John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank my colleague from Georgia for his work on this issue for lo these many months. I know that my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has similar concerns, and I am happy to yield to him.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as has been the case all year, the lines of communication between those of us that are interested in this, both on and off the committee, and those on the other side of the aisle as well, the lines of communication are open and will remain open. As we move into conference, the process, I remain committed to ensuring that the concerns of all stakeholders involved are addressed in a bipartisan fashion as we complete action on comprehensive reforms in an expeditious manner. I remain committed, as I believe both of my colleagues do, that airlines do, and that we need to find a solution that will allow airlines to maintain their plans and ensure employees of both plans are adequately funded. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the debate today on the floor is about the massive underfunding in worker pensions and the need to change the status quo. Unfortunately, what we have just been presented is what would actually make pensions less secure by preserving the status quo and putting at risk millions of American pensions. Let me make five points. First, the motion to recommit preserves the status quo by requiring employers and union leaders to fund their plans at 90 percent or in some cases only 80 percent, instead of the 100 percent funding requirements that we have in the underlying bill. It just does not pass the straight-face test. Second, they are preserving the status quo by continuing to allow employers to take up to 30 years to erase any funding shortfall in their plan. Pension experts agree that this increases the risk of plan termination, threatening the benefits of workers and retirees. Third, they are preserving the status quo on unrestricted use of credit balances which mask the massive pension plan underfunding we see today. We know that the credit balance rules that are in place today are irresponsible public policy. They must be changed if we are going to strengthen the pension system. And to allow those rules to stay in place, again, does not pass the straight-face test. Fourth, they propose preserving the status quo by failing to incorporate the full package of multi-employer reforms that were agreed to by a broad coalition of organized labor and employer groups. Last, they preserve the status quo by promoting uncertainty among employers if these pension benefits and workers who are relying on them maintain the current interest rate package for 2 years and then go back to the 30-year rate thereafter. The modified yield curve in the underlying bill presents a more accurate picture of the liabilities that these plans have and should, in fact, stay in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is far more balanced. It really does strengthen American pensions, and I would urge my colleagues to reject this. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BOEHNER. I assume so.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will put this as bluntly as I can: our Nation's pension laws are outdated and broken and placing at risk the retirement security of millions of American workers. Today, we have an opportunity to change this by voting for the most comprehensive reforms to worker pension laws in more than a generation. The Pension Protection Act is the outcome of one of the most thorough and remarkable legislative processes I have seen during my years in the House. On June 4, 2003, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held the first of nearly a dozen hearings on traditional pension plans, and from these hearings they have covered a broad set of issues, ranging from what is broken to who it has impacted to how we should go about fixing it. And, today, we stand ready to debate and vote on the product of those 30 months of deliberations. There are three key strengths of this bill, and I would like to highlight each of those for my colleagues. It is a balanced approach, it is comprehensive in nature, and it is a benefit to American taxpayers. First, the bill's greatest strength is its balanced approach to the pension crisis that we face. While some are calling for suffocating pension funding rules which would place an incredible burden on employers who voluntarily offer retirement benefits, our bill makes certain not to tighten the rules so much that employers leave the defined benefit system altogether. While others call for relaxation of pension rules, our bill ensures that employers and unions keep their promises to workers and retirees who are counting on their pension benefits. In short, our bill aims to shore up the traditional defined benefit pension system to which we and our parents have grown accustomed so our children and grandchildren might have a chance to be part of it as well. The second major strength of the Pension Protection Act is inherently comprehensive in nature. As you can see on the chart that is next to me, the measure would ensure that pensions are fully funded to restore worker and retiree confidence; it has enhanced disclosure requirements so that workers and retirees are no longer kept in the dark about the health of their pensions; it would improve the financial condition of the Federal agency charged with ensuring some 30,000 private pension plans; it would reform outdated laws that deny workers access to professional and secure investment advice while providing even more workers with 401(k)-type plans; and it would end sweetheart deals like those we have seen at some airlines and other corporations that have terminated their plans in which executives enjoy a windfall of cash while workers and retirees are left wondering about their futures. Incidentally, these five reforms are only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more that this bill offers to workers and retirees, far more than this chart could ever tell us. Finally, yet another strength of this measure is its benefit to American taxpayers. Each of us remembers all too well the savings & loan bailout of more than a decade ago. By enacting the Pension Protection Act, we can be more confident that history will not repeat itself with regard to our pension system. As you can see on this second chart, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which ensures nearly 30,000 private worker pensions, is in dire financial condition. With some $450 billion in pension plan underfunding among financially weak companies looming on the horizon, the PBGC's debt could balloon even further than its current $23 billion. Even though no taxpayer funds fund the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, could American taxpayers be called upon to bail out the agency if its financial condition continues to deteriorate? I think so. That is why the Pension Protection Act includes responsible increases to employer-paid premiums for the first time since 1991, along with substantial reforms to place the defined benefit system on more solid ground. For taxpayers who may be left holding the bag otherwise, I think this is good news. Madam Speaker, throughout this process I have made every effort to include my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And even after my Democratic friends voted ``present,'' that is right, they did not vote ``no,'' they voted ``present,'' when our committee approved the bill back in June, I was hopeful that they would join us and the ever- growing coalition of labor and employer groups in support of these reforms. However, some of my colleagues have offered nothing more than rhetoric based on quirky accounting schemes and purposely skewed modeling in an effort to characterize the Pension Protection Act in a negative manner. I expect these hollow and misleading arguments will continue today as they seek to detract from a debate which they have largely been absent from for the last 30 months. It is my sincere hope, however, that many of my Democrat colleagues will look beyond the rhetoric and support these long-overdue reforms. This bill definitely deserves bipartisan support. Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act would not be before us if it were not for the work of my friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas; the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee chair and vice chair, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kline; my friend from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, a committee colleague who worked tirelessly to garner support for the bill; and all of the others on my committee and throughout the House who understand how imperative it is to reform our Nation's outdated pension laws for the benefit of workers, retirees, and taxpayers alike. I thank them for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague and my friend and classmate, Mr. Camp, for yielding me time, and thank all of my colleagues for what I think has been a very healthy debate today about how we strengthen America's pension system. We have heard Members argue that the bill that we are bringing before us is too difficult, that we will force companies out of pension plans and leave their employees hanging; while others have argued that the rules are not tough enough, and we are keeping the door open to irresponsible practices. I truly do believe that we have a bill that is balanced, that will not push employers who have these plans out of the system and will protect American workers who have been promised these benefits. If we do not act, we know exactly what is going to happen: Millions and millions more Americans are going to lose an opportunity for a defined benefit pension plan, and millions of Americans who already have one are going to be at risk that they will not have their plan. So Congress must act. Not only did we deal with single-employer pension plans, but we have not talked much about multiple-employer pension plans that you find traditionally in the trucking industry, the food industry and others. And while they have not been talked about much today in this debate and the administration did not propose changes, there are serious changes to the multi-employer pension system in this plan that will help strengthen that system. Those plans, by and large, are healthier than single-employer plans, and we have labor and management on both sides in the multi-employer sector come together to put rules in place so that their plans can never get into a very weakly funded position. I am glad they are in the bill. Lastly, let me point out that there are large numbers of groups supporting this bill. Every major labor organization, with the exception of several, is supporting this bill. Many in the management sector in every large business organization is supporting this bill. Why would all of the labor organizations and the business organizations all be on board in support of this bill? Because they think it is balanced. They think it is the right thing to do, and they know that Congress needs to act. Is everything perfect in the bill? No. As the gentleman pointed out, we have got airline relief that we will probably be talking about again soon. Our commitment is to deal with this in conference. My colleague from Ohio talked about the need to go further on cash balance language. I certainly agree with her. There are 7 million Americans who have cash balance plans or other types of hybrid plans. We need to provide legal certainty for those who have converted to a cash balance plan so that we do not put in jeopardy the 7 million Americans counting on benefits from those plans. We have a good bill. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2830.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell you that I am confused. Some of them say the rules that we are proposing here are too tough and are going to drive employers out of the pension business, while we have some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying the rules are not tight enough and we are going to create more deficits at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Ladies and gentlemen, I think the bill is just right. Yes, these are better rules that will require companies to better fund their plans. They certainly are better than current law. But I do not believe they go to the point of driving companies out of the defined benefit system. My good friend from California believes we are going to drive up the deficit. Now, if the rules were not strong enough, I would not have had virtually every employer in America who has a defined benefit plan beating on my office door complaining about the rules we were proposing. I would not have had every labor organization talking to me about how do we get this right. The fact is, if you look at the chart that we have here, plans must meet a 100 percent funding target. That is not the law today. If they are in the 80-90 percent range, it is good enough. But then as soon as the market turns down or the industry has a bump in the road, it is not long before they are under 60 and in deep trouble. So requiring plans to be 100 percent funded, I think, is a very good idea. Having an interest rate that is commensurate with their liabilities is something that we have not done ever. We have had one interest rate used to calculate the plan's liabilities. Under this modified yield curve proposal, they will have three different interest rates to use based on the longevity of their workforce, 0-5 years, 5-20, and those employees who will retire after 20 years. It will give us a more accurate reflection of the true cost of those plans. Third, it requires funding shortfalls to be erased over 7 years. We want to give companies time to go from the current rules to these more responsible rules; and if we do not have a sufficient transition time, what is going to happen is that we are going to create real havoc in the marketplace. Fourth, it restricts unlimited use of credit balances. We all know that the current rules about credit balances are, frankly, some of the most irresponsible public policy that I have seen. Beginning to restrict the use of those credit balances will, in fact, strengthen these plans. Fifth, it curves benefit increases for underfunded plans. We all know there are plans that were underfunded, severely underfunded, and yet increasing benefits at the same time. That is not fair to workers who are being given promises that someone has no intention of keeping. Last, it shores up the finances of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. All of these will bring more funding to company pension plans, it will bring more funding to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and put our pension system for American workers on a stronger foundation. Why else do I think we are just right? I have a long list of business organizations that are supporting this bill and a long list of labor organizations that are supporting this bill. It is a balanced bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is well aware that there is a crisis in America when it comes to the issue of protecting people's pensions. And I think all of us on both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to work hard, to develop legislation that will, in fact, protect American workers and retirees in the pensions that they have been promised. Over the last 5 or 6 years, I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours meeting with stakeholders from companies that offer plans voluntarily to union members and others, trying to craft a bill. We have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle in order to develop this legislation. So what are the goals here? The goals here are, very simply, to make sure that those companies who offer defined benefit pension plans continue to keep them. Secondly, for companies who make promises to their workers, there ought to be some insurance that they will keep the commitments that they have made to their workers. And, thirdly, to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that ensures that these pension payments will be made, we need to strengthen the financial condition at the PBGC to avert a possible taxpayer bailout in the future. What does this underlying bill do? It will, in fact, ensure that there is more money contributed to these pension plans, whether it is restricting the use of credit balances, whether it is using a more accurate interest rate to determine what those obligations are, whether it is closing down the amount of averaging that goes on. There are a number of provisions that we will talk about when we get into this bill that will strengthen these pension plans by moving more money into them. The second part of this is to reduce the long-term exposure to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that is, in fact, facing a deficit. We not only increase premiums paid by employers to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as part of strengthening them; but long term, by requiring companies to fully fund their plans at 100 percent, we will, in fact, reduce the exposure of the PBGC long term to a taxpayer bailout. Now, we are going to hear a lot of debate today as this bill comes up from those who have their own views as to how this should work, and I would ask my colleagues let us not make perfect the enemy of the good. We have a very good, sound bill that we are bringing to the floor, supported by many employer groups, supported by virtually every major labor group in America as well. There is a finely tuned balance in this bill, and I do, in fact, believe that it will pass today with broad bipartisan support. Now let me address one other issue. And that issue is the fact that there is no substitute today. As the gentleman knows, in the Rules Committee last night and in a letter to the Rules Committee yesterday, I asked them to make a substitute in order. There was a question posed to me last night about supporting such a measure. And I said I would support not only amendments, but also a substitute as long as it did not contain tax issues in there that were unrelated or dealt with the tax side of this bill. I do not know whether the substitute had these or not. But all I can say is that there is no one in this House who has argued more for a fair, open debate than I have. I have been in the minority. I have been in your position. I have made the arguments that you are making, and I do believe that when we stymie debate in the House, we short circuit our constitutional responsibilities. I am sorry there is not a substitute here. I am not sure why, but I am sure there are very good reasons. Whether there are tax issues involved in what you were offering, I do not know. But the fact is that it is a good underlying bill. We are going to have a very healthy debate about it today. And I would urge my colleagues, on behalf of American workers, that we have a responsibility to pass this bill now. Is it perfect? I am sure it is not, but I do believe when this bill passes here today with bipartisan support, we will get to a conference with the Senate where we will hammer out the differences between the House and Senate bill. But the longer this House waits to move this bill, the longer we make arguments, that we make perfect the enemy of the good, the more we are jeopardizing the retirement security of American workers. And I believe that we have to act now, get ourselves to conference, and get a bill passed that brings comprehensive reform to our pension laws.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Washington for yielding me this time. And I appreciate the concern that my colleague from Massachusetts has raised. Now, if this bill was as bad as the gentleman has tried to define it, why would we bring it to the floor? Why would any Member of this House seek to bring a bill to the floor that would hurt American workers?

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate both the gentleman from Virginia and the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, for a job well done on the Commodity Exchange Act reauthorization. This is a very important bill for the futures markets in our country. The work that was done in 2000 clearly has paid significant dividends. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act is working and it is working well. I think what we have seen over the last 5 years is nothing short of a firestorm of innovation in these markets. Between 2000 and 2004, the volumes of futures and options contracts traded on exchanges has increased from 600 million contracts a year to more than 1.6 billion contracts per year. I think the futures industry is stronger today as a result of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act because it has allowed those markets to function without the heavy hand of government, as heavy as it used to be. I think the bill before us makes some changes to that act. Clearly, in the Zelener case, which has been talked about, I think we take a practical approach to solving the Zelener problem. Secondly, it follows through on promises made on CFMA by setting a date certain for risk-based portfolio margining for single stock futures and for a definition of broad-based securities indexes. Now, my colleague before me, Mr. Graves, talked about the issue of natural gas. This provision is included in the bill, and it is there because we are hearing from farmers and consumers about the high cost of natural gas. Unfortunately, the provision would not lower the cost of fertilizer or heating oil or natural, and it may have the reverse effect. I have concerns about the language there. I think it is very intrusive and could be overly far reaching. I would hope as this bill goes to conference that my colleagues will take a close look at the natural gas provisions so we do not overreach like we did back in the 1990s.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to offer relief to the families, workers, and schools in the gulf coast region working to rebuild after the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I'd like to thank the author of this bill, my friend from Louisiana, Representative Jindal, for his tireless efforts on behalf of his constituents who have been through so much. This bill, the Hurricane Regulatory Relief Act, is about cutting through the red tape and easing the burdens on those who are working to rebuild. It provides commonsense flexibility for teachers and schools; it encourages community-based services and eases access to child care; and it provides assistance for displaced workers. For 1 year, the bill will ease the burdens on teachers and schools to ensure they can focus on education instead of focusing on compliance with burdensome rules. This includes easing funding requirements so States and schools have greater flexibility to use resources to meet the needs of their students. It will also expand opportunities for qualified teachers to serve displaced students, and will expand a pilot project to affected States to reduce the paperwork burden on special education teachers. Furthermore, the bill encourages States to ease restrictions on charter schools so that they may play an active role in the relief effort. The Hurricane Regulatory Relief Act includes steps to make it easier for college students to transfer from one institution to another so they can continue to make progress toward a degree, and it improves the outreach process to help disadvantaged students learn about the financial aid opportunities that may be available. To help displaced families get back on their feet, the bill expands access to child care services by easing Federal requirements for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and providing guidance, technical assistance, flexibility, and resources to ensure displaced children have access to the Head Start early childhood program. The bill also provides greater flexibility within the Community Services Block Grant program, which provides an array of services and assistance through Community Action Agencies. Our efforts to cut red tape don't stop there. The bill will provide financial flexibility for displaced workers, reducing bureaucratic burdens to ensure displaced workers seeking emergency funds from their personal retirement plans may access them more quickly and easily. Finally, the bill also works to enhance safety and reduce bureaucracy in relief projects. Mr. Speaker, this bill offers commonsense solutions to speed the relief effort by cutting through red tape and easing the regulatory burden. Once again, I'd like to thank the sponsor of this bill, Representative Jindal, and Members on both sides of the aisle for working to aid those impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the Managers of the bill jointly submit this statement to explain and clarify the intent of certain provisions contained within the legislation. With respect to amendments made to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in Section 311 of the legislation, the Managers recognize the historic and unique nature of this disaster inflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and is taking the extraordinary step of authorizing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to use volunteers in light of the historic scope of that devastation. Section 311 of the bill is intended to allow OSHA to utilize qualified safety professionals as volunteers to assist in a variety of projects targeting health and safety identified by OSHA. It is the Managers' expectation and intent that these volunteers would be qualified by virtue of experience, and would need little additional training based on their professional work experience or other recognized safety training prior to being deployed in needed areas. With respect to Section 312's providing authority to the Secretary to purchase and distribute equipment and supplies to public or private entities engaged in projects related to worker safety, it is the intent of the Managers that these funds be use to assist in relief and recovery efforts, and not be used to pay private entities to comply with preexisting requirements or obligations under the OSH Act. Finally, with respect to Title III, Subtitle A, the ``Pension Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act of 2005,'' it is the Managers' expectation and intention that the Secretary will exercise the authority provided under that section judiciously and upon careful consideration of the appropriateness of any waiver, suspension, or exemption authorized thereunder.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and thank him for his work on bringing this bill to the floor. He and I have talked about the idea that we ought to take all of these programs that the Federal Government has that affect disadvantaged youth and try to bring some coordination to the overall effort. As many of us know, Congress gets in the business of duplicating programs coming from different committees and different agencies of the Federal Government. Before we know it, we have a proliferation of programs, many of them not connected to each other in any way, shape, or form. I think the proposal brought to us by the gentleman from Nebraska creating this coordinating council really will, in fact, help us achieve what we are attempting to achieve by closer coordination of these 30 different programs. I can go through a lot of different areas, but I can talk about the Workforce Investment Act, for example. A little different example, but I looked up, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) some 10 years ago, and we found 63 Federal job training and retraining programs scattered across the different agencies of the government that we were able to bring together under one roof to serve those who needed training and retraining. We have one-stop-shop centers now all over the country. This is a little different example of trying to reorganize how we do what we do, well meaning, well intentioned; but when we have all of these different programs working on their own without the kind of coordination that this council would bring, I do not think we bring as much of an impact to these children who need our help as we could. I think the goal here is pretty clear from Mr. Osborne, myself, and others that this coordinating council would be there to see that these programs are working, that they are working together to help those disadvantaged youth who need help. I do not think there is any effort here to consolidate programs, but I think the effort here ought to be making sure that they are effective and making sure that they work together for the advantage of these disadvantaged youth who so desperately need our help. I congratulate my colleague from Nebraska for his work and ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be here to support the bill offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline). An identical bill to this passed the last Congress 425-1. Now, one would wonder, why do we need to be here doing this? There are children that do, in fact, have behavioral disorders, have mental health issues, other issues, and certainly teachers and school administrators have a role to play in terms of helping bring this to the attention of parents and, in many cases, urging them to seek qualified medical attention. But what has come to our attention in a number of hearings that we have had on this issue over the last 4 or 5 years are the number of complaints from parents, grandparents and others where their children were going to be denied admission to school or denied services unless their child was put on medication. As was noted by both of my colleagues earlier, that is a decision that should be left to the parents, and only to the parents. Certainly, school personnel and teachers can play a role in terms of helping the parents understand what is happening in the school, helping the medical professional in terms of what type of behavior is being exhibited, but, at the end of the day, parents of children ought to have the right to make that decision about whether their child should be on some prescription drug. The bill is very simple, and I think it lays it out very clearly. Last year when we reauthorized IDEA, the special ed law, we put identical language in that law to protect the parents of special needs children. What this does is covers the rest of the children. I think it is a great step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) who has worked on IDEA issues for a long time; thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor today, he and Ranking Member Woolsey from California, who have brought this resolution honoring the 30 years since the passage of the first IDEA bill. For far too long in our history, we treated people with disabilities as outside of the mainstream of American society. The opportunity to serve those children prior to the passage of IDEA in 1975 was often haphazard. Certainly there was not any organization to it, and many times these children were not in any school whatsoever. And I think passage of IDEA clearly has sent a clear signal to all parents of disabled children, all schools, that we believe that all children can learn. Just last year, we reauthorized the IDEA law. That, along with the work that we did with No Child Left Behind, I think, presents a new paradigm for special needs children. For far too long we judged the accountability for educating those children by how many T's we could cross and how many I's we could dot. Mountains of paperwork, but no focus on the results that we were getting for those children. Today, under No Child Left Behind and under the new IDEA law, the paradigm has shifted to one of let us measure the results that we are getting for all children, including those with special needs; and I think what we are beginning to see are improved results. Because while they may not learn at the same rate and while they may not attain the same levels, these children can learn just like all other children. So 30 years of good work, I think, is something that we should be proud of; and I appreciate the opportunity to take time and to remember how far we have come over these last 30 years. In 1975, when Congress passed IDEA, they made a commitment, a commitment that said that we would pay up to 40 percent of the cost of educating special needs children. Over the years, the education community and others believed that the law said that we would spend 40 percent to educate special needs children. But I will remind you what the original law says and what it says today is that we will spend up to 40 percent and try to reach that. It is really interesting that, from 1975 until the mid-1990s, Congress paid little attention to the commitment that they gave to those parents of special needs children and to educators who were obliged to follow the law, and it really has only been over the last 10 or 12 years that we have made a real commitment to funding the needs of these children. If you go back to 1995, Congress at that time was spending $2.3 billion annually for the education of special needs children. Today, that has grown to $10.6 billion, a 360 percent increase over these last 10 years. While we have not reached the goal of getting up to 40 percent of the cost, we are about halfway there. I think we have made tremendous progress. In 1995, we were paying about 6 percent of the cost of educating these children. So we have made great strides. Do we need to continue to do more? Yes, we do. And I think you will see another increase in funding this year as the budget process begins to come to a close. I think the commitment for Members on both sides of the aisle is very strong to continue our commitment to increasing those funds. Let me, lastly, remark that someone I would have hoped would have been on the floor today is not here. In 1974, there was a new Member of Congress, a member of our committee, happens to be the ranking Democrat on our committee today, George Miller. George Miller, over these last 30 years that he has been a Member of Congress, probably has exhibited more commitment to this issue and the education of children with special needs than any Member. I think that while we are pausing to remember the great things that have happened since IDEA became law, we ought to take a moment to thank our colleague, George Miller, who, without his commitment, without his dedication to this cause, many Members of Congress may have forgotten.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. I was alarmed by the United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to allow private property to be seized in the name of ``economic development.'' On June 23, 2005, the Court ruled that the City of New London, Connecticut could seize a series of privately owned homes, offer the homeowners ``just compensation'' and re-sell those properties to private entrepreneurs as part of a city-approved plan aimed at raising the land value and increasing the city's tax base. The court justified the ruling by arguing that the city had the right to seize the private property under the ``public use'' clause of the United States Constitution's 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment reads as follows: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. No one has ever denied the fact that in certain rare cases, a government (federal, state, or local) must exercise its Constitutionally limited power to seize land in order to complete a public project like a road, school, military base, or court house. That power is known as ``eminent domain.'' America's Founding Fathers acknowledged it as an unfortunate, but sometimes necessary, evil and it has historically been pursued in America with great reservation. According to a majority of the Court however, seizing private property in the name of ``public use'' does not necessarily mean that the property seized must be used for the public. Instead, the land seized could merely be used in the name of a ``public purpose.'' While the concurring justices never actually define what constitutes a ``public purpose,'' they write that the elected politicians on the local, state, and federal level are more than capable of making such determinations on their own. In this particular case, the ``public purpose'' happened to be a pharmaceutical research facility, a waterfront hotel, and a series of new commercial and residential buildings. As a result of the Court's 5-4 ruling, any government body (city council, state assembly, Congress) with a good enough lawyer or simply a one vote majority can now take any citizen's private property, offer ``just compensation,'' and dispense with it as it sees fit. In other words, your property is now only your property so long as the government wants it to be. John Adams once said, ``The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.'' Allowing a man's property to be so easily taken at the whim of a legislative body represents a complete departure from the very core value upon which America was founded--your natural human right to your property. America's Founding Fathers considered property to be the one sacred right above all others. They knew that true freedom came not from a political declaration or a legislative promise but from the ability of each and every citizen to dispense with his property as he saw fit. Those who would take that right away often try to assure us that by surrendering the freedom to control the supposedly less important aspects of our lives, we shall somehow obtain freedom in the pursuit of higher values. I could not disagree more. The ability to control your own property, whether it be your home, your car, or even a simple trinket, is not simply some marginal aspect of life which can be separated from the rest. It is the means to express your values and strive for your dreams. It is the ability to offer shape to your highest ideals and reject those that conflict. In short, it is freedom. Now the human right to property seems relegated to a mere afterthought. The Institute for Justice, which represented the New London residents in court, released a study showing some 10,000 cases between 1998 and 2002 where local governments in 41 states used or threatened to use eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another. The New York State Supreme Court forced a man off of property his family had owned for more than a hundred years to make way for the new headquarters of The New York Times. Several cities in Ohio have already seized homes in the name of ``economic development''--be it a shopping mall or a new factory. And now the highest court in the land has confirmed that this is all completely legal. The Kelo decision merely confirmed a depressing trend where those who think ``government knows best'' gain and property rights and therefore liberty yield. I believe that government which governs best is that which governs least. I believe in property rights and the rule of the written law that is the Constitution. I am proud to support the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. But this bill is merely a first step. The only truly effective way to stop these abuses of power is for every American citizen to remain vigilant in observing that every government official that has sworn an allegiance to uphold the written law of the Constitution remains true to his word. That fight however, begins here, today. I urge my colleagues to take the first step toward once again defending every American's basic human right to his or her property by voting for this important bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize National School Lunch Week. This year, the event is being held during the week of October 10-14, 2005. In honor of this event, I would like to take a moment to share with you a few facts relating to the National School Lunch Program: President Harry Truman established the National School Lunch Program in 1946 in response to the large number of World War II recruits that were rejected due to malnutrition. Today, the school lunch program serves more than 28 million students each day. Just over half of those students who participate in the school lunch program receive their lunch free or at a reduced cost. Over 92 percent of all students nationwide have access to school lunch and about 58 percent of those students participate on a given day. The school lunch program operates in 99 percent of all public schools and 85 percent of private schools. That's a total of 99,538 public and non-profit private schools. The National School Lunch Program is the largest of the federal child nutrition programs both in terms of spending and children served. In fiscal year 2005, $6.8 billion was appropriated for the school lunch program. For some children, a school lunch is the only healthy meal they eat all day. School lunches can contribute positively to children's health, and can improve academic performance by increasing children's learning capacity and lengthening their attention spans. The National School Lunch Program plays an important role in protecting the health and well-being of many of the nation's school-age children. I commend the nation's dedicated educators, food service professionals, and most of all, parents who work to ensure the ongoing success of the National School Lunch Program, and to ensure that children have access to nutritious and balanced meals at school.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill to ensure that individuals with disabilities may gain access to the vocational rehabilitation services they need in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I thank my colleague on the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. Boustany, for his work on this bill and other legislation to bring additional flexibility and resources to the Gulf Coast region. He and another of my Committee colleagues, Mr. Jindal, continue to work tirelessly on behalf of their constituents and all Gulf Coast residents to ensure that we act where necessary to assist in the recovery efforts. This bill is critical for individuals with disabilities who are seeking to re-enter the workforce in the aftermath of the two hurricanes. Under the Rehabilitation Act, States must return unused vocational rehabilitation funds at the end of each fiscal year to the Rehabilitation Services Administration, RSA. The RSA then reallocates those funds to States based on the needs of their respective residents. H.R. 3864 directs the Commissioner of the RSA to give consideration to States affected by the hurricanes in this year's reallocation of those unused funds. This bill also provides significant flexibility for States impacted by the hurricanes. Under the Rehabilitation Act, States that receive a reallocation are required to match those funds with non-federal sources. This bill provides a reasonable, one-time waiver of that requirement for States affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. This recognizes the unique circumstances faced by these States and ensures that State officials will not have their hands tied as they seek to take advantage of these additional resources. Madam Speaker, in the month since Hurricane Katrina, the House has approved a variety of legislation to cut through bureaucratic red tape and enhance flexibility in the affected regions. We've addressed the needs of college students, workers, and their families. With this bill, we turn our attention to the needs of individuals with disabilities as well. As many of these individuals seek to return to work in and around the Gulf Coast region, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this measure to ensure they may do just that.