Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and both the ranking member from Massachusetts for this good piece of legislation. Obviously I support the bill before us.

This bipartisan legislation passed the House Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 61 to 3 in July of this year. We do not have a lot of votes with those kinds of numbers in it, an overwhelming endorsement which should obviously be noted by all of us.

The legislation is a good, bipartisan bill. It is a result of six hearings, nearly 100 witnesses and months of deliberations. Through this very thorough process, the Committee on Financial Services has produced a bill that will protect the financial privacy and access to credit for all consumers, and it will help our economic recovery by ensuring businesses have access to accurate information which provides prompt credit to American consumers.

As my colleagues know, one of the forces that has helped sustain our economy in recent years is consumer spending. A critical factor in enabling American consumers to purchase products when they need them and want them is our strong system of consumer credit. That system is supported by the Fair Credit Reporting Act which ensures the factual information is available on which to base the extension of credit. Virtually every business in this Nation and every consumer that has ever used credit depends on this system.

One of my constituents, Michael Uffner, president, chairman and CEO of AutoTeam Delaware, testified before the committee this year. Mike Uffner stressed the importance of access to accurate credit information to serve customers in a timely and fair manner. Americans want to be able to walk into an automobile showroom and purchase an automobile that day based on a prompt approval of a loan based on their credit.

In December, the national uniform consumer protection standards in the Fair Credit Reporting Act will expire. Without this legislation, there would be no national standards for consumer protections and credit availability. This will negatively affect consumer access to credit and the economy as a whole. A failure to pass this legislation would mean higher costs to consumers, who will be paying more for their credit without this legislation. In today's economy, in which we rely on instant credit available to us across the country, we need to have this legislation. This is uniformity, not a state-by-sate issue; and as Congress we must protect the consumers.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to express my strong support for this bill and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the 63 bipartisan members of the House Committee on Financial Services who worked together to craft the bill to protect consumers and give confidence to businesses. This is a proper step to ensure that all of our constituents have access to fair and reasonable credit information.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. This bipartisan legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 61-3 in July 2003. An overwhelming endorsement which should be noted today.

This legislation is a good bipartisan bill, it is the result of six hearings, nearly 100 witnesses, and months of deliberations. Through this very thorough process, the Financial Services Committee has produced a bill that will protect the financial privacy and access to credit for all consumers. Furthermore, it will help our economic recovery by ensuring that businesses have access to accurate information which provides prompt credit to American consumers.

As my colleagues know, one of the forces that has helped sustain our economy in recent years is consumer spending. A critical factor in enabling American consumers to purchase products when they need them and want them, is our strong system of consumer credit. That system is supported by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which insures that factual information is available on which to base the extension of credit. Virtually every business in this Nation, and every consumer that has ever used credit, depends on this system.

One of my constituents, Michael Uffner, President, Chairman and CEO, of Auto Team Delaware, testified before the House Financial Services Committee this year. Mike Uffner stressed importance of access to accurate credit information to serve customers in a timely and fair manner. Americans want to be able to walk into an automobile showroom and purchase an automobile that day based on a prompt approval of a loan based on their credit.

In December, the national uniform consumer protection standards in the Fair Credit Reporting Act will expire. Without this legislation, there would be no national standards for consumer protections and credit availability. This will negatively affect consumer access to credit and the economy as a whole. A failure to pass this legislation means higher costs to consumers, who will be paying more for their credit without this legislation. In today's economy, rely on instant credit, available to us across the country. There is uniformity, this is not a state by state issue, as Congress we must protect consumers.

This legislation has a number of consumer protections, it helps protect consumer credit while providing access to greater opportunities of credit nationwide. This legislation provides consumers with the tools they need to fight identity theft and to ensure the accuracy of their credit reports.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to express my strong support for this bill and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the 61 bipartisan members of the House Financial Services Committee who worked together to craft this bill to protect consumers and give confidence to businesses. This is a proper step to ensure that all of our constituents have access to fair and reasonable credit and information.

Mr. Chairman, I just think we really need to go back historically in this discussion and take a look at what we were dealing with. I actually hate to say it, but I remember what it was like back before we dealt with uniform standards on credit back when we first started this in 1970. Then in 1996 we went to pure uniformity.

I remember trying to get credit and being told you are going to have to wait for a while before we can do that. I was not the only consumer. Probably 100 percent of Americans or probably 98 or 99 percent were being told they had to wait in order to establish whatever the credit was. Every place you went it was handled separately or differently or whatever.

Congress did something right. Congress did something extraordinarily right when they passed the act initially and then went to the uniform standards with the usurpation of some of the State laws in 1996. I think that is one thing we simply do not want to back off of. Regardless of what is in the California statute, California is the most significant State we have in terms of people and in terms of financial interests, but the bottom line is that to impose the California standards basically on this country could be a problem.

I might also note another reason to vote against this amendment to this legislation is that it states at the end of it: ``or the law of any other State that is similar to the California Financial Information Privacy Act.'' That is a damaging statement because I don't know how you measure ``similar to.''

Other States could come in and try to do something that would upset the uniformity of what we are doing at the Federal Government level.

What we have done now here in Washington is given every single consumer in this country the opportunity to have a uniform plan so that we know how to get information right away. And with the use of technology that can be done. You can buy a car instantaneously, much less establish credit of a lesser nature some place else.

I think California's attempt to impose restrictions in an area that is completely, totally governed by the FCRA's uniform national standards would be a tremendous error.

We had extensive hearings. I think we need to remember that, too, as we make our decision on how to vote on this amendment. We had over 100 witnesses in very expensive hearings. The chairman and the subcommittee chairman did a wonderful job working with the majority party and our own majority party in terms of developing this legislation.

It did pass overwhelmingly in our committee as everybody understood exactly what we are dealing with. In fact, at that committee another member from California offered an amendment to sunset FCRA's uniform national standards at the end of this

year. And during that debate, a specific appeal to give California the ability to establish its own standards either through action by the State legislature or statewide ballot initiative came up. That amendment was defeated 56 to 6.

So, clearly, the individuals in this body who have looked at this issue carefully understand that to undermine it by allowing States to start to opt out and to have different provisions with respect to the fair credit reporting that we have in the country would be an error.

I would encourage everybody in this body to look at this carefully and to vote ``no'' on this amendment to make sure that we protect a very good piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

We had this discussion on this amendment before the Committee on Financial Services, and it did not make a lot of sense then; and, frankly, it does not make a lot of sense now, that we would even consider this amendment.

Essentially, those who are issuing credit, particularly credit cards, that is their business, that is their product, that is what they do. And what they have to look to is the creditworthiness of any of us. We probably all in this room and most people in this country today are carrying some sort of credit card, and probably multiple credit cards in the cases of most individuals. And that is based on one's ability to be

able to pay their debts and be able to manage their accounts. Obviously, the one account is not necessarily the whole answer. The whole answer is exactly where you are financially. They make a decision with respect to where you are in a circumstance, and they issue the credit based on that. With the Maloney amendment, we have a circumstance in which people will be informed that if, indeed, their creditworthiness is challenged, they may have to pay higher interest rates.

The chairman cited a letter which I received on July 22, 2003, from Chairman Greenspan with respect to this issue, and I would just like to read a little further from that beyond what he had read. He said, ``Consumers' performance on credit accounts as well as the number and recency of certain types of inquiries to credit reporting companies are credit criteria that are statistically associated with creditworthiness in evaluative systems that are used for credit granting and pricing. Records of consumers' usage of, and payment performance on, credit accounts with other creditors are fundamental building blocks for evaluations of creditworthiness. For example, where a creditor commits to allow a consumer to make purchases or obtain cash advances from time to time on a revolving line of credit, the consumer's performance on other credit accounts can well presage the credit risk outlook for the creditor's own account,'' and it goes on from there.

It is relatively simple. You are in a situation in which an individual has taken credit based on the circumstances of their own creditworthiness and then has gone out and established their creditworthiness as not what it should be. There are problems or circumstances. Frankly, the credit card companies and others dealing with this do not want to have to do this if they can avoid it because it is easier for them to deal with it on the levels on which it is issued; but there are circumstances in which this happens, or perhaps this discourages it from happening, that is your interest rates might be increased.

So I think for all of these reasons, while this amendment sounds to be well-intended, ultimately would be extremely counterproductive in that I think a lot of the credit which is issued now, because people realize that this may be an outlet in order to make sure that people do not extend their credit otherwise, might in the future not be able to be granted, simply because the credit issuers are going to say this person has sort of a spotty history and yes, we would have done it if we had known we could have increased the interest rate if necessary, but in this circumstance we are not going to issue it. I think you are going to find a lot of people who marginally might have been able to receive credit before are not going to be able to receive it if this amendment were to be adopted. So I encourage the defeat of the amendment.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2003.

Hon. Michael N. Castle,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request of

July 18, 2003, seeking my views as to whether proposed

changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act might affect the

pricing of credit based upon risk or might potentially bear

upon the safety and soundness of creditors. The proposed

amendments referred to in your letter would limit use in

credit evaluation systems of certain types of information,

such as information regarding the number of inquiries about

the consumer made to a credit reporting company, and would

also restrict consideration of other types of information,

such as information about the consumer's personal credit

experiences with other creditors in credit decisions that

involve the interest rate on an account.

The information gathered by credit reporting companies on

the borrowing and payment experiences of consumers is a

cornerstone of the consumer credit system in this country.

Experience indicates that access to the information assembled

by these companies and credit evaluation systems based on

that information have improved the overall quality and

reduced the cost of credit decisions while expanding the

availability of credit.

Credit evaluation systems rely on information to measure

the credit risk posed by current and prospective borrowers.

In the process of credit evaluation, creditors seek to use

information that helps them better distinguish between good

and bad credit risks. The information items that receive

positive and negative weights in credit evaluation systems

are those that have demonstrated statistical usefulness in

this process.

Consumers' performance on credit accounts as well as the

number and recency of certain types of inquiries to credit

reporting companies are credit criteria that are

statistically associated with creditworthiness in evaluative

systems that are used for credit granting and pricing.

Records of consumers' usage of, and payment performance on,

credit accounts with other creditors are fundamental building

blocks for evaluations of creditworthiness. For example,

where a creditor commits to allow a consumer to make

purchases or obtain cash advances from time to time on a

revolving line of credit, the consumer's performance on other

credit accounts can well presage the credit risk outlook for

the creditor's own account. Similarly, an upsurge in recent

inquiries could indicate that a borrow in financial distress

is seeking to gain access to more credit. Thus, restrictions

on the use of information about certain inquiries or

restrictions on considering the experience of consumers in

using their credit accounts will likely increase overall risk

in the credit system, potentially leading to higher levels of

default and higher prices for consumers. Even with higher

prices for credit, elevated levels of default may raise risk

levels for credit-granting institutions.

In sum, in deciding whether to restrict the use of certain

information in credit evaluations, the Congress should be

aware that such restrictions are likely to diminish the

effectiveness of statistical systems that have played a

significant role in reducing the overall costs of credit and

widening its availability.

I hope these comments are useful.

Sincerely,

Alan Greenspan.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise to pay tribute to James H. Gilliam Jr. who passed away suddenly last week at the age of 58 after decades of outstanding service to the State of Delaware. Jim was a loving father, husband, and son, as well as a corporate attorney and investor, civic and business leader, philanthropist, and the first black Cabinet secretary in Delaware's history. The numerous accomplishments, recognitions, and admiration Jim has had in his lifetime are truly remarkable.

Until 1998 Jim was the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Beneficial Corporation and a member of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of Beneficial, as well as Chairman of its commercial banking subsidiary, Beneficial National Bank. Before joining Beneficial in 1979, Jim served as Secretary of Community Affairs and Economic Development in the Cabinet of Governor Pete du Pont. Prior to that post he was an attorney with the law firms of Richards, Layton & Finger in Wilmington, Delaware and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York City. A graduate of Morgan State University, Columbia University School of Law, and the Advanced Management Program of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Jim also received Honorary Doctor of Laws degrees from Morgan State University and Delaware State University.

Serving as a board member and trustee for numerous corporations and foundations, Jim was a board member of the Delaware Community Foundation, a Trustee of Christiana Care Corporation, and Founding Chairman of Wilmington 2000, established to assist in redevelopment of the City of Wilmington. He was also Chair of the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, the United Negro College Fund Delaware Campaign, the Capital Campaign for the Chesapeake Bay Girl Scouts Council, and the Walnut Street YMCA in Wilmington, among many others.

Jim also gave back greatly to the legal profession as a member of the American Bar Foundation, as Chair of the Governor's Judicial Nominating Commission in Delaware, and as Secretary of the Board of Bar Examiners for Delaware.

Jim received many awards that further point to his commitment to a life of service to his community. He was awarded the Helping Hand Award by the Delaware Chapter of the NAACP for his efforts to promote diversity in the legal community, as well as the Wilmington Branch NAACP Award for Advocacy in the Education and Civil Rights Arena for Over 25 Years. Jim was also named Outstanding Young Man of the year by the Wilmington and Delaware Jaycees and received the National Conference for Community and Justice/Delaware Region Brotherhood- Sisterhood Award for Leadership and Service toward building a just and inclusive community.

I rise today to praise and honor James H. Gilliam Jr. for his contributions to the State of Delaware and its citizens. His achievements speak to the immense mark he has left on the community. His peers have described him as a great leader, a ``giant'' of the community, his friends speak of his loyalty, and his daughters speak of his encouragement and unconditional love. Delaware will remember James H. Gilliam Jr. for his great leadership and constant striving to do more for more people.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to some new Delaware heroes--The Naamans Little League All-Stars. The team impressed, inspired and awed Delaware through their dedication, hard work and immense talent. All these qualities impress but more importantly they helped the team succeed in reaching the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, a feat unmatched by any other team in Delaware history.

Jarad Carney, Kevin Czachorowski, Scott Dougherty, Cory Firmani, Danny Frate, Constantine Fournaris, Michael Julian, Zachary Lopes, Tim Marcin, David Mastro, Vince Russomagno, Kip Skibicki along with Manager Joe Mascelli, Coach Bob Waters and Coach H.J. Lopes all deserve our congratulations. There are so many great players, coaches and great teams in the Little League World Series and we are all so proud of our team for playing so well, playing so hard and making it so far. Each deserves recognition for his achievements.

For those friends and family who couldn't travel with the team, it was certainly a great joy to watch them play on national television. It was an even greater joy to watch them win on national television. But winning is not the only pillar of success. Effort, sacrifice, enjoyment, and friendship are just as important. Even through our television sets we could see these crucial pieces of a great team.

Mr. Speaker, Along with their friends and families, I wish to congratulate the Naamans Little League All-Stars for becoming the Mid- Atlantic Regional Champions. The past few weeks have been exciting, they have made us proud, they have taken a place in Delaware history and they have set a great standard not only for Little League baseball in Delaware, but for Little League Baseball throughout the country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I too oppose this amendment, and I concur with those speakers who have spoken to that, and I will certainly support the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from New York State (Mr. Quinn).

We have really in this country the time has come to start looking at our transportation systems. If we look at our airlines, if we look at our airports and the entire air systems, if we look at our roads, if we look at our ports, we are going to find that America is at least competitive, if not ahead, of every other single country in the world. If we look at our rail systems in the United States of America, we will find we are behind almost every highly civilized country in the world, the European countries, Japan and a lot of others.

We have for years and years and years not funded rail to the extent that it is needed, and it is true that we fund it and it is true that it is so-called subsidized, but the bottom line is that we are dealing with tunnels going into Baltimore, built right after the Civil War, into New York City, or most close to that, and we are simply not making the improvements we have to make to get the speeds up to attract the ridership.

In spite of that, we have more people riding the rails now from New York City to Washington than are taking airlines from New York City to Washington. We pour tremendous money into our other infrastructure and into the upkeep costs of other forms of transportation.

Look at the air industry, for example. We pay, often locally and by States, we pay for the airports, a huge expense which is out there, and the FAA, we pay for the comptrollers. The Transportation Security Agency primarily is aimed at that. It cost billions of dollars to do all these things, much more than we are trying to put into rail, far more than we have ever put into rail before.

The infrastructure is absolutely needed. Obviously we put a lot of money into the concrete of our roads. We do get a return as far as gas money is concerned. I drive from Wilmington, Delaware to here from time to time. It is incredible how crowded those roads are, but it is also incredible to see how crowded the trains are and how we could use more trains.

So I will be the first to agree there need to be more efficiencies.

I would just say this to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado. I hope he will talk to David Gunn. I do not know if he talked to him or not. He is the new CEO, relatively new, in the last couple of years at Amtrak. He really has some good ideas. He really has some good strategies in terms of how to make Amtrak, and I am not going to call it profitable because I am not sure that is right, but to reduce the subsidies which are necessary to provide this very important form of transportation for at least portions of the United States of America, obviously the eastern seaboard, the region around Los Angeles and around Chicago and various other areas. I am not suggesting we need to go across the country and go for 4 days, whatever it may be, but the bottom line is this is an extraordinarily important mode of transportation, and I think we need to sit down and recognize that and do all that we can.

I implore the White House, this committee, the Senate and everybody to try to do this. The Senate has spoken

to this, at least to a degree. They have raised their amount in subcommittee which is looking at it to $1.34 billion; 218 Members, that is a majority of this House, have signed a letter requesting the $1.8 billion. There are many people who recognize what we have to do.

I am, like everybody else, if there is fat there, sure, we want to squeeze that out and we want an efficient system, but we need a good rail system in America, and we cannot continue to underfund it so badly that we cannot make the capital improvements and do the other things which are necessary to keep it up. So I implore all of us to do this.

I do not know where these amendments are going, but obviously at some point this is going to be in conference, and very important decisions are going to be made about the future of rail in America, and I hope when that happens that we put together a good plan that really works, we listen to Mr. Quinn and others who are vitally interested in that.

I would encourage the defeat of the amendment. I would encourage support of the Quinn amendment, and hopefully when we get to conference we will really get the job done on rail in the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, if he would yield to let me speak to this for a couple of minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do not want to wear out my welcome.

I did speak to this just a few minutes ago, but there are a couple of additional points. Obviously I agree with the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). We are not going to win this point. I understood the point of order of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and notice he is a good friend and a good chairman and is doing the best job he can with this particular bill, which is difficult.

I just have to go back to what we are doing in transportation and just ask everybody in leadership and everybody that is going to be involved in the ultimate conference on this to really pay attention to what is happening to rail service in the United States of America and to other services in general.

I have already indicated in our airports, for example, that we have the comptrollers, we have the TSA, and we have billions of dollars of expenses; we put $15 billion, $15 billion, after 9-11 into stabilization for our airline industry in this country. The request here is $1.8 billion for a significant industry to allow them to do the infrastructure which they would have to do in order to be able to carry out a proper transportation system.

Let us look at what we have: not a single passenger rail system in the world which operates in a profitable way. Countries with well- developed rail systems with much smaller populations, such as Germany and Japan, invest $3 billion to $4 billion, while we are asking for $1.8 billion, $3 billion to $4 billion annually on passenger rail, which is over 20 percent of their total transportation spending.

What happens to the roads there? The roads free up and people go with the rail systems. That is what we want to do here in the United States of America. I honestly believe if we give this a long-term approach, with the capital improvements, with the maintenance which is necessary running the systems where it should, and with the decisions for efficiency where it is needed, that we will have a system of rail in this country for which we can always be proud. But frankly, if we continue to try to keep nickel and diming this operation by giving them, say, $900 million when indeed they need twice that amount of money to run this, unfortunately we will never get to that point.

We are not going to rescue this today. Unfortunately, we do not have a large enough body of votes here to be able to do that necessarily. But the bottom line is that at some point this Congress and this administration need to sit down and make that decision, and hopefully it will be a firm decision to make sure that rail is elevated so that it is at the point where it is absolutely competitive with other countries and other transportation systems in the United States of America. I do hope that we will be able to do that, and I would suggest that we would be best served if we did it, and the sooner the better.

So I am in support of the amendment, but also I am in support of making sure we resolve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank all the members who took enough interest in Head Start to be here today to speak. Obviously, we do not agree on everything, but they are interested, and that is good.

My view of this legislation is greatly influenced by the history of it. Looking back to 1965, in what was called the Great Society and the creation of this, many people say this is maybe the best program extant from that in terms of it being able to help children. We have heard the millions it has helped over the years. And, frankly, I believe that is accurate. I believe particularly in the areas of just well-being, in nutrition and medicine, it has been a tremendous amount of help.

This program has been continued pretty much as is directly from the Federal Government to the local grantees who run the Head Start programs. It serves today about 900,000 students at about $7,100 a year. Most of the 4-year-olds that are eligible are served. Some 3- year-olds are served. And they go to school for roughly half the year for roughly half a day. I think all of this is in the interest of these children because we are dealing with children who are at 100 percent of poverty, or roughly $20,000 for a family of four. So for that reason, I think we can agree that Head Start does some good things.

On the other hand, to suggest that Head Start is doing what it should do educationally for these young kids who need it as badly as anyone else in our society would be, in my judgment, a very inaccurate statement. Another inaccurate statement I have heard today are words like dismantling Head Start. This is not an accurate statement whatsoever; and also block grant, which is also not an accurate statement.

I have had this argument so much I am almost tired of making it, but perhaps some people have not heard it. Essentially, the bottom line is that we are not block granting anything here. Forty-two States will be treated just as they were before and eight States would go through a demonstration program that would hopefully show us how better to educate these young people as far as Head Start is concerned.

Is it a block grant? Let us take a look at it. First of all, the States would have to maintain or increase their fiscal year 2003 State funding levels. Then they would have to add 5 percent to that in order to be one of the eight States which qualify. They could only use Head Start funds for Head Start-related uses. All comprehensive health and nutritional services currently provided by Head Start would continue to be provided. Parental involvement strategies must be developed. State teacher quality standards would meet or exceed the new requirements for Head Start programs. This is hardly block granting or dismantling. It just simply is not that. This is an opportunity for improvement, as far as young people are concerned.

A speaker from the other side said at one point that for the first it will reduce the number of children to be served. I do not know mathematically how anybody arrived at that. I have seen the authorization figures, and I have seen the appropriation figure for this year. The increases are there for that.

The rule itself is fair. There will be a substitute certainly that is very significant in terms of what we are going to do.

A number of other people have spoken to this legislation, Mr. Speaker; and I thought it would be interesting to go through what some other people are saying, since we are a little bit political on the floor, if you will. Today, in Roll Call, Mr. Morton Kandracke said, ``Children who were in the upper 25 percent of their Head Start class when they entered Head Start in 1997 showed no gains on any measure of cognitive ability over the course of the Head Start program year, and actually experienced losses in some measures in comparison to national norms. The report said that more recent 2000 data shows modest improvement in results of children, but overall progress is still too limited. Children continue to lag behind national norms when they exit Head Start. They also lag behind more advantaged children throughout their school years.''

And then it says, in conclusion, and this is, I believe, a fair man: ``Democrats ought to be urging, not fighting, upgrades in Head Start's academic rigor. Instead, they are denouncing the measure sponsored by Representative Mike Castle to give eight high-performing States leeway to improve the program.''

And that is my judgment as well. Because today, and we are in 2003 not 1965, all these States have early education programs, prekindergarten programs and other programs that help with this. Others have looked at this. The Brookings Institute has looked at it; and they have reached the same conclusions, that we should be doing this.

So I think we need to be very cautious about what we are saying about what is in this program. I believe this affords kids an opportunity. Vote for the rule, support the legislation. It will be interesting to continue the debate through the evening.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me this time tonight and for all the tremendous work he has done in the committee and on this piece of legislation.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about this legislation, and we are going to hear a lot more in the next 2 hours. Frankly, I would love to be able to stand and try to repudiate all that we are hearing, but perhaps we do not have time for that. So I thought I would take a little different tack in the time I have and that is to make sure that people who are really willing to listen understand what truly is in this title II, which is the State demonstration program of this bill.

I think we can all agree on the reforms made in title I, or at least most of them anyhow. What has been the strongest point of contention is title II, which does create the eight-State demonstration program that would allow a select number of qualified States to better coordinate and to improve their early education programs.

What title II does not do is seek to dismantle Head Start as we know it. It does not create a block grant, nor does it permit States to use this money as a bandage for their ailing budgets. Since H.R. 2210 was introduced, we have listened to the concerns raised by Members on the other side of the aisle as well as Head Start advocates across the Nation. What we have before us today is a carefully crafted bill which clearly addresses all of these concerns.

I very strongly believe in the State demonstration project. Title II is critical, because today, unlike in 1965 when Head Start was created, Governors have a host of initiatives to serve disadvantaged citizens, including WIC, TANF, Community Services Block Grant, and state-run prekindergarten programs. Most of these programs are run through States, making coordination easy. In Head Start, however,

grantees receive funds directly from the Federal Government, despite the fact that it may be more beneficial to coordinate with similar State initiatives.

Those Governors who have demonstrated a commitment to early childhood education programs will now have an opportunity to fully coordinate all of those programs. By empowering those States that are committed to early childhood education to coordinate their existing patchwork of child care and preschool programs, we will produce improved results for all our children.

In order for a State to participate in the demonstration program, they would have to meet a set of eligibility requirements. The State would then submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for approval by the Secretary. In order to be eligible, a State would need to show evidence that they are contributing to Head Start or State prekindergarten programs an amount in State and local dollars that is at least half of what the State receives in Head Start funding; existing State school readiness standards and demonstration of a willingness to allowing those State standards with K through 12 State standards, if they have not already done so; existing professional development criteria for early childhood educators; and an established means of interagency coordination.

Once a State has been approved by the Secretary, there are a number of requirements and prohibitions attached to the State. For example, a State would be prohibited from using Head Start funds to pad their State budgets. Explicit in the legislation is a prohibition on supplanting, misdirecting, or misappropriating Federal or State early childhood education funds to other purposes. States are also required to continue to fund early childhood education at the same level as the 2003 fiscal year.

Under this bill, it is illegal for States to reduce their complements to early childhood education. In order to participate in the pilot, States must be matching at least 50 percent of the Federal commitment with State and local dollars and contribute from any non-Federal sources an additional 5 percent of their Federal Head Start allotment. This good-faith money ensures that States make a strong commitment to early childhood education.

Participating States must also have state-developed standards that generally meet or exceed the standards that ensure the quality and effectiveness of programs operated by Head Start agencies. Children in a Head Start program in a participating State will be receiving the same, if not better, services than if that State remained in the current structure. States must have standards that ensure children participating in a program demonstrate language skills, prereading knowledge, pre-mathematics knowledge, cognitive abilities related to academic achievement and social development.

Finally, today, we require a State in a demonstration program to continue to fund all current Head Start grantees for the full 5 years of the project.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look at the details and the facts. This is good policy. Examining how State coordination will enhance the academic preparedness of pre-K children is something that will ultimately help all of the children in our districts.

The School Readiness Act of 2003 builds upon the reforms of previous reauthorizations of Head Start as well as the requirements of the landmark No Child Left Behind and the vision of President Bush and Secretary Thompson. We all want to do the best for our children. I truly believe this bill does this.

I have looked at the results that have existed in Head Start for a number of years, and they just are not what we need. We need to enhance the program and do even more. That is what this bill does. That is what it is all about. I would ask all of us to support the legislation when the time comes for it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and who does a wonderful job.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who not only is extremely well known for his expertise in coaching, but is one of the leading experts on mentoring in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who probably has had more to do with increasing the emphasis on math and science education than anybody in the Congress and has indicated this is one of the most misunderstood bills he has seen in 10 years here.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to take on the question of how well we are doing, at least educationally, in Head Start. This is really, really important, that everybody understands it.

First of all, there are not that many studies with respect to how Head Start children are doing. There is a longitudinal study in the works right now which we should have pretty soon. This is a study, and I will show 2 charts, one from 1997 and one from 2000, which shows children in Head Start far below average. The average is 50 percent. That is the median that we are dealing with here.

This study is by the Family and Child Experiences Survey, and it shows, and you cannot see it probably, but the blue is the fall of 1997 and the purple is the spring of 1998, so after they had been through a year of this. It shows the vocabulary of the kids had gone from the 16th percentile to the 23rd. In letter recognition they actually went down from the 27th to the 25th. In early writing, 16th to 23rd, and early mathematics, 17 to 19.

Believe me, these are numbers which tell us that these kids are not going to make it in school. This is absolutely why we have to challenge Head Start. It is why we need to go to a State demonstration to make sure it is brought in with all of the other State programs which exist.

Now, the numbers really are not a lot different for the year 2000, but there they are: 16 to 23 for early letter recognition; early writing went from 16 to 19; early mathematics, 21 to 23. This means that when these children reach kindergarten, we can almost predict that they are not going to make it out of school ultimately, and that, unfortunately, Head Start has not done all for them that it could.

Head Start does a wonderful job in many ways that we have described here today in terms of helping with the well-being of our young children, but it is not doing what we need to do in education, and we need to challenge it. It is as we have seen and heard in some of the newspapers that have written about it. The Detroit News on July 9 said:

``Head Start advocates fear States will fritter away any

Federal Head Start funds shifted their way, but proposals now

in the House restrict States in how they spend earmarked

money. The pilot program would be limited to eight States,

and that would be a good test for proposed preschool reforms.

If government can devise a better Head Start program, one

which helps children more effectively, it should hurry to do

so. The program's 900,000 children, the ones who need the

help, deserve no less.''

That is absolutely correct. We need to take steps to help them academically. What we have proposed will do so. Please support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who is the former chairman of the State Board of Education and a tremendous asset to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a strong proponent for the children of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), where they have the university that stole their football uniforms from the University of Delaware, I might add.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), clearly a person very concerned about Head Start.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), head of the Subcommittee on Select Education in the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a strong force on our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), another distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to this argument all night, and there is some great success stories in Head Start, and there are a lot of us that are very devoted to what Head Start has done. But I hark back to about 15 or 16 years ago when I was Governor of the small State of Delaware, and we started welfare reform before anybody here in Congress had talked about it. We started it by having classes, mandatory classes. You had to go to classes, or you would not get your welfare.

I went to that first class after they had been there for about 2 months. I walked in there; I remember there were 19 people there, one man and 18 women. I was stunned, because I thought they would want to run me out of the place. Instead, they thanked me for giving them an opportunity.

We have done what you had to do with welfare in Delaware, and now in the United States. We have reduced welfare by 50 percent. The time has come in the United States of America to do more with Head Start.

There are some wonderful success stories for Head Start, no question about it. But there are also in-bred problems that we need to deal with if we are going to make Head Start better, and some of those we need to talk about right now.

First of all, I do appreciate the support for title I, because we did make a lot of changes. That is everything but the State demonstration and the faith-based business.

Secondly, we have increased spending. Since 1995, we have doubled spending. But if you look at these results for just 1 year, and I showed these charts before, ironically, that was about an hour and a half ago, nobody has come forward to show me anything different, any study, any chart, any test whatsoever, to show that Head Start results are better than this.

This shows that the increases are rather marginal, in fact, in some instances no increases at all as far as Head Start is concerned, averaging in the low twenties. This means these are kids that are going to have difficulty in school. Some are going to be higher and they are going to do all right; but for the most part, they are going to have difficulty in schools because we simply have not gotten them to where they should be, which is as close to the median level, 50 percent, as we can get them. We have to raise that.

What does the State demonstration make? The State demonstration that people are so concerned about, what does it do with respect to this? Well, it fences in all of the Federal money, all of local money, it adds more local money to what we are doing here, and it makes sure that the State merges it in with all of the other programs and projects which they are trying to do to help children.

Some of the comments which I have spelled out before from people on the outside, for example, the San Diego Union said: ``The strident opposition to President Bush's modest pilot proposal to fine-tune Head Start is nothing more than partisan sniping, pure and simple. Bush is looking to close the achievement gap for poor youngsters. He would do so by merging Head Start into often overlapping State programs and opposing new academic standards on the combined program.''

That is positive. That will help educate young people.

Then the Des Moines Register said: ``The eight States selected for the 5-year pilot project just might do better. The eight-State pilot project is a chance to see what States can do on their own. Meanwhile, Head Start is working to improve early literacy and math preparation. When the 5-year experiment is over, Congress can decide whether a state-by-state or national framework better serves the interests of young children.''

That is not taking apart Head Start, that is not block-granting anything. That is affording opportunities to young people to be able to be educated.

The Council of State School Officers has come forward and has indicated that they believe in this proposal and we need to do something about it. This is a council of State school officers which has done that, people who believe in education. The Brookings Institution, certainly a middle-of-the-road operation, has come forward and said that we need to do something. It said, given the immensity of the task and the modest success achieved thus far, new ideas are worth trying.

This is a new idea. This is not dismembering anything. This is affording opportunity. This is taking eight States and saying, we are going to give you, the best States in the country, who are willing to put in extra money and who are already running programs that are going to help in early education with these young children, the opportunity to do more to lift the standards of where we are going with Head Start. Everything else will be done in Head Start.

And Lord only knows, it does some wonderful things, and we have heard that said by a lot of people here tonight. But this is unacceptable; we have to do better educationally. That is what this is all about.

Please support the underlying legislation and defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I realize there is a very limited time here. I would like to reiterate what the gentleman has stated and then make it plain. The Delaware River basically serves three States in terms of what we would do here in deepening that river, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

New Jersey is adamantly opposed to this. Delaware has serious questions about it. We have just gotten all of our reviews in. We have not even approved this yet. In fact, it is very doubtful if it is going to be approved in the State of Delaware. It is almost certain that this money cannot be spent in the course of this year. Pennsylvania has been adamantly for this.

There are tremendous environmental questions that are being asked, but there are also significant economic questions which are being asked, such as who benefits from this and, in fact, whether there is a cost benefit that is remotely close to what the Army Corps came up with originally.

I think to appropriate this full amount is wrong. We are not asking to close it out all together, but to reduce the amount of money that is involved here so that we can continue the necessary process to see if in another year we should be going forward with it.

But this, frankly, is just a waste of money. This is something Congress should not be doing at this time in terms of putting additional money in it. My judgment is that the amendment makes all the sense in the world, and I strongly endorse it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Let me just reiterate. We are all friends, we are neighbors; and, in most cases, we are together on these various issues. But I must say that it concerns me a great deal that there are two States out of three which are affected here that are very much concerned about going ahead with this project at this time. New Jersey is in adamant opposition to it, has been from the beginning.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has done a wonderful job of requesting additional economic studies. GAO looked at this and found that the cost ratios are not $1.18, but 49 to 50 cents on the dollar. That is highly inefficient for going ahead with a project such as this.

We in Delaware have still not given approval to this, either for economic or environmental reasons. There is a great deal of opposition in Delaware as well. We do not have anyone other than the port of Wilmington who believes that they may benefit from this. The oil companies who are involved in this, and there are six of them, I believe, along the Delaware River north of Delaware who would benefit from it, have not been willing to show any evidence of expanding their channels. If they do not do that, then it is of no advantage to them. So perhaps the Port of Philadelphia would benefit, and maybe this will go ahead.

All we are asking for, frankly, is time to see if it should go ahead, and they have to work out a lot of problems between now and, say, a year from now before that can happen.

But I would plead to the Members of Congress that the two States are being rather adversely impacted that are raising serious questions about this,

and I think that we should revert to the smaller amount of money which is used to keep the studies going, but not to have the project go ahead.

There is a lot more that could be said. We do not have the time to say it all today, except to say there is a lot of economic speculation about this, and we think it is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter- Shays-Dicks-Leach Amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The arts and humanities are important both socially and economically to our nation as a whole.

Studies have shown students benefit from exposure to both the arts and humanities. I have witnessed firsthand how rewarding arts and humanities programs can be to our nations' youth. For example, the Delaware Institute for the Arts in Education, which is partially funded by grants from the NEA, provides workshops and programs that encourage teachers to enrich classroom education for their students by utilizing the arts. They provide programs for students in dance, art, music, theater, and other skills essential to a well-rounded education. Because of funding by the NEA, the Delaware Institute for the Arts and other Delaware programs help give students lifetime skills of cultural appreciation, communication, critical thinking, and teamwork.

While funding for the NEA encourages Arts education, part of the funds reserved for the NEH will support the important education initiative, We the People. We live in a country with a rich and rewarding history; a country where diversity helps create a uniquely American experience. It is vital that Americans understand our history in order to become more informed and civically minded citizens. Programs like the We the People initiative hope to do just that.

It is important for us to remember, the collective benefits gained by not only our districts but also by the nation as a whole and that is why I rise today in strong support of increased funding for the NEA and the NEH.

Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a leader in the business and banking community--Wilmington Trust Company, one of the nation's principal providers of wealth advisory, banking, and corporate client services. Wilmington Trust is celebrating 100 years of business, a milestone few companies manage to achieve. This company has proved outstanding over the years and on behalf of myself and the citizens of the First State, I would like to congratulate Wilmington Trust on all of their accomplishments in the past 100 years and offer it continued success in the many years to come.

Today, I recognize Wilmington Trust for their accomplishments in the State of Delaware as well as the rest of the nation. Serving clients in 60 countries demonstrates their strong loyalty and support from all their customers.

Family, friends, and fellow Delawareans can now take a moment to truly appreciate everything Wilmington Trust has offered to the community. One hundred years ago, T. Coleman duPont recognized the need for secure financial resources in Delaware's growing business sector. The company has never had an unprofitable year and is currently only one of 159 public companies to have increased its dividend for over 20 consecutive years.

July 8, 1903, marks the first day for the banking, trust, and safe deposit company, originally run out of the dining room of a private residence. Mr. duPont served with remarkable vision as President and Chairman of the company from 1903-1912. After being with Wilmington Trust for over 30 years, Robert V.A. Harra, Jr. was elected President in 1996 and is currently continuing at this position. The current Chairman, Ted T. Cecala, was elected in 1996 and has worked for Wilmington Trust for over 20 years.

This centennial celebration signifies 100 years of service, growth, and commitment to the company's founding principles of integrity, stability, continuity, independence, and excellence. These core beliefs will help form the foundation for Wilmington Trust's promising future.

Wilmington Trust's accomplishments and contributions cannot be commended enough. As the company celebrates their diamond anniversary, we can be sure their contributions will continue for many years. Their commitment to serving the community has earned Wilmington Trust a permanent place in Delaware's history.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding me time, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Maine, but the basic underlying concept of this amendment is very dangerous.

No Child Left Behind was a very difficult act to pass. Each of our States has worked extraordinarily hard in the last year and a half in order to comply with No Child Left Behind. The Secretary of Education has certified that each of the States is now ready to deal with this. In each of our States, tests have been prepared. For the most part, they are starting to be given. Assessments are being made, standards are being set, we are beginning to move up education.

I can tell you my State, which is the State of Delaware, which has been doing this for quite a long time, even before this, our test scores are starting to move up rapidly, we believe, as a result of setting standards and assessments and having testing in place, and I think to suspend it would be a sad error.

But there is another component to all of this. If you look back over the funding of education, and I give a tremendous amount of credit to the Chair of this appropriations subcommittee as well as the ranking member, who certainly played a major role in what we are doing in helping education funding, you will see that nothing has increased in spending the way education has in the last 6 years or so.

From fiscal year 1996, we have doubled funding for education at the Federal Government level. Just this year, we are going to put into IDEA an extra $1 billion. This is important, because that basically frees up State and local dollars. That is money in which the amount is not necessarily the increase that is needed, but the Federal share of it is increasing dramatically because we have stepped forward to do that.

We are putting $769 million more into Title I dealing with the same children who are so very important for No Child Left Behind. So we have funded education in a way it has never been funded before.

For all these reasons, because No Child Left Behind should be left in place, it is an amendment that should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act, which will strengthen teacher training programs to ensure teachers are highly-qualified and ready to teach when they enter the classroom.

Eighteen months ago the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law and ever since, States and school districts across the country have been answering the call. The Ready to Teach Act follows the momentum of No Child Left Behind and meets its requirement to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom--a requirement of great import, as the value of a qualified teacher on a student's ability to learn has been proven, over and over again. H.R. 2211 achieves this by making improvements to the Higher Education Act to help ensure teacher training programs are producing highly qualified teachers to meet the needs of America's students.

All States and nearly all teacher education programs in the country are affected by general accountability provisions in this legislation. Schools receiving Federal funds must report annually on the quality of teacher preparation, including information on the pass rates of their graduates on initial certification assessments. Higher educational institutions enrolling federally-aided students in their teacher preparation programs must report annually, detailing, among other things, the certification pass rates of graduates.

Unfortunately, this data has proven ineffective in measuring the true quality of teacher preparation programs. Current requirements have often been manipulated, leaving data skewed and often irrelevant. For example, if a student fails to pass the State certification exam, upon completion of the institution's program, the school will award them a degree in another field rather than in education. A school will only award students an education degree if that student has passed the state exam. That way, the school will always have a 100 percent pass rate. H.R. 2211 sets forth more useful information. This includes requiring a school to report on all students who have completed 50 percent of the program and requiring an average score of students rather than the pass rates.

As in current law, H.R. 2211 will continue to award State, partnership and teacher recruitment grants. In doing so, H.R. 2211 has evolved with the teaching profession and places updated requirements on these grants.

State grants will be used to increase the advancement technology in the classroom and increase the focus on rigorous academic content knowledge and scientifically based research. States will be given flexibility in identifying innovative methods for teacher preparation programs, such as charter colleges of education to provide an alternative gateway for teachers to become highly qualified.

Partnership grants allow effective partners to join together, combining strengths and resources to train highly qualified teachers and achieve success in the classroom. Among other things, partnership activities will help to ensure that teachers are able to address the needs of students with different learning styles, and receive training in methods of improving student behavior in the classroom.

Finally, teacher recruitment grants will help bring high quality individuals into teacher programs, and ultimately put more highly qualified teachers into classrooms. The Ready to Teach Act places a priority on applicants that will emphasize measures to recruit minorities into the teaching profession, providing a teaching workforce that is both highly qualified and diverse.

We are fortunate in the State of Delaware to have the University of Delaware's Elementary Teacher Education program. In many ways the University of Delaware has already begun to address the need to have a highly qualified teacher in our classrooms. They have been innovative and forward thinking always recognizing the importance of providing their students with a strong academic base as well as a practical experience.

In their freshman year at the University of Delaware, students participate in field experiences in the school setting. Freshmen have the opportunity to observe, tutor, and offer general assistance in the classroom. As sophomores and juniors, the experiences include planning, implementing, and assessing limited instructional units with small groups or an entire class. As seniors, students become engaged in an extended student teaching experience.

Technology is integrated throughout the curriculum and all students will graduate with the skills necessary to utilize technology in their instructional planning. The Elementary Teacher Education program's goal is to prepare teachers who are reflective practitioners serving a diverse community of learners as scholars, problem solvers and partners.

I am committed to ensuring No Child Left Behind is a success for America's children. The Committee and this Congress have been working since passage to ensure other laws in the education arena are aligned with No Child Left Behind. We have accomplished this with IDEA, Head Start and hopefully today with the Ready to Teach Act. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2211.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate all those who were involved with this, particularly the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Things have changed in education, and they have changed a lot because of what we have done right here, and a lot of people, frankly, do not like it. The No Child Left Behind is a tough piece of legislation. For those who do not believe it, just go talk to your school superintendents and hear some of the complaints they have about it. It is tough because we have standards and assessments, we are doing testing, we are making demands, and if you do not make the mark, then you will be penalized for that. And indeed, it has taken a lot of steps to educate kids better than we ever have before, and that is very commendable.

One thing that has been missing in all of this has been identified in this legislation which we have before us is the fact that we need to have teachers, particularly in specialized areas, who will fill the niches of being able to teach in those areas and who are themselves prepared in those particular areas. This loan forgiveness in this excellent piece of legislation which we have before us which is going to give us, we hope, more science teachers, more math teachers, and more special education teachers and, perhaps, more reading specialists is of extraordinary importance to make sure that we are meeting the concerns and problems we

have with educating all of our young people. And for that reason, I think we should all support it in every way we can.

It adds to all that we have done in recent years in education. It is going to bring the best and the brightest to teaching. But by giving them loan forgiveness over a period of 5 years, first of all, they will be there for 5 years; and, secondly, it is my judgment that when they have taught for 5 years, they will look around and say, this is a good profession, and they will want to continue to teach after that.

This does cost money, and quite frankly, we on this side should be very proud of the increases which we have had in education that we have pushed for in the last 6 or 7 years. A lot of mention has been made that we are not doing enough about the funding of education. We have done a lot about the funding of education, increases of 16 percent a year for the last 6 or 7 years in the Congress of the United States.

The time has come to educate better. This legislation helps with that. Let us all support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Dr. Barbara Benson upon her retirement as the executive director of the Delaware Historical Society. Dr. Benson has served as the organization's executive director for thirteen years and as staff librarian for ten years prior. She has left the history of Delaware on display for many future generations to cherish and explore our rich heritage.

Dr. Benson is a recognized scholar in her field who set high performance standards for every task she undertook at the Delaware Historical Society. During Dr. Benson's tenure, the Delaware Historical Society grew in both its collections and membership. Furthermore, Dr. Benson led the organization's purchase of the old Woolworth 5 & 10 next to the town hall, which now proudly serves as the Delaware History Museum.

Dr. Benson has challenged Delawareans to think, learn and grow. Delawareans have been called upon to connect Delaware's history with their own lives and relate their own experiences with the future of Delaware's history.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Dr. Benson for challenging the residents of Delaware and for sharing her knowledge with us. The legacy Dr. Benson has left us through her work at the Delaware Historical Society is not one that will soon be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hunter for introducing this important resolution. Today, we recognize, support, and commend our brave service men and women for their dedication, for their sacrifice, and for their supreme love of country. We thank and honor those, including our allies, who serve on behalf of liberty and freedom, and remember those who have been wounded or died in the line of duty.

Our Nation has committed our military to defend the world from grave danger and to assure the security for all nations. These men and women have risen to the highest level and have succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. While they are working diligently to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, our men and women of our armed forces continue to face danger each and every day.

In the coming weeks and months, it will be critically important for our Nation to continue our support and pray for the safety of our troops. Their mission may not be completed for a long time, and it is important that we reiterate our strong support. At the same time, I would like to commend the military families, the employers and the communities around the United States for their sacrifices and patriotism.

Our focus must be on working with the world community to fight the war against terrorism, and to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq following the military actions. As we move forward in Iraq, and in other crisis spots around the world, I am hopeful that the United States will continue to strengthen its unity with the international community and provide hope to those nations that have been trapped under dictatorial regimes.

Today, we stand firmly behind our armed forces and our allies. We thank the brave men and women who risk their lives to keep our Nation free and safe. We offer our respect, our utmost gratitude, and the promise that we shall not forget your bravery and your sacrifice. We are proud of you. May God bless you and keep you safe.