Floor Statements

I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank the previous speakers, particularly the Speaker of the House for taking the time from her busy schedule to come down here to honor a distinguished colleague on the occasion of naming the Federal courthouse in his hometown after him, and that's the gentleman I had the privilege of serving with for nearly 30 years and getting to know and one whom I admire a great deal, and that is Ralph Regula.

You've heard about the spirit with which Ralph Regula approached his responsibilities as a legislator. It was positive. He worked with all Members of this body, and he did what he thought was in the best interest of this country and this institution.

You learn a lot about Members of this body when you visit their districts. And my wife and young daughter and I had the habit, as we would drive back to Wisconsin for the August break, of picking a different route across the country and taking a few extra days and stopping to see historic and interesting places and making it an educational and fun thing rather than just an ordeal to go across the country. And one year we decided to go through and visit John Seiberling, another colleague in Akron, Ohio, from a distinguished family, Seiberling Tire and all that, and he had his home which they had lost in the Depression, Stan Hywet, which is one of the largest private homes in the United States.

And in the course of doing that, he took us through the thing, and I discovered that he and Ralph Regula had worked together for many years to create what is now, I believe, the largest national park east of the Mississippi, the Cuyahoga. I know they were both tremendously proud of that. It was a wonderful opportunity for that area of Ohio because there are large cities on various sides of this and it provides recreational and other opportunities for a large population. And if they had not acted when they did, it might not be there today. It was done by those two Representatives working as best they could with colleagues in both political parties and will stand, I think, as a lasting monument to their joint efforts on behalf of our country and certainly the people of their region in Ohio.

Ralph and Mary were and are a great team. And one other thing I think I might mention, Ralph is kind of a gentleman farmer, I guess, and he used to spend a lot of time working there, and he loved his grandchildren and family and all of that. But Ronald Reagan was kind of a gentleman farmer, too. He had this ranch out in California where he cleared brush and was trying to develop it. And it turned out that he and Ralph were talking over at the White House for some reason about some other things, and Reagan discovered that Ralph was going back to work on some fencing on his farm and he asked him if he could explain how he did it. So Ralph came back to a meeting afterward and said that Reagan had taken careful notes and everything else and then a week or two later gave him, I think, a signed copy of the instructions that Ralph had given to him, that it was a good fence.

Ralph did a great job and it's an appropriate honor. I strongly support the passage of this legislation.

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

I rise in support of House Resolution 410, a resolution recognizing the recreational boating community and industries.

I now recognize for as much time as he may consume our colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Henry Brown.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our colleague from Indiana, Representative Souder.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support House Resolution 410, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 410, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), which recognizes the recreational boating community and boating industry for their contributions to the national economy and urges the President to issue a proclamation to observe July 1, 2009 as National Boating Day.

In the United States, the boating community consists of over 59 million people and over 13 million registered recreational boats. The boating community supports over 330,000 American jobs with total wages totaling approximately $10.4 billion a year. There are approximately 1400 boat builders in the United States that construct and repair boats using materials and services from all 50 States. In addition, recreational boating and the boating industry

contribute over $33 billion to the American economy annually.

In my state of Minnesota, there are over 866,000 registered boats-- the third largest number of boats of any state in the country. In fact, Minnesota has the most boats per capita of any state: there is one boat for every six people.

Whether it is on the river, a lake, along the ocean, inter-coastal or intra-coastal waterway, recreational boaters support and depend on over 12,000 marinas all across the United States.

Recreational boating is an American pas-time. It is a family activity that appeals to all age groups and is a constructive outlet for entertainment. Whether water skiing, snorkeling, fishing, or just relaxing on the water, boating is a perfect reason to turn off the television and put away the video games and to bring families and friends closer together. For these reasons, July 1, 2009, should be established as National Boating Day.

I support H. Res. 410, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

I would like to express my support for House Resolution 484, designating June 10 as National Pipeline Safety Day, and yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz- Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution highlights the need to properly maintain pipelines and encourages the development of pipeline safety programs. I support the passage of this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague Mr. Mica and co-sponsored by myself and fellow subcommittee members, Congressman Ehlers and Congressman Graves.

This amendment seeks to clarify the standard for when TSA is allowed to circumvent the rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedures Act and issue a security directive in order to respond to an ``imminent threat'' of limited duration. While there are circumstances in which these security directives are necessary to address immediate threats to our transportation systems, they too often have been issued under unclear circumstances and have even been known to change from week to week. This places an unnecessary burden on commercial and general aviation alike--as well as other modes of transportation.

For example, TSA recently issued a security directive that required background checks and restrictive badging requirements for general aviation at airports with commercial service. This directive placed unneeded restrictions on thousands of pilots and others without identifying what imminent threat existed. The TSA subsequently eased the requirements somewhat, but the fact remains that a security directive was used to regulate an entirely new population of airport personnel and users. This is basically regulation by policy statement-- not the more proper rulemaking that provides for the opportunity for public comment, consideration of costs and operational impacts, and greater transparency and accountability. By the way, this one Security Directive has been revised 8 times!

We are all aware of the threats our nation's transportation systems face. TSA must have the authority to address imminent threats by bypassing the formal rulemaking process. But this authority should not be used to impose new security requirements that do not meet the security directive threshold as contemplated by Congress.

This amendment not only will ensure that TSA retains this needed authority, but also establishes a proper balance between security and the protection of our civil liberties by tightening the issuance standard.

I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Mica and others for their work to bring this amendment to the floor, and urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1380, the Josh Miller Helping Everyone Access Responsiveness Treatment in Schools Act of 2009, also referred to as the Josh Miller HEARTS Act. This legislation would authorize the United States Secretary of Education to make grants to public and private elementary and secondary schools to purchase automated external defibrillators, also known as AEDs, for school grounds and to train employees and volunteers on how to use these devices which have saved thousands of lives all over the United States.

An AED is a portable, computerized medical device that can check a person's heart rhythm to determine whether he or she is in cardiac arrest. It can recognize a rhythm that requires an electronic shock and can advise a rescuer when a shock is needed. The AED uses voice prompts, lights and text messages to tell the rescuer the precise steps he or she needs to take to operate the device. It is an extremely accurate and easy device to use. As such, the device is widely credited for saving hundreds of lives each year.

This bill requires local education agencies that receive a grant under the program to provide at least a 25 percent match from non- Federal sources. It also ensures that local paramedics and other emergency services personnel are notified regarding where the actual AED is located on the school grounds in case they ever have to respond to a situation on the campus. H.R. 1380 is an important piece of legislation that will help save lives all across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from Tennessee, my colleague, Mr. Duncan.

I have no further requests for time. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution of our colleague from Tennessee honoring Head Coach Pat Summitt on her exceeding 1,000 victories.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Toys for Tots Literacy Program for their commitment

to providing our Nation's less fortunate children with the resources they need to develop early reading skills. I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I have no requests for time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 1662, to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act to require childcare providers to supply parents with information regarding whether such providers carry current liability insurance.

The bill before us today requires that States, as part of their licensing requirements, recommend that childcare providers carry liability insurance. The bill also requires childcare providers to post whether or not they have current liability insurance covering the operation of their childcare businesses, and it requires providers to supply parents with a written notice stating whether or not the provider carries liability insurance.

Today, many parents depend on childcare in order to continue to work to support their families. As such, childcare is an integral part of the daily routine for millions of American families with young children. A cost-efficient childcare is very important and, hopefully, this legislation, if it is passed, can be implemented without adding to the costs of these hardworking families.

Asking providers to post information on their liability insurance may give additional peace of mind if it's properly implemented, at little or no additional cost to these families and, hopefully, will avoid tragedies such as the one that affected 14-month old Anthony DeJuan Boatwright, who fell, and the accident left him in a semi-comatose state and ventilator-dependent.

I'd like to note that the bill before us does not reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. Hopefully, that bill will be brought before the Education and Labor Committee for reauthorization and full committee consideration during the 111th Session of Congress so that additional improvements can be made.

As we move forward, we must ensure that Federal policy provides States maximum flexibility in developing childcare programs and policies, and provides parents with the ability to choose from a variety of options so that parents can decide the care best suited for their children.

With those comments, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague from Florida, the senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for yielding me this time.

In September of 2007, we passed a bill very similar to the one that we are considering today. Unfortunately, the Senate never acted so we find ourselves once again trying to enact a much-needed authorization bill. In the meantime, the program continues to operate under a series of extensions, the most recent one expiring September 30 this year.

While the current economic downturn has alleviated some of the delays in congestion and complaints of the flying public, we know that once the economy recovers the system will again feel overwhelming strain. So the urgency for this legislation remains.

The American Society of Civil Engineers issues an infrastructure report every so often, and the most recent 2009 report card gives aviation a grade of only a D. This is actually a lower grade than the D-plus earned in the 2005 report card. So the condition of our aviation infrastructure is getting worse here in the United States, not better.

The bill before us increases Federal investment in aviation infrastructure, with funding for the Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants from the Aviation Trust Fund for airport improvements, increased to a total of $16.2 billion over 4 years. The Facilities and Equipment Program is increased to $13.4 billion.

It also increases the cap on the level of passenger facility charges that an airport can impose for capacity and safety projects. The cap was last raised 9 years ago, and the $4.50 maximum charge is now worth far less due to high construction costs and inflation.

One of the most important initiatives under way at the FAA is something known as NextGen to modernize the air traffic control system. We need to move away from a 50-year-old ground-based system to one that is modern, satellite-based, and which will increase the capacity of the system, lower costs, and increase safety. The bill before us will move that modernization process forward.

Mr. Chairman, there are a variety of other provisions, too numerous to enumerate, in this bill that will improve the aviation system in this country and which I strongly support.

However, as occurred last Congress, I am in the rather odd position of voting ``no'' on final passage for my subcommittee's bill. Back in the last Congress, the committee leadership worked together on a bipartisan basis to craft and introduce a good bill. But since that time, and continuing in this new bill, various provisions have been added which make it impossible for me at this time to support the bill.

One provision is regarding air traffic controllers. Part of the provision putting changes in future impasse procedures I do not object to, but it also reopens the currently imposed contract and includes back pay under terms of the 1998 contract, which was estimated to cost the taxpayers some $1 billion over the life of the bill.

The second provision provides that we would move express carriers from being covered by the Railway Labor Act of the National Labor Relations Act, which is really directed at just one company, and that is Federal Express; and, really, I don't think that should be included in this legislation. I think we'll hear more about that from other Members.

Other provisions raise concerns, such as the foreign repair station language which could have unintended consequences as far as trade relations with Europe are concerned, and another that would automatically sunset airline alliance antitrust immunity agreements 3 years after the enactment of this legislation, which again could set in train consequences we cannot understand at this time.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank Chairman Oberstar; my chairman, Jerry Costello; Ranking Member Mica, and certainly the staff on the committee for their dedicated work on this bill. And in conclusion, while I support the general goal and the overwhelming majority of this bill, I do not support it at this particular time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.

Thank you.

While there are clearly many useful provisions in the manager's amendment which we do support, there are, unfortunately, several which we do not. And the most important, or one of the important areas has been mentioned on a number of occasions already on this floor as we've gone forward, and that's the foreign repair station inspection language.

The manager's amendment continues to require twice annual inspections of repair stations in Europe. What does this mean? It means that the European Union will and does oppose this provision and has suggested that the provision will nullify the need for the bilateral aviation safety agreement. It certainly violates the spirit of the United States-European Union Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement.

Under that agreement in section 15, countries are always allowed to inspect the other country's territory based on safety concerns. So there is flexibility and this is within the letter of the law of the treaty, as the chairman has pointed out. But it's certainly not within the spirit of the treaty. Our government is never going to concede jurisdiction over safety of American equipment and people and planes. And if there is a legitimate reason to inspect, we reserve the right to do it under that treaty. But not just automatic inspections whether there is any reason or not, which is what the amendment provides for.

This section 15 provides for inspection, but it does not envisage twice-annual inspections absent a legitimate risk-based safety concern. And that's the logic of the language of the treaty. If we don't abide by the spirit of the treaty, the EU has--and I believe will--walk away from the bilateral agreement and we will have to renegotiate another agreement which may end up giving us less, rather than more, flexibility to inspect when we determine based on information or concerns that have come forward that a particular inspection of a particular facility is warranted, which we have the right to do at any time under this treaty.

The Europeans do not have the personnel to conduct--well, I don't think our government has the personnel currently to inspect all of the stations that would be required to be inspected. And so we would revoke the certificates for repair stations that are not inspected and the Europeans would not be able to do that in our country. The result would be that a lot of work--all around, both parties to the agreement--would be moved around, at least; and the net loss, so far as between the United States and Europe is concerned would, it's my understanding, fall on American stations because currently a lot of European equipment is in fact maintained here in the United States. That's where the threat to the jobs comes from.

The provisions in the amendment having to do with inspection of stations is opposed by the airline industry; the aviation associations that have looked at it; the United States Chamber of Commerce; airline manufacturers; as I mentioned, the European Union; and some 50 of our colleagues, who signed a letter in opposition, I think probably inspired by concern about the jobs in their district at repair stations and dislocation of work at these stations, particularly the smaller ones, that was circulated by our colleague Mr. Barrow.

There are a number of other concerns about the amendment, particularly some concerns about the clarity of the whistleblower amendments and how those would actually be put into effect. Also, a concern about realignment and consolidation language which ties the FAA's hands.

The major concern we have, as I said, is especially in these tense times, where a small match could ignite a big fire in terms of trade relations. We are really playing with fire in the language that's contained in the manager's amendment having to do with inspection on a mandatory basis twice a year of all of these repair stations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to speak for a brief moment on a comment my colleague just made, and that is there is a bit of an impression being left that if we don't have these two inspections a year of these foreign European repair stations, they won't be inspected.

They are inspected. In fact, in a number of jurisdictions, the standards that are imposed on these facilities by the European Union and the governments and jurisdictions in which they exist are stricter than our own standards are.

So we do reserve the right now to inspect those stations if there is a problem. But to go ahead and require two inspections a year of stations that are already inspected by standards that we have concluded after experts have looked at it are perfectly adequate is really setting up a dynamic which will end up being disruptive to the industry and to good cooperative relations with our European allies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I understand that since the gentleman from Minnesota is amending the bill and I'm a member of the committee, I have the right to close.

The concern about this amendment is that we do have the ability to inspect if there's a reason now to inspect. It's very unlikely if this were to become law we would immediately have in place the inspectors necessary to inspect all of these European stations twice a year. As a result, the certification of many of them would be pulled. It would force retaliation by the Europeans on our own stations.

If it was a sincere amendment, it would provide that it not go into effect until the government had an opportunity to inspect all of these stations twice. And it does not do that. We know how effective government is. It will take them years to man up and find all of these European stations. And so we oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague Chris Lee from New York for yielding and rise in support of his amendment. It's an important step to prevent similar accidents in the future. It is something that we need to do, and I very much appreciate his offering the amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with concerns about the amendment.

I think we can all agree that notifying passengers of their flight's status is quite important. But I would like to express a number of concerns about the amendment. It's an important area, and we would like to work on it, but we want it to be an effective amendment that would not have unintended consequences. So it is in that spirit that I express concerns about the amendment.

We worry that the amendment will have negative, as I said, unintended consequences on some air carriers. Although it only applies to carriers that earn at least 1 percent of domestic passenger service revenue, this amendment will still affect many regional carriers that do not have the capability of carrying out the mandates of the amendment. The vast majority of regional carriers do not issue tickets. This is done by their mainline air partner. Thus, these regional carriers do not even have their passengers' contact information, making the requirement impossible to adhere to by them. They would have to be relying on their mainline partner.

The Regional Airline Association believes that this amendment, as currently written, would require a fundamental restructuring of the contracts and partnership language between the regionals and the mainline carriers that could affect the relationships in a number of ways.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in working as we go forward to refine this amendment so that it

achieves its intended notification to passengers without economically damaging consequences on the balance of power between the small regionals and the mainline partners that they have.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

We're just raising questions. We agree the amendment is an important one, and it addresses a real need. We just want it not to have the unintended consequence of benefiting the mainline ticket processing operations at the expense of the small regional carriers which, if it was a mandate, it might have the effect of doing. It is not the intention of it, but it would be an unintended consequence because these people would need to get the information to comply from someone else, and that person, foreseeably, could affect the contract relationship.

With the assurance of the chairman, at this time we would be happy to see the amendment move forward, knowing that it will be refined as we go forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The amendment affirms the sense of Congress that whistleblowers at the FAA should be fully protected by law, and we support the amendment.

The amendment that the gentleman offered would help restore confidence in the public's mind that the projects and programs included in the authorization bill are for the public benefit.

I would like to thank you for offering the amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

The amendment he has offered supplements a Department of Transportation Inspector General study on flight delays and cancellations in the base bill by adding to the Inspector General's review a requirement to assess the effect limited air carrier service options has on the frequency of delays and cancelations on such routes.

This is a useful amendment and important to many service airports in our country, and I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Well, I was going to rise in opposition, even though I don't oppose the amendment either. We would support the amendment and urge its speedy passage.

This amendment seeks to improve aviation safety by requiring the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on FAA oversight of programs intended to prevent or mitigate the dangerous effects of smoke in airline cockpits.

Cockpit smoke can occur due to a variety of reasons, some which are not always imminent threats.

While the FAA has approved several technologies to deal with cockpit smoke, such as specially designed pilot goggles, not every technology is appropriate for all types of aircraft or pilot skill levels. The study proposed by Ms. Kilroy's amendment will assist FAA in determining the most smoke mitigation technology for various operators and aircrafts.

I thank my colleague for her efforts to improve aviation safety and ask all Members to support this amendment.

I would like to give my hardworking and conscientious colleague from New Jersey every assurance that I will work with him.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my esteemed colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

In 1981, Westchester County enacted a curfew that banned all aircraft from operating between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m. This curfew was made against the advice of the FAA, and was immediately struck down by a Federal court. The Court also issued a permanent injunction in part because Westchester was unable to justify the curfew with any evidence of a noise problem. Furthermore, the Court found that the curfew was in violation of the commerce clause because it imposed an undue burden on New York metropolitan air transportation.

Simply put, this amendment would remove the permanent injunction on this unjustified curfew and arbitrarily restrict airspace access without requiring Westchester County to make its case. This matter has been dealt with in the appropriate place, the Federal courts. The airport has a process available to make its case for such a restriction, but has chosen not to comply.

The amendment sidesteps a process that applies to every other airport and would disrupt air travel in the New York area airspace. On those grounds, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment.

I yield to my colleague from Florida.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1178 originally introduced by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent. The bill directs the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study to determine how the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) can help support homeland security missions and to report to Congress on his findings.

The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a Congressionally-chartered, federally- supported, non-profit corporation that serves as the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF). First organized over sixty years ago at the beginning of World War II, the Civil Air Patrol is a 57,000- member volunteer cadre that flies 500 planes nationwide.

In addition to its aerospace education mission for youth and the general public, the Civil Air Patrol handles 90 percent of inland search and rescue missions. Its members are responsible for approximately 75 lives saved each year.

Civil Air Patrol planes have been among the first to survey the aftermath of such disasters as the attacks of September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina, Texas and Oklahoma wildfires, and North Dakota flash flooding. The Civil Air Patrol has also assisted in humanitarian missions along the U.S. and Mexican border.

Border security, drug interdiction, search and rescue are just a few missions in which airborne reconnaissance and tracking would give homeland security officials valuable information critical to carrying out their objective.

The Civil Air Patrol is eager to further assist in Homeland Security missions. This bill will help better define how the Civil Air Patrol may be used more extensively to aid in homeland security missions.

Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that Congressman Murphy and I will not have the opportunity to offer our amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act which would require credit card companies to report on marketing agreements with institutions of higher education and alumni associations. The amendment also would direct the Government Accountability Office to analyze and report to Congress the impact of these arrangements on student credit card debt. To that end, today we will be introducing this amendment as a stand-alone bill, the Student Credit Card Transparency Act of 2009.

According to a recent study, students are now graduating with an average credit card debt of more than $4,100, up from $2,900 just four years ago. The average number of cards per student has grown to 4.6, with over half of college students reporting they have four or more cards. The combined impact of credit card debt and growing student loan debt can greatly limit a student's future career choice. Furthermore, compounding debt from late payments and high penalties can further jeopardize a young person's financial future by making it difficult to take out their first mortgage, buy a car or even rent an apartment.

As I'm sure we all know through our own experiences or through our children's, college students have become prime targets for credit card marketing campaigns. Most students enter college without a credit card and are quickly saturated with e-mails, direct mailings and on-campus solicitations to sign up for their first credit card. A recent report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group revealed that, of the students they surveyed, 80 percent said they had received mail from credit card companies. Students reported receiving an average of nearly five mailed solicitations per month. In addition, 22 percent of students reported receiving an average of nearly four phone calls per month from credit card companies.

While the practice of targeting college students may not be much of a surprise, students and parents may be alarmed to learn that many colleges, universities and alumni associations have entered into lucrative agreements with these companies to allow exclusive marketing of their cards. In these arrangements, schools receive large cash payments in exchange for handing over their students' contact information--such as address, e-mail address, and telephone numbers. These confidential agreements may also go further and give companies exclusive face-to-face access to students on campus, such as during sporting events or at the student union. Some provide the university or alumni with additional money based on a percentage of purchases using the card.

Despite the fact that hundreds of schools throughout the country have such arrangements, very little is known about them. Last year's ``pay to play'' scandal in the guaranteed student loan program exposed the practice of lenders and financial aid administrators putting their own interests ahead of their students' when it came to compiling their ``preferred lender list.'' While arrangements between credit card companies and schools don't necessarily mean the student's financial interests are being harmed, I believe it is imperative to have at a minimum a better understanding of these arrangements. For instance, are schools and associated foundations making arrangements with companies that offer the best rates for their students?

This bill simply seeks greater transparency by requiring credit card companies to report these arrangements. Then Congress, students and parents will be able to judge whether these agreements reflect the best interests of students or that of the school or related institution.

I am happy to have the support of the United States Students Association, USPIRG, Consumer Federation of America, National Association of College Admissions Counselors, and the American Association of Collegiate

Registrars and Admissions Officers and want to thank Congressman Murphy for his work on this important bill.

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

I rise in support of House Resolution 335, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Volunteer Week. Throughout the history of the United States, Americans have valued an ethic of service. Citizens have come together to support our troops, educate our children or work to ensure that less fortunate individuals have a place to live.

All of these activities support the theme of this year's National Volunteer Week, ``Celebrating People in Action.'' This week gives us an opportunity to recognize those individuals who serve their country, not only through the military or through national service programs run by the Corporation for National and Community Service, but also those individuals who are donating their time to serve their local communities.

Just last week our President signed the latest reauthorization of the national service programs. This bill was crafted through a bipartisan process in both the House and the Senate and builds on the reforms and the corporations stated by the previous administration to ensure additional accountability in national service programs. The bill will help smaller organizations participate in national service and ensure that the unique skills of America's veterans are utilized.

Volunteerism is a way for Americans to connect to their communities, learn more about the problems facing their communities and to simply make a difference.

This week we salute all volunteers and national service program participants for their powerful impact, and we thank all community partners who make these efforts possible and bring more Americans into service.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, Mr. Platts, Ms. Matsui and Mr. Price for introducing this resolution, and I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today to join in supporting House Resolution 344, commending the University of Connecticut Huskies for their historic win in the 2009 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Basketball Tournament.

On April 7 of this year, the University of Connecticut Huskies defeated the University of Louisville Cardinals 76-54 in the final game of the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament in St. Louis, Missouri, to capture the school's sixth national title. In the season, the Huskies remained undefeated with a record of 39-0, defeating each of their opponents by double digits.

The Huskies' success was, in large part, due to the outstanding play of senior point guard Renee Montgomery and sophomore forward Maya Moore. Montgomery was chosen as the Nancy Lieberman Award winner given to the Nation's top point guard, and Moore was chosen as the Naismith Award winner, Wooden Award winner, State Farm Wade Trophy winner, United States Basketball Writers Association Player of the Year and Associated Press Player of the Year.

While these two players were recognized for their outstanding play, the championship run was a shining example of teamwork. The national accolades bestowed upon this team can only be attributed to Head Coach Geno Auriemma. Coach Auriemma has refined the meaning of success in college basketball in his 23 years as head coach of UConn.

During his illustrious tenure, Coach Auriemma has transformed the University of Connecticut program into the standard that all others are measured by, both on and off the court. Under his guidance, the Huskies have been transformed from a program with only one winning record to its credit to its current state, which includes six national championships, nine Final Fours and 16 Big East regular season and 14 Big East tournament titles since his arrival in 1985.

While athletic success is what brings us here today, we should take time to highlight academics as well. The University of Connecticut is the State's flagship institution of higher learning. It was founded in 1881 as the Storrs Agricultural School and became the University of Connecticut in 1939.

UConn is a research intensive university, a prestigious designation shared by only the Nation's top higher education institutions. They have more than 70 focused research centers where faculty, graduate students and undergraduates explore everything from improving human health to enhancing public education and protecting the country's national resources.

I extend my congratulations to the University of Connecticut President Michael Hogan, Athletic Director Jeffrey Hathaway, Head Coach Geno Auriemma and his staff, the hardworking players and, obviously, the fans.

I wish all continued success and ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 99, supporting the goals and ideals of a National Early Educator Worthy Wage Day.

Over 11 million children under age 5 spend an average of 36 hours a week in nonparental care settings. Over 40 percent of children are in some form of nonparental care by the age of 1, and approximately 60 percent of the Nation's children under the age of 6 are in nonparental care during part or all the day while their parents work.

Parents place children in a variety of care settings, including informal, center-based and school-based environments. The majority of children remain in traditional childcare settings funded by a variety of sources, but a growing number are participating in private and State-funded prekindergarten programs. To date, 39 States and the District of Columbia have designed, implemented and funded their own prekindergarten programs on a large scale, compared to only seven States in 1980.

I support programs to promote early childhood education and efforts to ensure that our children are better prepared to enter kindergarten. The quality of early childhood education can be linked to the quality of our early childhood educators. Allowing for additional training and education for the early childhood workforce is important to ensure high-quality early learning environments.

Today, I rise with my colleagues to urge public officials and the general public to honor early childhood care and education staff and programs in their communities on May 1. I stand in support of this resolution, and ask my colleagues' support.

I have no requests for time and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise today in support of H. Res. 337, recognizing the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Recognizing Child Abuse Prevention Month allows us to help to raise awareness of the tragic circumstances of abuse and neglect that many of our Nation's children face every day. Recognizing this month also highlights the importance of the prevention and awareness of child abuse, so that children can live safely and securely, free from abuse.

It is important that each of us knows how we can help prevent and stop ongoing child abuse. Understanding the causes of child abuse, learning to identify the warning signs that a child is being abused, reporting any known or suspected case of child abuse, being a friend to a child or parent in need and alerting others to the problem are all ways adults and other children can help prevent, and stop, child abuse.

Child abuse may include physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse and emotional abuse. In many cases, children are the victims of multiple forms of abuse. In 2007, approximately 794,000 children were found to be victims of some form of child maltreatment.

Child abuse prevention not only protects the Nation's children from years of physical, mental and emotional scars, it also lessens the costs associated with child abuse and enables funding to be used to assist children in other ways.

In 2007, child abuse had an estimated total annual cost of almost $104 billion in direct and indirect costs.

In 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was enacted to address the issue of child abuse and neglect in this country and to underscore the importance of assisting children in abusive situations. Through this act, States receive grants to help with their child protective service functions, improve investigation and prosecution of child maltreatment, and to assist community-based family resource and support services.

April was first declared Child Abuse Prevention Month by presidential proclamation in 1985 by President Reagan. Since then, in the month of April, child abuse and neglect awareness and prevention efforts are promoted throughout the country.

As members of school systems, neighborhoods, families and communities, all of us can help to prevent child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Prevention Month provides us with an opportunity to work together to keep children safe and to lend families the support that they need to raise happy children in a safe and secure home.

This is why I stand in support of this resolution and ask for my colleagues' support.

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