Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. The majority has placed divisive and damaging provisions in the legislation. They propose to begin the dismantling of Head Start through a block grant to the States. The majority has also proposed to allow discrimination in hiring of teachers that educate our youngest citizens. And I ask the Members, what kind of head start in life could that be?

In the few moments given me to debate, allow me to inform the Members about migrant Head Start children. In the case of perhaps our neediest children, the sons and daughters of migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the majority in the Committee on Education and the Workforce has offered crumbs. Only 19 percent of these eligible migrant children are served now, compared to the 60 percent for the regular Head Start program nationally. The majority bill will move that figure by only 1 percentage point to approximately 20 percent. Furthermore, their meager authorization funding level will ensure that a larger percentage of children will never be served and helped to be school-ready in the foreseeable future.

For farmworker families, access to Head Start is more than a school readiness issue. It is a public health and safety issue. The Republican bill provides no new money to close this access gap for the migrant children, and I have to emphasize that the only way to close this gap is to substantially increase our investment in Head Start. It does not have to be this way. Head Start has a 35-year history of bipartisan cooperation. Until that happens, I urge Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2210.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come back to the table and work with us to write a bill that will be worthy of our children, our future.

Until that happens, I urge Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2210.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this Grijalva motion to recommit. Migrant children whose parents do the most backbreaking work in the Nation in order to put food on our tables deserve better than crumbs when it comes to early childhood education.

I would especially like to recognize the leadership that my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), has shown on this issue. Migrant children have no better friend than this gentleman from Arizona.

We began the reauthorization process thinking we could come to a bipartisan solution to the access gap in Head Start programs for the children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. But the majority has steadfastly refused to provide the financial resources needed to expand the program. Their bill will only increase the migrant Head Start children from 19 percent served to 20 percent.

When these families do not have access to the program, parents have no alternative but to take their children to the fields, or perhaps leave them unattended in the labor camp. We are fooling ourselves if we think that we can provide Head Start services to the 80 percent of children we have left behind. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I had an event in my congressional district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 397.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hostettler-Gallegly amendment. It is a thinly veiled attack on the consular ID card that has been used by the Embassy of Mexico for over 130 years, sometimes referred to as the Matricula Consular card.

Contrary to what the Hostettler-Gallegly amendment contends, Mexico and other foreign governments have been issuing consular identification cards to foreign nationals in the United States following precisely the guidelines established by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This amendment would constitute a violation of that convention.

Under that convention, consular function is established as ``performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving state.'' There is no U.S. Federal law which forbids the issuance of consular ID cards. In fact, the Treasury Department has issued regulations under section 326 of the PATRIOT Act that would allow the financial institutions to accept consular ID cards as valid forms of ID for the purpose of opening accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hostettler/Gallegly amendment. It is a thinly veiled attack on the Consular ID Card that has been issued by the Embassy of Mexico for over 131 years, sometimes referred to as the Matricula Consular card.

Contrary to what the Hostettler-Gallegly amendment contends, Mexico and other foreign governments have been issuing consular identification cards to foreign nationals in the United States following precisely the guidelines established by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This amendment would constitute a violation of that convention.

Under that convention, consular function is established as ``performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State.'' There is no U.S. Federal law which forbids the issuance of Consular ID cards.

In fact, the Treasury Department has issued regulations under Section 326 of the PATRIOT Act that would allow financial institutions to accept Consular ID cards as valid forms of ID for the purpose of opening accounts. More than 100 financial institutions accept these cards as valid forms of ID. Police Departments across the United States praise the use of these cards, because they enable them to identify foreign nationals.

The State Department adamantly opposes this amendment because an Interagency Working Group is already working to address the issue of Consular ID cards. Consequently, this amendment prejudges the outcome of the Interagency Working Group's efforts.

The State Department also has reciprocity concerns. The U.S. does, in certain instances, issue Consular ID cards to American nationals overseas.

The State Department fears reciprocal retaliation from overseas if the amendment were to pass.

These Consular ID cards are simply identification cards. They do not legalize the status of any immigrant.

They cannot be used to obtain any immigration or citizenship benefits such as work authorization or to obtain public benefits.

Their continued use, with consultations between the U.S. and Mexican governments, will foster greater transparency and increase security in the United States.

For these reasons and many others, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this week we will consider legislation that is of critical importance to our Nation's future, the reauthorization of Head Start. This legislation is a top priority for me and for all of my colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Asian-Pacific American Caucus. Today, Hispanics are the largest minority group in the United States. However, the Hispanic community has the lowest level of educational attainment of any community in the Nation. This educational attainment, this attainment gap, starts from early childhood where Hispanics are less likely to participate in preschool programs, opening an achievement gap even before the first day of kindergarten begins. The gap expands through elementary school, where Hispanic students are more likely to be held back; increases in high school where they are more likely to drop out; and continues to widen in college where they are less likely to attend a 4-year college and less likely to obtain a college degree.

The upcoming reauthorization of the premier early childhood education program, Head Start, presents us with an opportunity to close that gap for Hispanic and low-income children. This should be a time of hope and optimism for our community. Sadly, it is just the opposite. The majority's plans for the Head Start program are a great source of anxiety for the Hispanic community.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a recent article dated July 14, 2003, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram entitled, ``Hispanics Worry About Head Start Proposal.''

For over 35 years, the Head Start program has enjoyed great success in meeting the comprehensive development needs of low-income children. Head Start programs achieve school readiness for these children through a holistic approach and intense parental involvement. The range and intensity of services is assured because of national program standards. Sending the program to the States would fatally undermine these national standards, jeopardizing access to the comprehensive services that make Head Start effective in serving low-income children and their families.

Yet that is just what the administration proposed and the Republicans in Congress intend to do. The Republican proposal to block-grant Head Start will do nothing to strengthen the program for the growing numbers of limited English proficient, LEP, children in communities across the Nation. As we have seen with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, States look to the Federal Government for assistance and guidance in providing services to these populations. When Federal assistance is not forthcoming, the children suffer. Instead of looking for ways to divest themselves of responsibility for Head Start, the administration and the Congress should put Head Start on a path to full funding. Currently Head Start only serves 60 percent of the eligible population in our country. Migrant and seasonal Head Start programs only reach 19 percent of the eligible children; and, listen to this, Early Head Start only reaches 3 percent of the eligible children.

As a Nation, we must do better. Every child in America, no matter their race or the income level of their parents, should have the same opportunity to obtain a quality education and reach their full potential. We have the opportunity to do this, reach their full potential, in the Head Start reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, however, the legislation we will debate this week falls far short of that mark.

In closing, I want to say that I hope my colleagues will defeat H.R. 2210 and send the bill back to the committee for more work. We can do better. And for the sake of needy children all across the country, we must do better.

[From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 14, 2003]

Hispanics Worry About Head Start Proposal

(By Gustavo Reveles Acosta)

Fort Worth.--The already low number of Hispanic children

served by the federal Head Start program could diminish even

more if the changes proposed by the Bush administration come

through, several Hispanic advocate groups said.

Hispanic advocates are calling President Bush's call to

overhaul Head Start by creating eight state-operated programs

``a blow'' to providing service to low-income Hispanic

children.

``Ours are some of the most vulnerable kids. Head Start

gives them an opportunity to be introduced to English, books

and ongoing health care,'' said Manda Lopez, executive

director of the National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start

Association, which advocates for the children of migrant

farmworkers, who are mostly Hispanics.

Lopez, and groups such as the National Council of La Raza

and the National Head Start Association, argue that handing

over the 38-year-old program to the states will reduce

funding for local grantees, diminish the quality of services

and erase most of the tough oversight that is enforced under

the federal program.

The reduced funding will further underserve the Hispanic

population, Hispanic groups contend.

The National Council of La Raza, which will consider the

Head Start issue during its national conference in Austin

next week, believes that Hispanic children in areas with

traditionally strong Hispanic populations are better served.

But it is in communities with emerging populations of

Hispanics that the most help is needed.

``States like California and Texas do much better than

states like South Carolina that are barely seeing their

Latino population grow,'' said Raul Gonzalez, a senior

education analyst with NCLR.

``Given recent statistics, the next generation of kids

participating in Head Start will be largely Latino, and we

need to identify places where we can better serve them.''

According to figures from the National Association of Head

Starts, 33 percent of the nearly 1 million children in Head

Start are Hispanic. The group's figures also show that only

23 percent of the eligible Hispanic population is being

served.

In Tarrant County, 45 percent of the 2,500 children in the

program are Hispanic.

The nonprofit group in charge of Head Start in the county,

Child Care Associates, doesn't have any figures on the number

of eligible Hispanic children in Tarrant County, but it

estimates that about 11,500 eligible children currently go

unserved.

``We are a minority majority community, and issues

affecting the Latino population are definitely going to

affect the children that we serve,'' said John A. Whitcamp,

president of Child Care Associates.

``We are nowhere near the level that we need to be. And

this bill is doing nothing to change that.''

Although Whitcamp said his centers are well-equipped and

staffed to meet the needs of Hispanics, advocates say that

many centers shy away from expanding their service to

Spanish-speaking minorities for three main reasons:

The overall underfunding of the program.

In areas where Hispanic populations have just recently

emerged, providers think it is too expensive to hire the

bilingual instructors and buy the culturally representative

material that may be needed to serve Hispanic children.

The federal government's lack of enforcement to confirm

that the racial and ethnic makeup of Head Start participation

matches that of the community.

Even though Angelica Jones' 6-year-old son attended Head

Start two years ago and her younger daughter has been

eligible to do so as well, she is patiently waiting for a

spot in the program.

``I think I got lucky the last time because I got in with

no problems,'' said Jones, a stay-at-home mom who visited

several north Fort Worth Head Start centers for availability

earlier this week.

``I know there's a long waiting list and there are several

of us who go to different [centers] to check for any spots

every week.''

NCLR, Gonzalez's group, hasn't officially opposed Bush's

proposed changes. And although he said the bill doesn't

outline a specific plan to increase Hispanic participation

``by even one child,'' he welcomes some of the

recommendations.

``The bill is by no means a perfect bill, but does allow

for better assessment of communities that make sure the

people in most need are the ones being served,'' he said.

Gonzalez said that assessment could increase Hispanic

participation in areas with large or emerging Hispanic

populations like Fort Worth.

Still, Whitcamp said that in the long run, the bill would

hinder services in Fort Worth because the state would use

some of its monies to help other state-funded children

programs like CHIPS, that are struggling for a budget.

Handing over Head Start control to the states would further

diminish funds by creating an additional filter of overhead

costs, said Whitcamp, who oversees 40 centers throughout the

county.

``We have been making the argument about our kids being

underserved for years,'' Lopez said.

``This is not a new issue for us.''

Mr. Chairman, we will never be able to close the achievement gap in education with the funding levels we see in this appropriations bill.

I applaud the efforts of the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committee and Subcommittee. They truly have done the best they could with the funds they were allotted.

Sadly, the majority and the administration have decided to allocate our federal resources elsewhere. They have chosen to squander the national surplus on tax breaks for the very wealthy. These tax breaks have been so important to them, that they have been willing to drive the nation into unprecedented debt to pay for them.

Meanwhile, Hispanic children are told that there is not enough money for their education. The Census Bureau just confirmed that Hispanics are the largest minority group in America.

Hispanics are also fueling the growth of America's workforce, accounting for one of every three new workers hired and are projected to be one of every two new workers by 2025. Yet, Hispanics continue to have the lowest levels of education attainment of any group in the country.

If we do not invest in advanced education and training for this emerging population, we put our Nation's economic foundation at risk.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, where I chair the Education Task Force, focuses on a group of Federal education programs that are critical to the Hispanic community.

These include Titles I and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, migrant education programs, dropout prevention, HEP and CAMP, TRIO, GEAR UP, Hispanic-serving institutions and adult english as a second language. We call these programs the Hispanic Education Action Plan.

Unfortunately, the bill before us falls far short of the funding levels we need for these programs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that H.R. 221 is a step in the right direction. It builds on the improvements made to teacher preparation programs in the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act and provides a much needed focus on preparing a diverse teacher corps so that America's teachers reflect the students in America's classrooms.

To improve student achievement, schools of education must graduate teacher candidates that are prepared to teach our Nation's increasingly diverse K-12 student population. About 42 percent of all public schools in the United States have no minority teachers even though minority students make up more than a third of enrollment in U.S. public schools.

Minority teachers make up just 13.5 percent of all teachers. By the early 21st century, the percentage of minority teachers is expected to shrink to an all-time low or 5 percent. While 41 percent of American students will be minorities. Furthermore, some 2.4 million teachers will be needed in the next 11 years because of teacher attrition and retirement as well as increased student enrollment.

Improving minority teacher recruitment will help our Nation meet the challenge of addressing this severe nationwide teacher shortage.

Minority-serving institutions are uniquely equipped to help us address these shortages.

The Centers of Excellence established in this legislation could provide much needed assistance so that these institutions can increase the number of highly qualified teachers they produce. However, this can only happen if the resources are made available.

Unfortunately the majority and the Administration have elected to allocate our resources elsewhere--mainly to tax breaks for the elite-- the wealthiest individuals in our nation. It is my sincere hope that we will provide the funding for all of these programs that we say are critical to the education of our children.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to make a stand for the necessary investment in education.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are making teacher preparation the first order of business for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Teachers are the common thread running through all of our education efforts.

Quality teaching is essential if we are to fulfill our promise to leave no child behind. Head Start, IDEA, bilingual education, adult education, and higher education, all depend on high quality instruction by well-prepared teachers.

I support loan forgiveness of up to $17,500 for math, science, and special education teachers. However, I believe the scope of this bill is too narrow.

It does not address other equally pressing priorities, such as early childhood education or the growing need for teachers for an expanding population of limited English proficient children.

During committee consideration, my colleagues and I attempted to expand the loan forgiveness programs, but we lost every amendment on a party-line vote.

We were told by the other side that increasing loan forgiveness for bilingual teachers and Head Start teachers was a worthwhile Federal investment, but they said because we have limited resources, we have to make choices.

I'm all for making choices; that's what we're here to do. Making choices means setting priorities. The Hispanic community, and the low- income community are asking us: When are our children going to be considered a priority?

Through the No Child Left Behind Act, we require that schools across the country close the achievement gap between limited English proficient children and their peers. This is absolutely the right thing to do. Unfortunately, there are not enough teachers to do the job.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there are approximately 4.5 million limited English proficient children in our schools, and the number is growing. Sadly, only 12.5 percent of the teachers who have these LEP students in their classrooms have had 8 or more hours of preparation in the last 3 years on how to teach students who are limited English proficient.

It is unfortunate that the majority has insisted on a budget and a series of tax cuts that have drained the treasury and knocked Hispanic and LEP children from the priority list.

My hope is that we will put resources behind all the good intentions of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican prescription drug bill. For years, our seniors have been begging for help to obtain affordable prescription drugs. Unfortunately, however, the bill before us today gives relief not to our vulnerable seniors, but to the large drug companies.

It forces Medicare patients into multiple private drug plans and out of Medicare. It undercuts seniors' collective purchasing power and enables the drug industry to maintain its unjustifiably high prices.

Seniors who live in rural and undeserved areas will find themselves without any coverage because insurance companies will not be required to serve them and are given no incentives to provide coverage. Because of a large coverage gap, over half of all seniors will still be required to pay thousands of dollars a year for prescription drugs as well as the program premiums.

Hidden in this bill is also another provision that will change the way cancer patients are treated and subject them to delays and reduced access to care.

By contrast, the Democratic plan offered by Mr. Rangel would provide voluntary prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. The plan curbs drug costs by allowing this Secretary to use the collective bargaining power of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the sham Republican proposal and support the Rangel substitute that provides real benefit to our Nation's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. Like many of my colleagues, I have heard from numerous industry groups, health plans, medical associations, and, most importantly, my constituents on whether or not AHPs are the best solution to address the growing number of uninsured in our Nation. I am particularly concerned about finding workable solutions for small business employers.

Like many of my colleagues, my district in south Texas is built on the foundation of small businesses. They employ a large percentage of the workforce in the Rio Grande Valley. Most employers are faced with difficult choices on how to offer loyal employees the benefit they deserve or risk losing them to larger companies in larger cities. The high cost of health insurance is extremely burdensome for these small firms, and that is why we are here today.

H.R. 660 is a well-intended bill. Many of the 41 million Americans without health insurance are employed by small businesses. If Congress can find a way to help these employers provide health insurance for their workforce, we will be well on our way to reducing the number of uninsured in this country. But in my view, AHPs are not the way to do it. AHPs will offer minimal coverage, sufficient only for the young and the healthy. Our workforce will have none of the protections that State benefit mandates offer. They will have no assurance against fraud or premium inflation and no assurance that Federal oversight by the Department of Labor will even be conducive to fair handling of disputes. AHPs create an entirely new health care crisis, with 8.5 million newly underinsured Americans.

As a member of a heavily Hispanic border district, I am particularly concerned about what this will mean for the diagnosis and the treatment of diabetes, a disease that strikes many of my Hispanic constituents.

Mr. Speaker, over 11 million Americans have diagnosed diabetes, while another 6 million have diabetes but don't know it.

Diabetes hits minority populations especially hard. Untreated, this disease leads to end-stage renal failure, blindness, amputations and over 200,000 deaths annually. However, it has been demonstrated that appropriate use of diabetes medications, equipment, supplies, and education can dramatically reduce the incidence and impact of complications associated with diabetes. President Bush surely knew this when he was Governor of Texas and signed into law the diabetes coverage mandated currently in effect in Texas.

My principal concern is that the AHP legislation before us today preempts the State benefit mandates in Texas and 45 other States, your home States, for coverage of diabetes supplies and education. The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee and I offered, unsuccessfully, in committee would have corrected this dangerous omission. We also tried, again without success, to have the amendment made in order during floor consideration.

By refusing to include a requirement that AHPs adhere to State coverage laws associated with diabetes, we will be leaving millions of people with diabetes to fend for themselves. It is not a matter of cost effectiveness; it is a matter of right and wrong.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute offers small business employers and their workers a fair alternative. It establishes a small employer health benefit plan with minimum coverage similar to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield standard plan.

I urge my colleagues to support the Kind-Andrews substitute, and if that substitute is defeated, to vote against H.R. 660.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 276, 277, and 278.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the committee leadership in both Chambers for bringing forth this agreement, which represents a bipartisan, bicameral effort to protect children.

As with the Amber Alert legislation, and the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act that passed the House earlier this year, this legislation shows that we are unified in our desire to protect young people who are in danger. I am proud to be a part of this effort.

I won't repeat all the technical aspects of the bill, but this effort will focus on the prevention and treatment of child abuse by authorizing grants to States to help with the functions of the child protection system. It also provides authority for research and demonstration projects, enhances investigations and prosecutions of maltreatment, and provides grants for local community-based programs.

I am pleased that we were able to include in the final agreement demonstration programs to assist children who witness domestic violence as well as an Internet enhancement of the domestic violence hotline.

There is no more important task before this Congress than to protect the most vulnerable of our Nation's children.

I only hope that our commitment to children will extend beyond rhetoric to the resources needed to fully fund these and other programs for children. Unfortunately, help for poor, disadvantaged children has taken a backseat to tax breaks for the wealthy. We are sending a clear message to our young people, not only will we leave you behind, we will also leave you the bill.

I firmly urge all my colleagues to support the final conference agreement. When the time comes, I also urge you to support the resources necessary to protect, defend, and educate our children.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. I commend Representatives Melissa Hart and Harold Ford for introducing the legislation and for tenaciously working to ensure the legislation came to the House floor today.

I also want to thank Chairman Oxley, Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank and Ranking Member Sanders for bringing this legislation to the floor today.

H.R. 1474 will modernize the nation's check payment system by allowing, but not mandating, banks to exchange checks electronically. Recognizing that not all banks have the ability to accept electronic transmission of a check, H.R. 1474 authorizes the creation of substitute checks for payment.

This substitute check would be used in place of the original paper check, and it would be a negotiable instrument. Banks that create an electronic check will be able to create a substitute check and use that for presentment to a bank that has not upgraded its system to accept electronic checks.

This legislation capitalizes on existing technology to make the current process faster and more efficient, while increasing customer service, improving access to funds and increasing antifraud measures that ensure our economic security. H.R. 1474 will decrease our check payment system's financial dependence on physically transporting checks, thus avoiding any types of delays or paralysis in the U.S. payment system that might be created by another September 11th terrorist attack.

I believe that the Committee successfully crafted very difficult and complicated recredit provisions in the legislation that address the concerns of consumer groups.

This legislation is a well-crafted bill that will provide the structure for an efficient financial payments framework to enable financial institutions to provide better customer service. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); our minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); and the Republican leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor today.

I rise today as the original sponsor of House Resolution 159 expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of Irma Rangel, a courageous legislator and a great Texan.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to honor a true Texas legend. Irma Rangel was the first Mexican American woman elected to the Texas House of Representatives, where she served her South Texas constituents for 26 years. She served on the Higher Education Committee for most of her career and became chairwoman in 1995, a leadership position she held until Republicans won control of the House this year. She stayed on as vice chair of the committee until she passed away.

Her legacy includes over 25 years of working to improve minority access to higher education. During her 26-year tenure in the Texas House, Ms. Rangel devoted her efforts to increasing the educational attainment of Hispanics, bringing economic development to Texas, and empowering Texas youth with the tools they needed for success.

It was Irma Rangel's landmark legislation that ensured that all Texas high school seniors who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class would be able to attend any public university in the State of Texas, including the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University at College Station.

Representative Rangel was always ready to engage her colleagues, not only on the pressing issues of the day, but she also sought to raise issues that had been forgotten or ignored yet were important to average working families.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Rangel was famous for her quote, ``Will it help or hurt?'' She was also known to say, ``Why not here? Why not in Kingsville?'' And after dialogue, she took action. She fought for her constituents to ensure their needs were addressed by the Texas legislature.

Her relentless efforts to help establish a school of pharmacy at Texas A&M University, Kingsville, the first professional school in South Texas, has emerged as one of her greatest contributions as a State representative.

Not only was Representative Rangel a great State leader, she was an exceptional and courageous example of how to live with cancer. She has survived two bouts of cancer before valiantly battling brain cancer, which ultimately took her life. Irma was a positive force in educating women who faced the same adversities. Her straight talk, get-it-done demeanor, helped open the dialogue on the issue of cancer and treatments.

Irma Rangel was preceded in death by her parents, Herminia L. Rangel and P.M. Rangel and her sister Olga Rangel Lumley. She is survived by her sister Minnie Rangel Henderson and her brother-in-law Howard A. Henderson, nieces Debbie Henderson and Margo Hoover and nephews Dino Henderson and Marc Lumley.

I hope my colleagues will join me in extending the condolences of this Congress to these surviving family members, expressing its deep gratitude to Irma Rangel and her family for the service that she rendered to the great State of Texas, recognizing with appreciation and respect her exemplary commitment to public service and to her constituents, and esteeming Irma Rangel as a role model for generations to come in South Texas and the entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Texas will miss Irma's unique style and engaging dialogue. She will be remembered for her great contributions in making Texas a better State for all of its people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important and much-needed legislation which reauthorizes the Federal programs that protect and assist the most vulnerable young people in our society.

This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. I would like to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the sponsor of H.R. 1925, for working diligently with us to ensure that this important legislation could move expeditiously through the process and remain something we can all support.

We would never get anything through the legislative process without dedicated, professional staff work; and this bill is no exception. I would like to also commend our committee staff, Denise Forte and Ricardo Martinez, as well as the staff for the majority, Whitney Rhoades, Krisann Pierce, and Rebecca Jones for their excellent work.

The programs funded under this act reflect what brings us together as a society. In the face of crisis, Americans want to lend a helping hand. That is what these programs do, they provide emergency shelter and services to young people in crisis, helping them get on a path to healthy, independent lives, and hopefully reuniting them with their families.

The programs funded under this act, Basic Centers, Transitional Living Programs, and Street Outreach Programs, are desperately needed in communities across the country. We have excellent programs operating in my own home State of Texas. During our subcommittee hearing, we learned of the tremendous work being done by the Washington, D.C., Latin American Youth Center through these programs.

We heard from a young man who was once homeless. Through these programs, he is now on the path to independence and possibly a college degree. I asked him how the program earned his trust so he was willing to leave the streets and take another life path. His answer was simple: They gave him a place to stay immediately.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that other young people in need will have a place to stay, a place that will put them on a path to a better life.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 217, congratulating the University of Minnesota for winning the NCAA Division I ice hockey championship. Last month the Golden Gophers captured the national championship for the second straight year. College fans, students, athletes, and the general public were treated to an exciting hockey season and championship tournament. I want to extend my hearty congratulations to Minnesota's head coach and their student athletes for a job well done.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to extend my congratulations to the University of New Hampshire and their student athletes for a great season.

Winning a championship has brought national acclaim to the University of Minnesota. I hope that the Minnesota fans and the University community treasures this moment for many years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the respectable gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

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

I really enjoyed the remarks by my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), and especially my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). And I want to just share with both of you that we believe in south Texas that it is such a great sport that the community of south Texas has a big hockey coliseum under construction soon to be completed, probably in the fall, September or October. And I wish to invite both of the gentlemen from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo and Mr. Kline) to come to the opening. We are going to have on the Texas-Mexico border visitors from Mexico who also want to be as supportive of hockey as we in America are supportive of soccer.

So I want both gentlemen to know that they will be getting an invitation to that grand opening, and I hope that they will come and share in the excitement of bringing hockey to my great State of south Texas.

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