Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this important legislation, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for working on this bill for the past several months. He has worked extraordinarily hard on it and deserves a lot of credit. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, he is a fierce defender of our environmental resources, and specifically the Delaware River; and we all appreciate it in that neck of the woods.

I do share his goal of protecting the viability of the Delaware River as a valued environmental resource, and I also believe that the commerce channel is a top priority for the surrounding States.

Last November, a tragic oil spill, which has been referred to by the previous speakers, in the Delaware River set off a course of events which has led to the important legislation here before us today, the Delaware River Protection Act. Beginning with a congressional hearing in January, it has been a top priority to not only address the cleanup of the oil spill but how we can look to the future. One clear outcome is prevention, working together as a region to learn from this accident.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo) has worked hard to draft legislation that I believe will make a real difference in protecting the Delaware River from another spill and in protecting the Delaware River as a valued natural resource.

I support the bill, which will establish the Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee. A regional committee will be paramount to addressing issues facing the Delaware River, both environmental and industrial, and will serve as a sounding board for issues concerning the Delaware River.

Some of the committee's responsibilities will include developing recommendations for Congress on the prevention of and response to future oil spills on the Delaware River and bay; reporting to Congress regarding important issues affecting the health of the Delaware River, while ensuring that there is a balanced approach to the issues.

The committee will be made up of appointed experts in many different areas, from the operators of oil refineries to environmental advocates. As a result, this committee will be able to examine the breadth of issues facing the river. The recommendations need not be unanimous, allowing representation of transparent and likely divergent viewpoints.

In the coming years, our States will face numerous proposed industrial and government activities that have potential safety, environmental, and economic consequences. This bill will help our region to be prepared and assure that important steps are taken to preserve the Delaware River.

Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the others who worked on this, and I sincerely encourage my colleagues' support for this legislation. I hope that, with the cooperation of the Senate, this will become law shortly to protect the Delaware River.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. James (Jim) H. Gilliam, Sr., the founder and first chairman of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League.

After a 13-year career with the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Maryland, Jim came to Delaware in 1965 to serve as the Director of Neighborhood and Housing Services for the Greater Wilmington Development Council. Jim's determination soon lead him to become the Director of New Castle County's Department of Community Development and Housing, where he would serve with distinction until his retirement in March 1990. Regardless of retirement, he had much left to accomplish.

In 1999, with one million dollars in start-up funds and the assistance of more than 70 community and business leaders, Jim formed the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League. In only nine-months, the Wilmington chapter of the National Urban League was formed; the fastest an affiliate has ever been organized. The formation of this wonderful organization was only the beginning of Jim Gilliam's many successes at the Urban League.

The Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League envisions a community where African Americans and other people of color from a wide array of income levels, backgrounds and experiences directly benefit from and contribute to a multi-racial alliance that is committed to principled advocacy, action-oriented public policy research and the coordination of public, private, and non-profit resources.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to once again commend Mr. James Gilliam. Under his skilled leadership, the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League has been a tremendously successful community organization, and I have no doubt he will maintain the organization's commitment to excellence.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Reese Edward Phillips of Milford, Delaware. Known to his family and friends as ``Pappy,'' Mr. Phillips was born in Zion Grove, Pennsylvania on May 5th, 1916.

Mr. Phillips was a deeply patriotic man who went to great lengths to defend our freedom. A proud veteran of the United States Air Force, his 32-year career in the military spanned both World War II and the Korean War. Although he retired from the service in 1972, Mr. Phillips would continue his unwavering devotion to our Nation's veterans for the rest of his life.

Mr. Phillips was instrumental in the planning and development of countless projects for Delaware's veterans, including the Delaware Veterans Cemeteries located in Bear and Millsboro, the state's first veterans home, and the establishment of the Governor's Veterans Advisory Council, known today as the Delaware Commission of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Phillips would serve with distinction on the Commission from its creation until his recent passing, a period that included tenure as Chairman from 1991-1992.

In addition to these projects, Mr. Phillips was actively involved in other community organizations, including membership in the Walter L. Fox Post #2 in Dover, the Disabled American Veterans Department of Delaware, and the Calvary United Methodist Church in Milford.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, Reese Edward Phillips was a persistent man whose community involvement greatly benefited the entire state of Delaware. Those of us with the good fortune to know Mr. Phillips were touched by his kindness and caring. While he is greatly missed by his family and friends, ``Pappy'' will always be remembered for the work he has done on behalf of the veterans of our great Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with great respect for both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in this. While we can all agree that our country, as the biggest contributor to the U.N., must help the organization become more efficient and effective, the Lantos-Shays substitute finds a compromise that I think reflects where the majority of Americans come down on this issue. The Gingrich-Mitchell task force takes serious issue with much of the damaging policies that have occurred at the U.N., but it refrains from calling for mandatory withholding of dues. President Bush has also signaled his opposition to many of these provisions, which may hinder our Ambassador's dealings with the organization.

Under the Lantos-Shays substitute, we can send the same message to the international community without undermining our efforts to promote democracy and protect those in need.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lantos/Shays substitute. Chairman Hyde has been an indispensable Member of this body for many years, and I commend you for bringing this important debate before us.

While I strongly agree with Chairman Hyde, that serious and fundamental problems exist at the United Nations, I prefer the President's approach of continuing to pursue negotiations for reform through diplomatic means.

Regardless of preference for this bill, we can all agree that the U.N. and the international community should hear our outrage for the mismanagement of what is meant to be an example of unity and peace. I commend the Chairman and the full committee for trying to improve the accountability of those at the U.N. and hope this debate will trigger reforms in the functioning of this embattled, yet well-meaning organization.

The Lantos-Shays substitute reflects the significant reforms outlined in the Chairman's bill. However, it makes an all important distinction in rightly leaving the Secretary of State with the discretion to decide when, and if, the ultimatums are a hindrance to our national interests. Alternatively, automatically withholding funds may derail our international and global commitments and could have a devastating impact on poor nations around the world.

While we can all agree that our country, as the biggest contributor to the U.N., must help the organization become more efficient and effective, the Lantos-Shays substitute finds a compromise that I think reflects where the majority of Americans come down on this issue. The Gingrich-Mitchell task force takes serious issue with much of the damaging policies that have occurred at the U.N., but it refrains from calling for mandatory withholding of dues. President Bush has also signaled his opposition to many of these provisions, which may hinder our Ambassador's dealings with the organization.

Under the Lantos-Shays substitute, we can send the same message to the international community without undermining our efforts to promote democracy and protect those in need.

Mr. Speaker, I just left a press conference; and four of the speakers there spoke about their diseases, none of which could be cured by adult stem cell research: a form of cancer, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, and a person who is a paraplegic.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that every single one of us has many constituents who have been to our offices over the years who have had these problems and have come to our offices for help. This is not the time to allow bad science or ideology to get in the way of doing what is right for the people of this country and of the world. There are 110 million people in the United States of America who potentially could be helped by embryonic stem cell research.

I have just been going through what some of the experts have said. One said: ``Umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells are not in any way interchangeable,'' David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

The National Institutes of Health said: ``Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent, that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent.''

``The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is we just don't know at this point what each can do, and we ought to be investigating both,'' Dr. Joanne Kutzberg at Duke University.

One expert after another has said that there is tremendous potential there. Let us not let it go to waste. Vote ``yes'' on both of these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2520, which establishes a national cord blood stem cell inventory, a cord blood system, and to reauthorize the National Bone Marrow Registry.

This is an important piece of legislation because it addresses a vital need to establish a publicly coordinated national umbilical cord blood bank similar to the National Bone Marrow Registry. However, it is important to note that umbilical cord blood cells are a type of adult stem cells that have been used only to treat blood disorders like leukemia and lymphoma.

Scientists do not believe that these cord blood stem cells will provide answers to diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, or other nonblood-related disorders.

According to Dr. David Shaywitz, an endocrinologist and stem cell researcher at Harvard, it seems extremely unlikely that adult blood cells or blood cells from the umbilical cord will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else but blood. That is why we must support all forms of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research, so researchers have the greatest chance of discovering treatments and cures. That is why I am supporting this legislation as well as H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to expand the current Federal embryonic stem cell policy.

I urge everyone to support this legislation and support H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just speaking to the Members perhaps back in the offices listening, I have 820,000 constituents in Delaware, and probably more than a third of them have some kind of a disease that might be able to be benefited by embryonic stem cell research.

That is true of the figures in the country. We have 110 million people who have illnesses out of the 290 million people who are living here. They have visited my office. They have visited your offices. There is not a person in this room who has not had many, many visits by people who have very, very serious needs, whose lives are going to be shortened.

I am all for the first bill we debated today because I think it might help somewhat, but I have also looked at some statistics and I have come to realize that of the 15 leading diseases, adult stem cells cannot do anything about 14 of them and can do a only little bit about heart diseases as they deal with only blood diseases in terms of what they can do. Embryonic stem cell research has the ability, perhaps, to do much more than that.

People are going to get up and they are going to say, well, it hasn't done anything yet. They were only discovered about 6\1/2\ years ago. If you read the vast body of research in the United States of America on this subject by people who are truly knowledgeable, you are going to learn there is more potential here than anything that has ever happened in medicine in the history of the United States of America. Congress should never, ever turn its back on this opportunity.

How are we going to get there? How are we going to do embryonic stem cell research? I do not have time to go through the whole in vitro fertilization process except to say that we create embryos in that particular process. They are then frozen. They are generally used and well used, the 400,000 embryos which are out there, to help give birth to people who might not otherwise be able to have a child. But at the end of the process, a decision is made by the individuals that may be involved with that. If the decision is they no longer want that particular embryo, they may do a variety of things with it. They may, as has been discussed here, give it up for adoption. They may decide to have it discarded as hospital waste. That is where the vast, almost all of them actually go as hospital waste.

We want to give them the opportunity to say, within that embryo there are stem cells which could help other people live better lives and give them the opportunity to be able, instead of having it put in a bag for hospital waste, sitting at that table, to be put over here, and the State to be able to do the research. That is what we need to do. We need to be able to develop that as rapidly as we possibly can for the benefit of all mankind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

I have been in public office for over 30 years and throughout my career, I--just like all of you--have had the opportunity to change and improve public policy so this country may continue to flourish on the principles it was founded. And the 820,000 people I represent in the State of Delaware are a constant reminder to me of this responsibility. I am their voice in the Congress of the United States.

Some of you may be wondering why I have become so interested and involved in embryonic stem cell research. And frankly, the answer is simple--those 800,000 constituents.

We estimated that about one-half of all visits to my office are about health care and about one-half of those visits are by Delawareans who are suffering themselves or whose family members are suffering--from juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, HIV and hosts of other dredge diseases. Year by year the groups would grow in number and soon we would have to get bigger rooms for our meetings.

In the early years we would discuss the necessity of funding the National Institutes of Health, and I was proud to be able to support Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party's drive to double funding for the NIH. And that funding has gone toward the basic science needed to find cures and treatments to our most debilitating diseases. But in the past few years, the number one topic on these groups' minds was embryonic stem cell research.

One little girl stands out in mind. I met her a few months ago at an event back in Delaware. Olivia was two months old when she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Her parents were first time parents so it is no wonder that the practice of testing her blood sugar and giving her insulin shots was extremely heartbreaking. Olivia is now 6 and has never known life without diabetes. She is the person we are fighting for on the floor today.

She is one of 110 million people who are suffering that may be helped by stem cell research.

I remember very clearly the difficult decision President Bush made on August 9, 2001 and I know how careful he was to balance the needs of science with his own moral concerns. At the time, the compromise--to allow Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells lines that had already been derived--seemed quite reasonable. But as we know, unfortunately, the number of lines eligible for research--once as high as 78--is now only at 22, with the NIH saying the number of lines will never get above 23.

So when Diana DeGette and I began discussing how to expand the President's policy in an ethical manner, I went right back to the speech he gave to the Nation in 2001. We wanted to be as consistent as possible with the ethics he laid out in his speech as we worked to update the policy. The legislation we are going to vote on today, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has the backing of the medical groups, the scientists, the research universities and the patient advocacy groups, mirrors the President's ethical requirements.

I will read them to you and ask that you think about them very closely:

(1) Embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need;

(2) The individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom the embryos were created have determined that the embryos will not be implanted in a woman and will otherwise be discarded; and,

(3) The individuals for whom the embryos were created have provided written consent for embryo donation and without receiving financial inducement. You may ask what is different--we simply lift the arbitrary August 9, 2001 date.

It is also critical that we are clear about what this legislation does not do:

(1) No federal funding for the destruction of embryos or human life. This is prohibited by law.

(2) No federal funding for the creation of embryos for research.

Under our legislation it is up to the couple to decide what should happen to their embryos. Embryos can be adopted or donated; embryos can be frozen for future family building; embryos can be discarded. After that initial decision is made, and if a couple decides to discard the embryos, our legislation would allow those couples to make a second choice--do they want to donate them to research?

An embryo or blastocyst is about 250 cells and the inner cell mass is about 100 cells and that is where the stem cells come from. They are created in a petri dish, are about 5 days old and are the size of a pine head. Of the 400,000 frozen embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics throughout the U.S., about 2 percent are discarded annually-- that is about 8,000--11,000 embryos that could be slated for research. Allowing the option of donating these excess embryos to research is similar to donating organs for organ transplantation in order to save or improve the quality of another person's life.

The bottom line is when a couple has decided to discard their excess embryos they are either going to be discarded as medical waste or they can be donated for research. Throughout this debate you will hear about adult stem cells and more about umbilical cord cells and how these types of cells are sufficient for scientists.

This is simply not true. Umbilical cord cells are adult stem cells and they are limited.

Adult and umbilical cord cells are already differentiated into the types of cells they are, they are difficult to harvest and grow and they do not exist for every tissue type. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells are ``master cells''--they have the potential to grow into any type of cell in the body, they are easier to identify, isolate, purify and grow and they are capable of continual reproduction.

Listen to what the NIH has to say on this topic:

Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater

developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means

that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent--that is, able

to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo

except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent--

restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult

stem cells are thought to be.

In 2003, 1.6 million people died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, kidney disease, liver disease and Parkinson's. Of the 15 leading causes of death, adult stem cell research only addresses one. Adult stem cells have been around since the 1960s. Embryonic stem cells were only isolated in 1998. We must explore research on all types of stem cells, but the reality is the only policy that is restricted is the Federal embryonic stem cell policy.

The NIH is the right place to oversee this research because it can regulate the ethics, it provides for scientific collaboration and peer review and promotes publication so all breakthroughs are reported and all scientists have access to the latest research discoveries. Without NIH oversight there are no guidelines as to how this research should be conducted.

The United States has always been the premier leader in biomedical research in our country and around the world. As science continues to move rapidly forward, we need to continue to lead the way but we are not. Why should we waste one more year, one more day, forcing millions to suffer because of a policy that is outdated and unworkable.

Does this Congress really want to look back 10 years from now and say that we were the ones holding the treatments up? Or do we want to be the Congress that says, we back science, we want research to flourish and we played a small role in making that happen.

Support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and accelerate hope.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman physician from the State of Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both the Republican and Democratic leadership for allowing this to take place here today.

Sometimes there are issues of such critical social importance that it is

only right that the Congress of the United States do this in the open, and they did that and for that we should all be very appreciative.

I just want to leave my colleagues with some closing thoughts, perhaps some of the things I started with. There are 110 million people just in the United States of America out of 290 million who have some sort of illness that potentially could be helped by the use of embryonic stem cells. Most of those will never be helped by the use of adult stem cells. We know that anything other than just the use of adult stem cells in blood tissues has been experimental at best and probably will never work.

I would encourage everyone to use their conscience as they vote today, to think about their constituents at home. We talk about life, and I do not necessarily want to get into that argument back and forth, but the bottom line is there are a lot of lives that are being foreshortened in the United States of America and across the world that perhaps could be lived out to their fullest if that opportunity was given to the individuals involved.

Remember that this research is going on at the private sector level. It is also going on at the State level. It is even going on to a degree at the Federal level. There has been $60 million spent over 3 years on this research at the Federal level, and about $625 million has been spent on adult stem cells at the Federal level. So the research is going on at the time.

Our ethic standards in this bill, and if you read it, it is only 3 pages long, exceed any ethical standards that have ever existed before including what the President had before.

The National Institutes of Health said: ``Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent, that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent, restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.''

That is where the science is. You can argue all you want, but if you do any extensive reading on this, that is where the science is. These are the stem cells which can make a difference, the embryonic stem cells.

There are discussions of dollars. There are no dollars used directly in the destruction of embryos at an in vitro fertilization clinic. There are dollars used in the research ultimately. But let us look at that. Let us consider what that is all about.

At the end, when those who have created the embryo make the decision that they no longer need or want that particular embryo, the physician has to make a decision about what to do with it. There are some options there. Not a lot of options. One of them is to give that particular embryo up for adoption. Some people do not choose to do that. There have only been fewer than 100 so far. And I think that is wonderful. I think that option should be offered.

Some people may make other decisions, but basically it will be one of two decisions if this legislation passes. One is to put it into hospital waste, warm it up to room temperature, thereby destroying it at that point and doing it that way, or to be giving it up for research. And my judgment is if that is a decision, why are we not helping the 110 million people out there who need help, as opposed to allowing this to go to hospital waste because it will happen anyhow.

If you do not like that, you better go out and lobby against what they are doing in in vitro fertilization clinics, and I do not think that we want to do that.

There are about 400,000 of these embryos. That is probably a low estimate today. That is an estimate of about 3 years ago. About 2 percent are given up a year. That is 8,000. The numbers that are more limited than that are just wrong. A lot of people now, if this passes, are going to be offered the opportunity to give up the embryo for research instead of hospital waste, and they are going to make that decision, and we will get the kind of work that we need.

I would just close by saying that 14 out of the 15 diseases that are most likely to kill people in the world are not ever going to be helped by adult stem cells. We need to do this. With your vote today you can provide hope to tens of millions of Americans and many more around the world. Support H.R. 810.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) be removed from a piece of legislation I have authored, H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the Academy of Lifelong Learning on their 25th Anniversary. This continuing education program at the University of Delaware allows people over 50 to continue to pursue a wide variety of academic offerings. Recent classes have included Sports History, Yoga Philosophy, and Computer Management. For 25 years, the Academy's membership has been involved in every facet of the educational process. Members also plan, organize, and even teach many of these courses.

To mark its 25th anniversary, the Academy has planned the Hi Ho Silver Jubilee at the University of Delaware. The event will be highlighted by a performance of the 50-piece Academy Band and the 75- member Academy Chorus. From its original 83 members and 18 courses, the Academy has grown to over 2,000 members who can choose from over 200 courses. This remarkable growth can be directly attributed to the dedication and hard work of the Academy's original membership.

As stated in the 1998 mission statement of the council, the Academy of Lifelong Learning seeks to, ``be a premier educational program composed of a diverse membership of people 50 and older who come together and are intellectually, culturally, and socially stimulated in an academic atmosphere. Through its programs, the Academy enhances, enriches, and extends the quality of life of its members.'' After 25 years of outstanding work, the Academy of Lifelong Learning continues to achieve its goal.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Academy and look forward to celebrating their future accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for a fair and effective system of distributing homeland security grants to our nation's courageous first-responders. As a former Governor, I have long been concerned about our government's ability to accurately assess national threats, risks, and vulnerabilities. For this reason, I have been an adamant proponent of improving and streamlining the application and distribution process for these important grant programs.

The current grant allocation system is largely population-based. While population is an essential factor, the top priority for determining the needs of our first-responders must be based on the risk of terrorism and vulnerability of a community. The 9/11 Commission predicted in their report that one of our greatest challenges would be how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. With the tragic memories of that clear September day still fresh in our minds, it is obvious that first-responders in high-risk and high density areas, such as New York City and Washington, DC, deserve an increased per capita share of the homeland security funding.

While it is essential that we update the distribution process to better reflect an assessment of risk, it is also important that we ensure the homeland security needs of small States and rural areas do not go unnoticed. In its report, the 9/11 Commission notes that due to the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might begin turning their attention to ``softer,'' less protected targets. As representative of our nation's sixth smallest State, I am concerned that in improving the current system, we might inadvertently overlook citizens in States considered less likely to be vulnerable. In Delaware, the State Emergency Management Agency has expressed some concern that our critical infrastructure may be neglected. Such omissions could force small States like Delaware to dip into other important programs, such as disaster prevention, in order to provide the resources and personnel necessary to handle certain attacks.

While this legislation makes an important change in the distribution of homeland security funding by focusing resources on high-risk areas, the challenge to define these risks remains. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has never undertaken a comprehensive national risk assessment, and will not complete their current study until at least 2008. A national risk evaluation is imperative for determining how to allocate first-responder grants, but obviously a thorough study will not be available for several years. Without a detailed study of our Nation's vast critical infrastructure, the Department cannot truly know what level of funding should be dedicated to large States, small States, urban areas, or rural communities.

To ensure first-responders across the country have access to effective homeland security funding, it is essential that we continue to provide each State with a fair and commonsense minimum-funding baseline. Currently, the Department's inconsistent methodology for extracting data about key critical infrastructure assets can potentially result in incomplete and frankly, inadequate vulnerability assessments. Minimum-funding baselines reinforce this evolving system and provide additional protection to the thousands of ``soft targets,'' by ensuring that all States receive sufficient funding to meet basic homeland security needs.

While I support the purpose of this legislation, I intend to remain engaged throughout conference with the Senate to ensure we reach a compromise for a State formula that is fair and refrains from cutting into States' preparedness efforts. Homeland security funding can be both efficient and effective and we should settle for no less.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, like most of my colleagues here today, I support efforts to reform our current system to ensure that more funding for our first responders is determined on the basis of risk. The 9/11 Commission noted that one of our greatest challenges would be in how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. The gentleman from California's determination for taking on this challenge is commendable.

As the gentleman knows, I have been concerned about the Department's ability to accurately determine national threats, vulnerabilities and consequences. In its report, the 9/11 Commission also notes that, due to the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might begin turning their attention to softer, less-protected targets.

As a Member representing our Nation's sixth smallest State by population, second smallest by size, I am concerned that, in improving the current system, we might inadvertently overlook citizens in States considered less likely to be vulnerable. In Delaware, the State Emergency Management Agency has expressed some concern that our high- risk targets may be neglected. Such omissions force small States like mine to dip into other important programs, such as disaster prevention, in order to provide necessary resources and personnel to handle certain attacks.

There needs to be some balance here and recognition that real homeland security needs exist outside of metropolitan areas. To the best of my knowledge, the Department of Homeland Security has not completed a comprehensive national risk assessment. It seems that this type of national risk assessment should serve as a basis for determining how to allocate first-responder grants, but apparently, a thorough study will not be available for several years.

I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments. The gentleman is correct in that my home State, and every other State, deserves equitable consideration. I appreciate his willingness to protect adequate grant allotments for first responders in small States. I support the gentleman's goal of getting these important funds to communities where they can be used effectively and look forward to working with him throughout this process to ensure all States receive fair and realistic homeland security funding.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1544, which is identical to legislation I introduced, H.R. 1088, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act. This legislation overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Congress, 397-3, and was also included as an amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Unfortunately, it was not in the final conference report.

My amendment removes a barrier which currently prevents some organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to fire departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment rather than donating it to volunteer rural and other financially strapped departments. We know that, every day across the United States, firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We may presume that our firefighters work in departments with the latest and best fire fighting and protective equipment when in reality there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack of basic personal protective equipment, PPE. In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. At the same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art innovation. Sometimes the surplus equipment has never been used to put out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to destroy rather than donate millions of dollars of quality fire equipment.

Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save State and local governments $36.8 billion a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than 19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer. Thirteen States, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas, have passed similar legislation. In the 7 years of the Texas program, more than $12 million worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to needy departments. This includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles and more than 1,500 pieces of communications equipment as well. In total, more than 33,000 items have been donated.

Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. Equipping our Nation's first responders is essential as we fight the war on terror. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his past support of this measure, and I am hopeful the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and my colleagues will again join me in supporting this measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

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

I will close briefly. Let me just reiterate, this has been actually before us before. It is actually a popular amendment. People want it on their legislation for the most part. So we have had a little trouble getting it signed into law because it keeps passing and then getting dropped off for various things. But we voted on it back in September, and I do not know what has changed since then. The vote was 397 to 3. To the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) credit, he did vote ``no'' then. I do not know if a single thing has changed in that interim time.

It is pretty simple. We have large corporations, for the most part, that have their own fire equipment. It is very modern. It is generally unused. They donate it. They are not going to donate it unless this liability provision is removed. Most big States, or at least a lot of big States, have looked at this and have made the decision to go ahead and do that. And it just seems to make sense all over this country, as we try to support our volunteer fire services, that we would give them the best equipment possible. And this simply would allow that to happen.

I would hope that every single Member of the House of Representatives this time would look carefully, if it comes to a roll call, at what is a rather simple amendment and would be in full support of it. And I hope that, as much as I enjoy presenting this amendment, that this is the last time we have to present and it becomes law sooner rather than later so that we can proceed, because even in the last year, we have, unfortunately, lost some opportunities for donation of equipment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here. I am pleased to follow the 30-Somethings, although I am a

little bit old for them. I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) might be a little bit old for that as well, but I want to talk about a different subject matter, as interesting as Social Security is, and I will share time with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my distinguished friend, on this subject which is essentially dealing with education in the United States of America and the Federal role in education which is frankly largely not understood by everybody who deals in education in this country. Perhaps we can bring a little bit of light to that.

The starting point here is really the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is right now 40 years of age. It was 40 years ago last month that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed what we know as ESEA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, into law, and the core mission of that Act when he signed it into law 40 years ago and was really one of the times the Federal Government has really got involved in education was to help disadvantaged students improve academically, certainly a laudatory goal I think as far as any of us are concerned.

We have now enacted No Child Left Behind, and many people refer to that as if it is something separate and different and new. What it really is, a lot of the elements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with an overlay of some additional requirements as far as standards and assessments are concerned.

President Johnson, when announcing his plans for the Great Society touted the goal of an end to poverty and racial injustice. When addressing education specifically he said, The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talent.

The ESEA arguably triggered the most significant Federal role in elementary and secondary education. When he did sign that Act into law, President Johnson explained that, ``By passing this bill, we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived children.''

So where are we now some 40 years later as we look at No Child Left Behind? Well, progress has been made since the enactment of the ESEA, and sometimes, it is hard to measure that, but I think by any standards, if you look at the various aspects of that Act, we can certainly claim that there has been progress. Nearly 4 decades later, however, poor and minority children still lag well behind the education curve. It obviously has been through a lot of cycles, kids going first through 12th grade in that 40 years.

In fact, a huge gap still remains when it comes to ensuring that all kids are actually learning. No Child Left Behind built upon numerous reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was driven to eradicate this problem and to ensure that every student will not only have access but will also receive a quality education.

The Federal Government has spent more than $300 billion on K-through- 12 education since 1965, which was the date of enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Yet that significant academic achievement gap that I referred to between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers still exists in key subjects, such as reading and math.

According to the recent national data on this subject, by the time African-American students reach eighth grade, only 12 percent can read proficiently, and only 7 percent are proficient in math. Nationally the achievement gap between Hispanic and Caucasian fourth graders is 29 percentage points.

We have allowed ourselves to believe that some children are simply beyond our reach. No Child Left Behind is rooted in the belief, a different belief, that all students, regardless of race, background, income, geography or disability, can learn and must be given the chance to do so.

In the true spirit of President Johnson's vision, and like many other laws that passed during the Great Society, we are helping all students.

As Brent Staples recently wrote in the New York Times, No Child Left Behind happens to be the best hope of guaranteeing black and Latino children a chance at equal education. Its core requirements that States educate minority children to the same standards as white children breaks a century old tradition of educational unfairness.

I think that captures that as well as it can be captured in a short sentence or two.

For the past 3 years, the Federal Government, States, school districts, parents and especially students have been dedicated to reforms that ensure no child is limited. We are engaged as a Nation in a continuing dialogue about our public education system. Despite the often unfavorable tone, the fact remains that people outside the education community are focused on reforms established by No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind has its skeptics, and change is never easy.

Many have complained that the Department of Education has been inflexible with implementation. This has not, however, been the case. The U.S. Department of Education continues to not only be an important voice in helping to implement the law but an ear to some of these negative accounts.

Some of that flexibility I have put on this chart, which I have to my left, that they have undertaken, particularly in the last 2 years.

The first of these is flexibility on testing students with disabilities. It has been shown that some of these students simply are unable to stay up at a class level with other students, and some flexibility was introduced in order to address that, mainly in the percentage of children who would be exempted from the testing.

Flexibility on testing students with language barriers: Again, there are demands that the kids be able to master the English language and be able to test in that language eventually, but we are seeing the need for some slowdown there.

Flexibility for rural schools on high-quality teachers: High-quality teachers mean basically teachers who are proficient in the subject matter which they are teaching, and obviously, if you are a math teacher, you are proficient in math. You studied math or history or English or whatever it may be; you studied that particular subject. But obviously it is not always that easy, particularly in rural areas, particularly for teachers who are teaching more than one subject, that they be highly qualified in that area. So some latitude has been issued as far as that is concerned.

Flexibility of student attendance issues: Some of the attendance numbers were high, demanding some flexibility, although not much, was introduced in that particular category.

Flexibility toward raising student achievement, a new path for No Child Left Behind, and again, that is an important subject in terms of where we are going to advance as far as No Child Left Behind is concerned.

So the Department, I think, has been a lot more flexible than anyone has really given it credit for in terms of what they have done. They continue to review this, and some say, Well, what is happening in the Congress of the United States?

We, in the Congress, will look at this again, not this year or next year but the year after that in what we call reauthorization. So, in the meantime, the Department of Education is doing its job, and we are preparing to do our job as far as the reauthorization is concerned to make sure that this program works.

The bottom line is that students realize that there are standards in place now in all 50 of our States. There are assessments in the form of testing in place in all of our States, and probably, this will eventually go on as a matter of fact to high school, as well as the grades which it is in now, in a more formal sense than it does at this point.

Mr. Speaker, most recently, Secretary Spellings, who is now our Secretary of Education, by the way, and, I think, doing a splendid job, announced a set of guiding principles to help States implement No Child Left Behind while taking their unique situations into consideration.

I know my State, which is the State of Delaware, is that we have had a couple of submittals of different plans that have been accepted, and there has been a great deal of flexibility as far as the States are concerned, but these principles include ensuring students are learning, making the school system accountable, ensuring information is accessible and parental options are available and improving the quality of

teachers. To me, it is pretty hard to fight these things. To me, that makes a heck of lot of sense in terms of educating the young people of America.

If a State is meeting all of these principles, the Department will take that into account when discussing amendments to State accountability plans. This approach, if carried out fairly and in the true intent of the law, could help some issues that have been raised throughout the implementation process.

So this is being looked at. These demands are being made. In a moment, I am going to return to this and talk about the funding and talk about some of the student test scores and how they are doing better now than they were before as we understand the difficulty of the greater demands which are there but of making absolutely sure that that is translated into help for our children across the United States of America.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I must just say this: my colleague has a scientific background. He is, I hate to use the word fanatic, but I can almost use it in this case, because when it comes to math and science, there is no person probably in the history of this Congress that has been more of an advocate for this than he has. And by an advocate, he goes out to see if there are laws he can change, speeches he can make, writings he can pursue in order to shift policies. And he has made a difference as far as that is concerned. He has been a stalwart friend of mine and a stalwart friend of, I think, everybody in education. He has been on the Committee on Education and the Workforce with me for a number of years now, and so it is always a pleasure to work with him.

So at this time I will yield to him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his continuing and abiding interest in this subject. I am afraid sometimes the rest of us do not take as much note of it as he does. Perhaps we had a little trouble with the math and science ourselves, I guess. But I understand how important that is. Every time I talk to companies, to people who come into Delaware looking to locate in Delaware, they make a big fuss about that. We happen to have more Ph.D.'s per capita than any other county in the country in New Castle County. As a result of that, there is a great deal of interest in research in our area. I understand the importance of this. We need to sell the message to a lot of people out there. The gentleman from Michigan is the one who really helps sell it.

I thank the gentleman for all his help in this area. He touched on something that I want to turn to now with these charts because some of the strongest criticism that we have heard concerning No Child Left Behind has been with respect to the funding, specifically the Federal Government's role in funding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

If we look carefully at these charts, we begin to get the true picture of what is happening in the funding. Let me go through it word by word. Education Funding, Discretionary Appropriation Increases, Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal Year 2005. This is what the Federal Government has done for the funding of education. Although it says the Department of Education here, this money basically flows through to our States and school districts throughout this country. Federal funding for education has more than doubled over the past 9 years. Under the final fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, discretionary funding for the Department of Education climbed from $23 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $57 billion for fiscal year 2005. That is an increase of 148 percent. That is a tremendous increase. We are talking about 15 percent, and maybe the math comes in handy here, 15 percent or more on an annualized basis. Most costs of living, when you measure it in government programs, is just that; it is cost of living. Usually it is 2 or 3 percent. So the Federal Government has stepped forward and said, We are going to make a larger commitment to education, and we have done that in the course of the last 9 years. I do not have the chart here to show this, but I would be willing to put a lot of money on the fact that the States and the local school districts have not

been able to keep up with this particular pace of funding that has gone into education.

Just one more chart while we are looking at these charts, and that is funding for programs under the No Child Left Behind Act, a 40 percent increase in 5 years, showing that, in the last 5 years since No Child Left Behind, we have also had very significant increases as far as No Child Left Behind is concerned to help with those programs. These are programs, by the way, which were being put into place by most of the States and most of the school districts in this country even before No Child Left Behind came along. I am very dubious of any argument saying the Federal Government has not done its share as far as that is concerned. I am discouraged, frankly, by States and organizations that focus more on the funding levels than on what the law is supposed to ultimately be providing to students, which is a quality education and the opportunity for future success. Many even argue that it is an unfunded mandate, that it is impossible for schools to implement the law at the funding levels provided by Washington, D.C.; This is a disingenuous argument at the very best.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which you may know as GAO, released a report in May 2004 which discredits comments that No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate. The GAO reviewed more than 500 different statutes and regulations enacted in 2001 and 2002 and officially concluded No Child Left Behind is not an unfunded mandate. Even more clear are the significant increases in Federal funding of Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs since the enactment of No Child Left Behind as was shown by those charts. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Federal funding for programs encompassed by No Child Left Behind has increased $17.4 billion, as I indicated, representing a 40 percent increase in just 3 years. Included in this number is title I funding for disadvantaged students and schools, which is funded at $12.7 billion in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 45 percent since No Child Left Behind was signed into law. That is significant, because that is the money that is going to the schools that have the most low-income children in their schools.

It should also be noted that, in 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act, a reauthorization of the ESEA, that required States to develop standards and aligned assessments for all students. Districts were required to identify schools not making adequate yearly progress and take steps to improve them. Bill Clinton, 1994.

This makes two important points. First, States across the country should already have been implementing accountability systems similar to what is required under No Child Left Behind. The previous reauthorization included many of the same provisions, just without the necessary teeth to ensure compliance. Second, during that time, Congress did not appropriate the same levels as were authorized in the act. Democrats funded education in the same manner when they controlled Congress and the White House.

Yes, raising the student achievement levels are difficult and expensive. The fact remains that the Congress has been funding the program. States and organizations should not be avoiding their responsibilities to students on the back of a failed funding argument.

The hard work and dedication of those implementing No Child Left Behind is clear, and we can all agree with the law's goals. We are beginning to see results. Many educators across the country have stepped up to the plate. New test results for the 2003-2004 school year show students are posting high math and reading scores on States' tests. For example, in my home State of Delaware, scores have improved in three out of four grade levels in all three subjects tested, reading, writing and math. Fifth grade reading performance in Delaware climbed to 85 percent, a seven percentage point increase from last year. In Ohio, fourth grade math scores improved from 58 percent last year to 66 percent this year. Additionally, according to the Chicago Tribune, students in every grade level posted increased scores on statewide reading and math tests in the 2003-2004 school year. Finally, according to a 2004 study by the Council of Great City Schools, the achievement gap is narrowing in both reading and math between African- American and Caucasian and Hispanic and Caucasian students in our Nation's inner city schools, and they attribute the positive change in part to No Child Left Behind.

We must also recognize that the job is not done. We must see to it that all children are receiving a quality education. No Child Left Behind is a step in this direction, and we must stay the course. Any attempts to change the system would play into the hands of those who support the status quo, effectively preserving a failed system that does not ask if children are learning.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time; and more importantly, I thank him for his continuing excellent work in heading this committee and dealing with significant legislation to help all of us.

Obviously, I rise in support of H.R. 366, and I also want to thank my comrade in arms at the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for her work on this, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who has a continuing interest in education. They are a pleasure to work with, most of the time, and we appreciate that. I think together we produce good legislation, even though there may be small differences on some of the amendments.

The Perkins Act aims to prepare youth and adults for the future by building their academic and technical skills in preparation for postsecondary education and/or employment. The bill we are considering today enhances Perkins by ensuring both secondary and postsecondary students participating in the program are acquiring rigorous academic and technical skills and will have the opportunity to transition into further education and/or successful employment.

The Perkins Act governs widely supported programs at both the secondary and postsecondary level. For example, nearly all high school students complete at least one vocational education course; and approximately 26 percent of students are considered vocational concentrators, those students that focus on a single occupational area. In my home State of Delaware, we have five career and technical high schools that enroll 5,500 of the 29,500 total high school students. At the postsecondary level, the Perkins Act supports a broad array of options primarily at the community college level. In the 1999-2000 school year, over 50 percent of all students enrolled at the less-than- 4-year postsecondary level reported they were majoring in vocational education areas.

Vocational education represents one of the first education laws at the Federal level, with the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917. H.R. 366 seeks to build on reforms made in past reauthorizations and seeks to enhance this popular program to ensure its success in years to come.

The legislation before us today makes significant reforms to academic achievement and accountability to ensure students have the skills necessary to enter the workforce or continue to an institution of higher learning. As I mentioned, there are five career and technical high schools in Delaware. While all these schools met adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act, there is more to be done in academic achievement in these schools and schools across the country. H.R. 366 will improve vocational and technical education by increasing the focus on academics in conjunction with the skill attainment that is incumbent on the program.

The emphasis on academics will be assessed through the act's alignment with No Child Left Behind, as well as enhanced accountability. H.R. 366 strengthens accountability by requiring that locals establish adjusted levels of performance to complement the State adjusted levels of performance already in current law. The State agency will evaluate annually whether the local recipient is making substantial progress toward achieving these goals. The intent is not to penalize those local areas that are facing difficulty in achieving high-quality outcomes for their students, but to create a structure that includes technical assistance, opportunities for program improvement, and sanctions only as a last resort.

One of the unique attributes of vocational technical education programs is their ability to show students a path that could end in a certificate, credential, employment, military, or postsecondary education. The Tech-Prep program currently within the Perkins Act is intended to focus on a well-defined link between high school and at least 2 years of postsecondary education.

Research has shown, however, that funds are rarely, if ever, used to meet this goal. Rather, funds are often used for purposes within the larger vocational technical education program. Therefore, H.R. 366 folds the separate Tech-Prep program activities and funding into the larger State grant to create a more streamlined system. Under the bill, States will still be expected to spend the same amount of money on Tech-Prep activities as they did under the former stand-alone program. To ensure that the intent of the Tech-Prep program is met, the legislation revises the requirements of the program in order to ensure articulation agreements, or two-plus-two agreements, between secondary and postsecondary institutions are implemented.

Along this same track, H.R. 366 requires States to establish model sequences of courses to emphasize further student academic and vocational and technical achievement. Sequences of courses will incorporate a nonduplicative progression of both secondary and postsecondary elements, which would include both academic and vocational and technical content. Local recipients of both the secondary and postsecondary level would adopt at least one model sequence of courses as developed by the State. I believe this also will help drive program improvements by ensuring that States clarify the progression of academic and vocational and technical courses needed for the postsecondary education and training or employment of a student's choice.

While the President has proposed another avenue for high school reform in the Perkins Act, I believe strongly that the reforms in H.R. 366 will go a long way in driving program improvement and ultimate success for high school students across the country. The dialogue surrounding high school reform is growing and the President is right to force it at the Federal level. I commend those States and businesses across the country that are pioneering efforts at the local level and look forward to following these developments.

As a result of the changes in the bill, I believe that H.R. 366 would help States, community colleges, and other postsecondary education institutions and local educational agencies better meet the needs of the students participating in career and technical education. I urge my colleagues to support this education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Before discussing the amendment, I, too, would like to thank all the staff who worked on this. We sit here and we say nice things about these bills, and I think that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and I and others in the room who have worked on these bills know that without our staffs they simply would not be done in the same detail, the same execution. But all those on the committee who the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) referred to I particularly thank. They do a great job on our Committee on Education and the Workforce. I am very grateful to them and to my staff who helped with this as well. It is the reason we get legislation, I think, that we can all pretty much agree to on the floor of the House of Representatives.

My amendment before us, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. It would make an important clarification to the underlying bill. As we have heard, H.R. 366 consolidates the funding streams of Tech-Prep and the basic State grant, but still requires States to fund Tech-Prep activities. I have worked with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft this amendment that will clarify our intent. This amendment simply explains that Tech-Prep activities are held harmless to the amount that was appropriated to the Tech-Prep program in fiscal year 2005.

Evidence suggests that under current law, the Tech-Prep program has not worked as anticipated and designed. The intent of the program is for high schools and postsecondary institutions to draft agreements that allow for a nonduplicative, seamless transition for students.

The rationale behind consolidating the programs was to streamline the funding stream. We can all agree that Tech-Prep is an important component of technical and vocational education, which is what this amendment is intended to clarify by ensuring Tech-Prep activities are still funded. In order to prohibit the inadequacies of the past, H.R. 366 incorporates program improvements to ensure that Tech-Prep activities will include credit transfer agreements, ensuring that secondary vocational and technical education students can move easily into postsecondary education, a necessary exercise for those students who decide to go on to some form of postsecondary education or training.

I urge my colleagues to support my simple and technical amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the amendment by everybody.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the Laurel Middle School located in Laurel, Delaware. Founded in 1683, Laurel is a small town in southwestern Delaware that is home to over 800 buildings listed on the National Historic Record. Named for the trees that run along the town's Broad Creek, Laurel is now home to over 3,800 Delawareans. In addition to many historic buildings and beautiful recreation areas, the town is also home to a public school that has proven itself as one of the best in the United States: Laurel Middle School.

I would like to personally thank Dawn Williams, a 7th grade science teacher at Laurel Middle School. Ms. Williams has made me aware of the strides taken by the school. As a benchmark for public education in Delaware, Laurel Middle School has been recognized with a Delaware State Testing Program rating of ``superior.'' This recognition was made possible through the hard work of students, teachers and school officials. While it was the students who scored exceptionally on the test, it is the support system, led by Principal Julie Bradley along with parents, teachers, and administrators, who make it possible to achieve a superior rating.

Most notably, this achievement occurred in a poverty area school, showing that hard work and strong community support can yield outstanding results, regardless of income level. I am grateful for the work of everyone involved and am excited to see the youth of Laurel grow up to become the leaders of tomorrow. Once again Mr. Speaker, I commend the efforts of Laurel Middle School and look forward to following their future achievements.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the La Red Health Center, located in Georgetown, Delaware. La Red is an important and effective health care provider for the residents of Sussex County. The center provides bilingual high- quality and cost-effective primary and preventive medical care to over 5,000 Sussex County residents who are uninsured, underinsured or face other barriers to medical care. La Red's importance is highlighted by the fact that the United States Census Bureau finds Sussex County to possess the fastest growing Latino and African American populations in Delaware. With such growth, there are limited medical resources to meet the unique needs of these populations. For this reason, La Red's recent attainment of federally qualified health center status by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services is so important and exciting.

The center will receive $650,000 in federal funding each year for the next three years. La Red will also receive $200,000 a year for the next three years through the Rural Health Outreach Program, to support La Red's Prenatal Program. La Red has faced many hurdles on the path to receiving this distinction, facing challenges to secure funding and reach out to underserved populations.

In addition to the Congressional Delegation of Delaware, the staff at La Red deserve our highest praise. Over the past few years, they have managed to improve and expand services, while simultaneously reaching out to the Sussex community. By qualifying for health center status, La Red will continue to improve its services with such federal privileges as: the 340 B Federal Discount Drug program, which allows La Red to get discount rates on prescription drugs; applying for federal tort claims, which provides insurance to the center; and receiving federally funded technical assistance.

This is a very exciting time for La Red, but even more so for the growing number of patients in Sussex County--they have a reliable and quality health center they can turn to in times of need.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 902) to improve circulation of the $1 coin, create a new bullion coin, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

I am pleased that the House will consider today the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 I authored with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). This legislation honors each U.S. President by placing him on the obverse side of the $1 coin on a rotating basis. By doing so it aims to improve circulation of the $1 coin, which will lower costs to businesses and thus restrain price increases. I believe this program is a great opportunity for educating both children and adults about the history of our country. In addition, although it is not the goal of the program, these new coins will likely generate as much as $5 billion for the government.

Concurrently with this program, the current Sacagawea coin will also be minted. I am pleased that we were able to work with the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) to address his concerns and continue the Sacagawea program, which will now hopefully be stronger than ever.

In many ways this legislation is modeled after the successful ``50 State Quarter Program.'' The 50 State Quarter Program, which I was also proud to have authored, issues five quarters a year bearing images connected with one of the States, so that over a decade each State will have been honored. Before the State quarter program started, the U.S. Mint was making about 400 million quarters a year, but in the first year of the 50 State Quarter Program it minted approximately 1.2 billion quarters. The Mint estimates that one person in each household is collecting the quarters and they are collecting a full set, not just their own State. According to the most recent numbers from the Mint, nearly $5 billion worth of savings have been created for the Federal Government.

It is important to note that this program is likely to be more accepted by the public than previous dollar coin programs. In a 2002 General Accounting Office report to Congress, 25 percent of respondents stated that they would use the dollar coin for more purchases if there was a rotating design similar to the 50 State Quarter Program. Additionally, nearly 50 percent of respondents stated they would collect the new coin if it featured a changing design. And 69 percent of respondents favored U.S. Presidents as the choice for the new rotating design on the dollar coin.

Under the program, the images on the front and back of the coin temporarily would be replaced beginning in 2007 with images of the United States Presidents. Four Presidents a year would be honored, in the order of their service, with a likeness of the President, his name and dates of service, and a number signifying the order in which he served, on the front of the coin. The image on the reverse would be that of the Statue of Liberty, large enough to be dramatic but not so large as to create a so-called ``two-headed'' coin. The date, Mint mark, and other important mottos on the coin would be on the edge of the coin, leaving room on the faces for more dramatic artwork.

Working through concerns, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) raised last year, there is language that was drafted in consultation with the National Federation of the Blind to ensure seeing-impaired individuals would be able to distinguish the dollar coin from a quarter.

The educational aspects of this program are obvious. We all know George Washington was the first President, but how many can tell the exact dates of his service to the country? How about the dates of service of the famous Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who later became President? And how many in this Chamber can name the only President who would end up with two coins in the series because he served twice, in terms separated by another President's term?

This legislation also seeks to honor the First Spouses by creating a nearly pure-gold investment-grade bullion coin, the same diameter as the dollar coin, and half an ounce in weight, honoring the First Spouses who have done so much for our country. The U.S. Mint will also be able to make bronze medal replicas of the First Spouse gold bullion coin. This will enable school children and ordinary citizens an affordable option for collecting the First Spouse series. These bronze medal replicas will cost just a few dollars.

For the First Spouse coin, the obverse, as for the Presidential coins, would be the likeness of the spouse, terms of service, and the order in which they served. On the reverse would be images emblematic of the spouse's works. In the five instances to date in which Presidents had no spouses while in office, the educational part again, the bill calls for the image on the front of the coin to be that of an image, that of ``Liberty,'' as used on a U.S. coin circulating that President's term, and the reverse of the coin to carry images related to the President's term.

During President Chester Arthur's term, the image of Liberty would be represented by Alice Paul, a leading figure in the women's suffrage movement, who was born during Arthur's term. Other Presidents, such as President Wilson, have had more than one spouse while in office due to the death of a spouse and subsequent remarriage while still in office.

Finally, this legislation includes H.R. 767 as a second title. This legislation, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and cosponsored by the entire Illinois delegation, will redesign the Lincoln penny in 2009 in celebration of the 200th anniversary of President Lincoln's birth. The redesign will feature four designs, each representing a different aspect of his life: first, his birth and early childhood in Kentucky; second, his formative years in Indiana; third, his professional life in Illinois; and, finally, his Presidency in Washington, DC.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for her work on this legislation, indeed there was a great deal of work, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their support.

I urge my colleagues to support this fun and educational program.

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

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

First, as a comment to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), he is tenacious, to say the least. We have been going through this with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for a year, or something of that nature, addressing a variety of issues.

Obviously, none of us wanted to see the Sacagawea coin not come back or fail or whatever. It will be continued, and I think it is our mutual hope that this program will accelerate the usage of these coins, and therefore it is going to be a coin when it does come back in full-blown issuance after all the Presidential coins are gone that will be used a heck of a lot more than it is now. So hopefully it is a win-win situation that we ended up with.

I thank the gentleman. It was all amiable, maybe a little frustrating at times, but all amiable.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank my cosponsor enough. She has also been tenacious in this, dealing with her side of the aisle when there were complications, smoothing those things over, plotting with me to get this done,

which we had to do from time to time. It has been a great pleasure to work with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) on this as well.

I would like to thank all the staff who worked on this legislation. It does seem like a relatively simple bill, but it is a little more complicated than one might think; and there was a lot of staff involvement. Obviously, Emily Pfeiffer on my staff I thank particularly, and Joe Pinder is truly an expert on coinage. I think he dreams about these coins and constantly he would come up with things I had not thought of, usually which we had to overcome in some way or another. But his institutional knowledge of coinage in the United States, which may not be exceeded in this country, is of extraordinary value to all of us as we deal with legislation such as that.

So we are pleased to be here. We think this is obviously very good legislation for a whole variety of reasons, every bit, hopefully, as good as the quarter legislation turned out to be.

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

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