example: while held captive, Sam committed to memory 374 names of other prisoners of war by tapping a special code on the wall.

Why? In case some got out.

In Hanoi, he also endured unspeakable torture--72 days in leg stocks, followed by another two and a half years in leg irons, and of course, 42 months in solitary confinement.

After his three and a half years in solitary confinement ended, Sam was finally allowed to return to a joint cell. According to a fellow prisoner of war, he walked into the room with the

two other detained American officers, stood at attention with tears in his eyes, and simply said, ``Lieutenant Colonel Sam Johnson reporting for duty, sir.''

Madam Speaker, there's no better way to describe a hero than retelling that story.

Today, I am proud to serve with Sam on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Together, we're working to reform our education, pension, and health care laws for generations to come.

Sam is an effective subcommittee chair, an astute legislator, and a terrific representative of his constituents at home in Texas. His continued to service to his nation is most admirable.

To Sam, I thank you for your 29-year career in the Air Force, your courage and sacrifice, and your continued commitment to this country by serving in its Congress. On this important anniversary, I salute you and wish you and your wife Shirley the very best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules for the 108th Congress for the Committee on Education and the Workforce for publication in the Congressional Record.

The Rules of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for the 108th

Congress

rule 1. Regular, additional, & special meetings: vice-chairman

(a) Regular meetings of the committee shall be held on the

second Wednesday of each month at 9:30 a.m., while the House

is in session. When the Chairman believes that the committee

will not be considering any bill or resolution before the

committee and that there is no other business to be

transacted at a regular meeting, he will give each member of

the committee, as far in advance of the day of the regular

meeting as the circumstances make practicable, a written

notice to that effect; and no committee meeting shall be held

on that day.

(b) The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers

necessary, additional meetings of the committee for the

consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the

committee or for the conduct of other committee business. The

committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call

of the Chairman.

(c) If at least three members of the committee desire that

a special meeting of the committee be called by the Chairman,

those members may file in the offices of the committee their

written request to the Chairman for that special meeting.

Immediately upon the filing of the request, the staff

director of the committee shall notify the Chairman of the

filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after

the filing of the request, the Chairman does not call the

requested special meeting to be held within seven calendar

days after the filing of the request, a majority of the

members of the committee may file in the offices of the

committee their written notice that a special meeting of the

committee will be held, specifying the date and hour thereof,

and the measure or matter to be considered at that special

meeting. The committee shall meet on that date and hour.

Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the staff director

of the committee shall notify all members of the committee

that such meeting will be held and inform them of its date

and hour and the measure or matter to be considered; and only

the measure or matter specified in that notice may be

considered at that special meeting.

(d) All legislative meetings of the committee and its

subcommittees shall be open to the public, including radio,

television and still photography coverage. No business

meeting of the committee, other than regularly scheduled

meetings, may be held without each member being given

reasonable notice. Such meeting shall be called to order and

presided over by the Chairman, or in the absence of the

Chairman, by the vice-chairman, or the Chairman's designee.

(e) The Chairman of the committee or of a subcommittee, as

appropriate, shall preside at meetings or hearings, or, in

the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman, or the

Chairman's designee shall preside.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to join my colleague Representative Rick Keller in introducing the IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003. This legislation will go a long way in providing relief from the IDEA paperwork burden, and in reducing time spent by teachers on non-instruction activities, as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Last year, the House Education and the Workforce Committee conducted an aggressive series of hearings exploring major issues that would likely be addressed in the Committee's reauthorization of IDEA. Numerous witnesses at these hearings testified to the need for the Department of Education to identify and simplify burdensome regulations under IDEA and for Congress to adopt statutory changes that would provide relief to the nation's special education and general education teachers who labor with great dedication to educate children with special needs.

In our hearings, the Committee heard from school principals and administrators voicing frustrations about their schools' efforts to provide services to students as required by their IEPs when unnecessary paperwork requirements compete with the available instructional time. Teachers find themselves between a rock and a hard place, if you will, with unyielding demands made on their time. When something gives, the impact is either on the teacher or the student, two of our most valuable resources.

In fact, studies from the Department of Education show that we are facing a significant shortage of special education teachers, and many special educators leaving the field cite the burden of unnecessary paperwork as one of the primary reasons for their departure. This crushing burden of paperwork serves as a major disincentive for teachers to enter the field of special education, and as a result, too many of our children with special needs do not have a qualified teacher in the classroom.

Representative Keller's proposed amendments to IDEA are an excellent start to the Education and the Workforce's effort to identify and simplify burdensome statutory provisions in IDEA. They are innovative and provide much-needed flexibility to the nation's special education system.

This legislation directs the Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress detailing regulatory proposals he may find advisable for reducing both the IDEA paperwork burden on teachers and administrators and the amount of non-classroom time spent by teachers and administrators in order to comply with the requirements of IDEA. It also directs the Secretary to identify, develop, and disseminate model forms for individualized education programs (IEPS), procedural safeguard notices, and prior written notice report requirements that incorporate all relevant Federal statutory and regulatory requirements under IDEA.

In addition, the legislation provides that local educational agencies may offer to parents the opportunity to develop a 3-year IEP (in lieu of an annual IEP) for each child with a disability, with IEP goals coinciding with natural transition points for the child. This would mean IEPs would be redeveloped close in time to the transition of a child with a disability from preschool to elementary grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high school grades, from middle or junior high schools grades to high school grades, and from high school to post-secondary activities, but in no case longer than 3 years. In the ``in-between'' years, the law would provide for a streamlined annual IEP review focusing on the child's current levels of performance and progress toward meeting the measurable annual goals in the IEP, but a comprehensive review and revision of the IEP document would not be done every year.

Most importantly, this is a voluntary option for parents. Many parents will choose to use this flexibility, and some may not. But I agree with Representative Keller that it is important to provide this flexibility and this choice to parents so that they can determine the best way to interact with their child's school.

Representative Keller's bill would also allow the Secretary to grant waivers of paperwork requirements under IDEA to 10 States based on proposals submitted by States for addressing reduction of paperwork and non-classroom time spent fulfilling statutory and regulatory requirements. This will promote innovation and provide much-needed flexibility as States grapple with better implementing IDEA, and the Federal, State, and local regulations under it.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing this bill, and I look forward to working with them to address these important ideas.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to co-sponsor the ``Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003,'' sponsored by Congressman Jon Porter, to create personal re-employment accounts to help put unemployed Americans back to work.

During his State of the Union Address, President Bush laid out a comprehensive plan to speed our economic recovery and promote long-term job growth and investment. His economic stimulus plan also provides specific assistance--in the form of personal re-employment accounts--to help unemployed Americans who are struggling to return to work.

The Back to Work Incentive Act reflects the President's plan to create these accounts and aid unemployed workers who need the most help getting back to work. By introducing this measure, we are taking an important step toward making his plan a reality.

The President's proposal--which is reflected in this bill--represents a new and innovative approach to helping the unemployed get back on their feet. As President Bush has said, one worker out of work is one too many, and his plan will help working families in times when they need it the most.

States will be able to target this flexible benefit to help the unemployed who are most in need of help in the form of $3,000 Back to Work accounts. Recipients will be able to keep the balance of the account as a cash reemployment bonus if they become reemployed within 13 weeks, creating an important incentive to return to work quickly. The more quickly a job is obtained, the larger the reemployment bonus will be.

Workers can use their Back to Work accounts for a variety of different services to help them find a good job, including job training, child care, transportation, and other expenses to help in finding a new job. These re-employment accounts give the unemployed the flexibility and resources they need.

One of the exciting aspects of the new Back to Work accounts is that they empower individual recipients to make choices appropriate for their own circumstances. Recipients will be able to create reemployment plans that help them navigate all the options available--such as career counseling or training for a new profession in which they can become employed. By providing choice and flexibility, we can get people back into steady, good-paying jobs.

This new benefit supplements and enhances the services that are already available for those who are most likely to face obstacles in finding and keeping new employment. Back to Work accounts will allow the nationwide One Stop Career Center system to offer another important benefit to the unemployed, in addition to the array of employment services these centers already provide.

A number of states have experimented with personal re-employment accounts and the results have been very positive. For example, Iowa has used a similar approach with reemployment accounts of up to $5,000 a person, called the New Employment Opportunities Fund. Richard Running, the director of Iowa Workforce Development, recently said, ``It has worked a lot better than we had imagined it would.''

This proposal is a compassionate one because it provides workers with the flexibility and resources they need to help them get back on the job quickly. I look forward to working with President Bush, Subcommittee Chairman McKeon, and Congressman Porter to move this proposal quickly and make this innovative plan a reality for working families who need the help the most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank a very good friend of mine for her years of service to me and my staff both here in Washington and back at home in Ohio. Friday will be my chief of staff Joyce Gates' final day in that position, and my staff and I will sorely miss having her as part of our office team.

Joyce initially joined our team in 1995, as the coalitions director for the House Republican Conference. For four years, she served our caucus well by strengthening our relationships with a wide variety of groups here on Capitol Hill. Then, nearly two years ago, she returned to the fold to take the reins as my chief of staff. In that position, Joyce helped guide us through the very intense months during which we helped craft the No Child Left Behind education reform bill, and she was at the helm to assist our staff during the difficult months after September 11th and the anthrax attacks that followed.

In addition to the strong leadership she has provided to my staff, Joyce has been a terrific friend to all of us. She is always willing to listen, to share her professional and personal opinions, and to lift spirits during an especially long or difficult day.

Mr. Speaker, though Joyce has decided to retire from my office in an official capacity, she will continue to be a part of our team in the months and years to come. And despite giving up the title of ``chief of staff,'' she will always be one of my very best friends. I wish Joyce, her husband Bruce, and her family nothing but the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Delaware for yielding me this time and congratulate he and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for bringing this resolution to the floor today on behalf of the committee.

I rise in strong support of House Resolution 26, which recognizes and honors the contribution of Catholic schools in the United States. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) for his leadership in sponsoring this legislation.

Catholic schools throughout our Nation have a well-earned and an internationally acclaimed tradition of academic excellence, and I am pleased to join all my colleagues today in recognizing them. We are honoring and congratulating Catholic schools, their students, parents and teachers for their ongoing contributions to education and the vital role that they play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for this Nation.

This week is National Catholic Schools Week, and it is fitting that we focus on the important role that Catholic schools play in providing a well-rounded education for America's young people, one that gives special attention to the academic, moral and social development of our children.

The theme of this year's week is ``Catholic Schools: Making a World of Difference.'' This theme is clear in what one Catholic student wrote in an essay to celebrate this week when he said, ``Most importantly, a Catholic school is a community of individuals; teachers, parents, students, who actively participate in enriching young people's educational lives.''

I am impressed with how all Catholic schools emphasize intellectual, spiritual, moral and social values and produce well-rounded citizens. Catholic schools teach both students academic knowledge and real-life lessons in service to mankind and respect for one's neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I can personally attest to the outstanding contributions and dedication of Catholic schools, as I am a proud product of Catholic schools in Ohio, having attended Sts. Peter & Paul Elementary School in Reading, Ohio, and Archbishop Moeller High School in Cincinnati. From this strong foundation I then went on to graduate from Xavier University, which is also located in Cincinnati.

In the great State of Ohio, Catholic schools have made a positive impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of students. For example, Fenwick High School in Middletown, Ohio, Chaminade-Julienne High School in Dayton, Ohio, and Badin High School in Hamilton, Ohio, are excellent examples of schools that have profoundly influenced the lives of their students and continue to make significant contributions to their communities.

The top priority in the last Congress for the Committee on Education and the Workforce was the No Child Left Behind Act, a landmark reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides services and benefits to both public and private schools. Across our country, many Catholic schools participate in these programs and activities under the act. The primary goal of No Child Left Behind is to improve academic achievement for all students and thereby close the achievement gap that exists between disadvantaged students and their peers. Unfortunately, these gaps have remained stubbornly wide over the last three decades.

However, our Nation's Catholic schools and the dedicated teachers who serve in them have kept the achievement gaps from growing even wider. Indeed, some data indicates that one in four Catholic school students are from underprivileged backgrounds. Coupled with the fact that approximately 95 percent of Catholic school students graduate, and 83 percent of these students go on to pursue a higher education, it is clear that Catholic schools are very successful in educating all students who enter their doors.

As Sol Stern wrote in a column entitled ``The Invisible Miracle of Catholic Schools,'' in the City Journal, ``Catholic schools are already transforming the lives of thousands of poor black and Hispanic children, many of whom are not Catholic. Catholic educators have remained committed to the ideal that minority children can share in, and master, our civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage.''

In addition, the number of students enrolled in Catholic schools who are not of the Catholic faith is over 13 percent. These students come from a wide variety of faiths and have chosen to attend a Catholic school. This is especially true for inner-city schools, where in some cases the majority of students enrolled are non-Catholic. Catholic schools and their educators have had tremendous success in reaching out to all students and their parents who are seeking the best possible education for their children.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution and congratulate Catholic schools for the job they are doing in helping to educate all our Nation's children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.

Osborne) for bringing this resolution to the floor today and his willingness to manage this bill, and thank the gentleman for his commitment to mentoring. As someone who has mentored countless numbers of young men during his coaching career, he certainly comes to this with great passion and has brought great passion to this issue to the committee, and especially last year during the consideration of No Child Left Behind when the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) took the lead and pushed for mentoring programs within the Secondary and Elementary Education Act.

The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), also a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a staunch supporter of mentoring, played a role in ensuring that mentoring became an important part of No Child Left Behind.

We all know the importance of mentors to children, many of whom come from families where there may not be a father or there may not be a mother, and having these mentors to help mostly underprivileged children is a great advantage in terms of helping them understand that there is another world out there and their future may in fact be brighter.

As I have said before, I believe not only do children benefit from having mentors, but I think mentors may benefit even more than the children do by offering their services, making a commitment to their community, making a commitment to their local schools, and making a commitment to underserved children who need their help.

Mr. Speaker, because of all this, I believe that the resolution before us is certainly a good one and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to join my colleague from California, the Chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee, Representative Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, in reintroducing the FED UP Higher Education Technical Amendments Act. This bipartisan bill, cosponsored by Education & the Workforce Democrat committee members Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and David Wu (D-OR), provides for technical amendments to the Higher Education Act, which will be up for reauthorization later this year.

Representative McKeon, a leader in the House on higher education issues, along with the late Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI), initiated the FED UP process to make it easier for Hispanic-Serving Institutions to receive Federal aid, help college students avoid defaulting on their student loans, clarify that Federal scholarship aid can go to low- income and minority students for law school, and improve higher education access in other ways recommended by the higher education community.

The FED UP project is a unique effort, utilizing the Internet to get input directly from those most affected by current Federal higher education regulations--students and school officials themselves. The project solicited comments from student aid professionals from across the country in an effort to pinpoint unnecessary Federal rules and red tape that could be streamlined without jeopardizing the integrity of America's student financial assistance programs.

The response was phenomenal, both in terms of the number of comments received and in the reaction from the higher education community. Many of those responding commented that this is the first time Congress has put forward an effort to hear directly from those on the front lines of assisting students. Another said this is the way government should work, Congress listening to the experts and getting input, rather than just dictating a course of action. This bill is intended to address noncontroversial, budget neutral changes to the Higher Education Act that will assist in reducing red tape. It also clears the decks of clerical and technical problems within the act to set the stage for the Committee to begin the reauthorization process later this year.

This year I hope we can move this legislation through the floor in a swift manner. As part of an ongoing election-year effort to disrupt proceedings in the House, Democrat leaders in July 2002 blocked floor passage of the noncontroversial, bipartisan FED UP initiative. Twenty- seven House Democrats, including the late Representative Patsy Mink, broke with the Democratic leadership and joined Republicans in voting ``yes'' on the measure, which is also strongly backed by the higher education community.

This legislation was created in an effort to do what is right for students, institutions and others involved in providing higher education. The FED UP measure will help to untie the hands of students and institutions through a series of common-sense steps that will make a difference while paving the way for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) from Columbus, Ohio, and an Ohio State grad and a former member of the Ohio State marching band for bringing this resolution to the floor today, and let me say I support the underlying resolution, support and congratulate the Ohio State University on what really was an outstanding season, not only for the coach and the players, the fans, but for all who watched Ohio State go through a number of games where it was very close, games that they were certainly about to lose, including the national championship.

As an old football player myself, I can tell my colleagues the game on January 3, the national championship game, was one of the most exciting football games that I have ever watched or one that I ever played in.

The real credit here goes to Coach Jim Tressel and his players. They did not have the most talented team in the country, not even close, and to win all of the close games all year is a sign of very good coaching and players who come together to create a very good team, and so for myself and my colleagues, our delegation, we want to congratulate the Ohio State University, the coach Jim Tressel, the players and all the fans.

Way to go, Bucks.