John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Education and the Workforce may have until 5 p.m. on Friday, February 25, 2005, to file a report to accompany H.R. 27.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules for the 109th Congress for the Committee on Education and the Workforce for publication in the Congressional Record. The Rules of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for the 109th Congress rule 1. regular, additional, & special meetings: vice-chairman (a) Regular meetings of the committee shall be held on the second Wednesday of each month at 9:30 a.m., while the House is in session. When the Chairman believes that the committee will not be considering any bill or resolution before the committee and that there is no other business to be transacted at a regular meeting, he will give each member of the committee, as far in advance of the day of the regular meeting as the circumstances make practicable, a written notice to that effect; and no committee meeting shall be held on that day. (b) The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the committee or for the conduct of other committee business. The committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (c) If at least three members of the committee desire that a special meeting of the committee be called by the Chairman, those members may file in the offices of the committee their written request to the Chairman for that special meeting. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the staff director of the committee shall notify the Chairman of the filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairman does not call the requested special meeting to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of the committee may file in the offices of the committee their written notice that a special meeting of the committee will be held, specifying the date and hour thereof, and the measure or matter to be considered at that special meeting. The committee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the staff director of the committee shall notify all members of the committee that such meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered; and only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at that special meeting. (d) All legislative meetings of the committee and its subcommittees shall be open to the public, including radio, television and still photography coverage. No business meeting of the committee, other than regularly scheduled meetings, may be held without each member being given reasonable notice. Such meeting shall be called to order and presided over by the Chairman, or in the absence of the Chairman, by the vice-chairman, or the Chairman's designee. (e) The Chairman of the committee or of a subcommittee, as appropriate, shall preside at meetings or hearings, or, in the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman, or the Chairman's designee shall preside. rule 2. questioning of witnesses (a) Subject to clauses (b) and (c), Committee members may question witnesses only when they have been recognized by the Chairman for that purpose, and only for a 5-minute period until all members present have had an opportunity to question a witness. The questioning of witnesses in both committee and subcommittee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairman, followed by the ranking minority party member and all other members alternating between the majority and minority party in order of the member's appearance at the hearing. In recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to minority party members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to place the members of the majority party in a disadvantageous position. (b) The Chairman may permit a specified number of members to question a witness for longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this clause shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate. (c) The Chairman may permit committee staff for the majority and the minority party members to question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this clause shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate. rule 3. records & rollcalls (a) Written records shall be kept of the proceedings of the committee and of each subcommittee, including a record of the votes on any question on which a rollcall is demanded. The result of each such rollcall vote shall be made available by the committee or subcommittee for inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of the committee or subcommittee. Information so available for public inspection shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members present but not voting. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one member. (b) In accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, any official permanent record of the committee (including any record of a legislative, oversight, or other activity of the committee or any subcommittee) shall be made available for public use if such record has been in existence for 30 years, except that-- (1) any record that the committee (or a subcommittee) makes available for public use before such record is delivered to the Archivist under clause 2 of Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall be made available immediately, including any record described in subsection (a) of this Rule; (2) any investigative record that contains personal data relating to a specific living individual (the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), any administrative record with respect to personnel, and any record with respect to a hearing closed pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of Rule Xl of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall be available if such record has been in existence for 50 years; or (3) except as otherwise provided by order of the House, any record of the committee for which a time, schedule, or condition for availability is specified by order of the committee (entered during the Congress in which the record is made or acquired by the committee) shall be made available in accordance with the order of the committee. (c) The official permanent records of the committee include noncurrent records of the committee (including subcommittees) delivered by the Clerk of the House of Representatives to the Archivist of the United States for preservation at the National Archives and Records Administration, which are the property of and remain subject to the rules and orders of the House of Representatives. (d)(1) Any order of the committee with respect to any matter described in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be adopted only if the notice requirements of committee Rule 18(c) have been met, a quorum consisting of a majority of the members of the committee is present at the time of the vote, and a majority of those present and voting approve the adoption of the order, which shall be submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, together with any accompanying report. (2) This subsection applies to any order of the committee which-- (A) provides for the non-availability of any record subject to subsection (b) of this rule for a period longer than the period otherwise applicable; or (B) is subsequent to, and constitutes a later order under clause 4(b) of Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, regarding a determination of the Clerk of the House of Representatives with respect to authorizing the Archivist of the United States to make available for public use the records delivered to the Archivist under clause 2 of Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives; or (C) specifies a time, schedule, or condition for availability pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of this Rule.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 46, which celebrates mentors who are positively impacting the lives of young people and highlights the need for additional mentors that we need around the country. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who never lets a day go by without pushing this project of his to increase the number of mentors that we have around the country. He has clearly been the leader in the House on this issue, and without his efforts we would not have this resolution on the floor today, nor would the Federal Government be nearly as involved in mentoring as it is. We all know that mentors give their time and energy to improve the lives of American young people, and they are doing it in many different ways. I am involved in a group here in Washington called Everybody Wins that is a reading mentoring program that many staffers here on the Hill participate in, and, frankly, a number of Members participate in. While I help them with their organizational efforts, I have often felt somewhat guilty that I did not take the time every week to go over to Tyler Elementary School and actually sit down and read, as many of my staff have over the years. In Ohio, we have a reading program sponsored by Governor Taft called Ohio Reads, and it has involved tens of thousands of adults around the State going into schools and helping children better learn to read and providing a positive role model for those children. I want to just take a moment to thank all of those who are mentoring around the country today and encourage others to take a more active role. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) pointed out the effects of mentoring, the less likelihood of the use of alcohol and the less likelihood of violent behavior. We know that far too many young people in today's society are growing up without adult role models close to them in their lives. Here is something where mentors can help fill that gap and help improve the lives and the outcomes for many children around our country. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud these efforts today and applaud my colleagues for bringing this resolution to the floor. I urge Americans who want to take a more active role in their community to think about mentoring.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for bringing this resolution to the floor once again. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and I and Tony Hall all worked in the Miami Valley area, Greater Dayton area together. And when you think about Tony Hall, there is only one word that comes to mind and that is humanitarian. When you read the description of humanitarian in the dictionary, it ought to just have Tony Hall's name there. Of all the people I have worked with in the Congress during what is now 15 years, I am not sure that I have worked with someone so dedicated and so focused on trying to help the poor and the needy, not only in his district and around the country but around the world. He is a tireless advocate on behalf of those who are hungry. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) had a CODEL group of us over in Rome. We met with Tony Hall. Tony took us to the U.N. Food Program, and we had long conversations about the needs in various places around the world. And if it was not in Rome, it used to be right here in the back of the Chamber when Tony would stop any one of us to help describe the problems that people were having around the world and here in our country and the need for better nutrition programs and better food distribution programs. So I cannot think of anyone who we should honor in naming this courthouse in Dayton, Ohio, but my good friend and our former colleague, Tony Hall.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this resolution, which shows our Nation's unwavering commitment to both higher education and providing a strong national defense. At no time in recent memory has our country placed more responsibility on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. We are fighting a war on terrorism on multiple fronts, in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is essential that if we are to be victorious in defending our freedom and protecting our homeland that we promote military service as an option to college students across the United States. When this Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, the bill made it easier for military recruiters to inform America's high school students about their options to serve their country, while also giving parents a choice about whether or not they want their sons and daughters to be contacted individually by military recruiters. Now in this resolution we are reiterating the choices given to institutions of higher education. The Solomon Act, originally passed in 1995, grants the Secretary of Defense power to deny Federal funding to institutions of higher learning if they prohibit military recruitment on campus. This law recognizes the importance of having a capable, educated and well-prepared military, one that is ready to defend American liberties such as freedom of speech and higher education. If we deny Armed Forces recruiters the opportunity to actively recruit in schools, we not only disrespect the sacrifices of military men and women who have made our freedom possible; we also rob our students of the valuable opportunities that military service can be to our Nation and what they can help provide. There is no reason not to allow the Nation's armed services to make their best case to college students and to do so in the same manner as private sector employers that colleges and universities seem to relish having on campus. Denial of access and equality to military recruiters by colleges that receive Federal funds is an insult to the taxpayers who help subsidize higher education in this country. Many nations have mandatory military service for their citizens. We do not. The very core of our system of homeland security and national defense depends on young men and women deciding that they wish to serve our country. Successful recruitment of the best officers in our military relies heavily on our military recruiters' access to the best and the brightest. And it seems a bit disingenuous for the elite institutions of higher education, such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and New York University, to condemn the lack of the wealthy and privileged in the ranks of our military while these schools deny their students the option of even hearing about a career in our United States military. This resolution should not be politicized. It is a straightforward reaffirmation of our Armed Forces and our students. Congress does not force colleges and universities to accept Federal funding. If an institution of higher learning wishes to bar military recruiters from recruiting, it is free to do so. But Federal funding is not an entitlement and such institutions should not expect that decision to be endorsed and subsidized by the taxpayers of the United States. The resolution reaffirms our commitment to that principle. And I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 23.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 23) honoring the contributions of Catholic schools.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 23, offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). This resolution increases the awareness of Catholic education, while honoring the contributions of America's Catholic schools. They are dedicated to not only educating their students academically but to developing their moral, intellectual, physical, and social values. January 30 through February 5, 2005, is Catholic Schools Week, an annual tradition in its 31st year, and jointly sponsored by the National Catholic Education Association, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as well. The purpose of this resolution and Catholic Schools Week is to celebrate the vital role Catholic elementary and secondary schools play in providing a values-added education with high standards of quality and excellence to millions of American children. As President George W. Bush noted last year, ``Catholic educators share the basic conviction that every child can learn,'' which is the grounding principle behind the No Child Left Behind Act. And these schools continue to demonstrate their faith in every student and commitment to excellence with overwhelming results. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic schools have a graduation rate over 99 percent, and about 97 percent of Catholic high school graduates go on to post-secondary training at 4- year colleges, community colleges, or technical schools. As a proud product of Catholic education from elementary school through my college years at Xavier University, I have found that my foundation in Catholic education has helped me to strengthen my sense of purpose in life and prepared me to help achieve my goals. My own State of Ohio has more than 500 Catholic schools, including my high school alma mater, Moeller High School, in Cincinnati. In Ohio, Catholic schools serve more than 167,000 students, including more than 51,000 students attending 134 Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. So I appreciate the great work being done by Catholic schools, their administrators and teachers, as well as their parents and volunteers. Catholic schools carry out their servant mission by building the academic achievement, character, and values of their students. I commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a new member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the sponsor of this resolution. I congratulate Catholic Schools all across America for their contribution to our country and pay particular attention today to a group right here in Washington, DC, the City Center Consortium that represents 13 Catholic Schools here in the poorest areas of Washington, DC, where arguably the children need a chance at a decent education more than almost anywhere in America. These 13 Catholic Schools and these poor communities here in town were threatened to be closed a few years ago, and an organization was set up to try to bring funding to keep these schools open. They happened to be about 95 percent minorities and about almost 90 percent non-Catholic; and having these schools available in these communities has been, I think, a major effort at giving these children here in town, here in Washington, DC, a real chance at a quality education. I have worked closely with the City Center Consortium for the last 3 or 4 years. They are to be congratulated along with all Catholic Schools across the country in this week of their celebration of Catholic Schools week. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, elections are divisive activities in our communities, in our States, and in our country. After an election, and after the divisiveness, there needs to be a period of healing to bring our communities, our States, and our Nation back together. I think John Kerry was very graceful in his concession to George Bush to begin the healing process in our country so that when we the Congress come back to work, we have an opportunity to come back together to do the people's work. That healing period over the last several months has been interrupted by an activity without merit. I think the proceeding today will cause great harm to this institution and great harm to our country at a time when we should be coming together to get ready to do the serious work the American people sent us here to do. I regret that. The Constitution clearly gives the responsibility for running elections to the States. All the States have their rules and regulations. In Ohio we have heard clearly, it is a very bipartisan process, two Democrats, two Republicans in each of the 88 counties. I have not heard one election official in any of the 88 counties, Democrat or Republican, raise any concern about the outcome or the fairness of the election that occurred in their counties. If we really want to have a debate about how elections are run, that debate ought to occur at each of the 50 State legislatures where they in fact ought to look at what happened in their State. They ought to be making adjustments. But the election officials are doing the best they can, and I do think that what is happening today is really an indictment of the good work of many of those people in our States. So I would ask my colleagues, let us get this behind us, quickly; and let us come here to do what the American people sent us here to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, as many Members of the House know, I have been involved in civil litigation against another Member of the House, Mr. McDermott of Washington, for many years. That litigation has come to a conclusion of sorts, and because the litigation derives from an incident reflecting our own responsibilities towards each other as Members and, more centrally, to the institution of the People's House, I think it appropriate to report to the House why I initiated the litigation, my attempts to resolve it, and its latest developments. I bring to your attention an article titled ``McDermott Gets $600,000 Tab in Leak of Illegal Phone Tape,'' from the October 29, 2004 edition of the Seattle Times. The article is generally accurate and comprehensive. Mr. McDermott has himself acknowledged leaking the illegally recorded tape to the media in the manner the article describes, and the quotations attributed to the federal district court judge hearing the case are accurate. Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore three things. First, I filed the suit to defend the principal that no matter our political differences or our party affiliations, we each owe a duty to each other and the House to honor the laws and rules that govern the House and our Nation. Laws matter. Rules matter. Oaths, such as the oath of confidentiality that the Committee on Standards requires of each of its Members, matter. Second, more than three years ago I tried to resolve the suit with Mr. McDermott. I had only three requirements: that he admit that what he did was wrong, that he apologize to the House, and that he make a small contribution toward a charity I would designate. These were the only terms I insisted on. We met several times to discuss each of the matters. But for whatever reason, he felt he could not accept these terms, which appear now to be trifling when compared with the court's punishment. Third, I recognize that Mr. McDermott has every right to appeal the court's judgment and I would not suggest that appeal would be improper. But when the court's order for payment is final, he should pay it in full and at once. It's worth noting that this entire matter started with an ethics charge against the former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, which was resolved by fining him $300,000. To end that matter once and for all--both for himself and the House--Speaker Gingrich paid the fine in full. The House deserves the same kind of finality here. [From the Seattle Times] McDermott Gets $600,000 Tab in Leak of Illegal Phone Tape (By Alex Fryer) A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ordered Congressman Jim McDermott to pay $60,000 plus attorney fees that could total more than $545,000 to a Republican congressman who sued McDermott for leaking his cellphone conversations to news reporters. In a harshly worded decision received by attorneys this week, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan said McDermott's ``willful and knowing misconduct rises to the level of malice in this case.'' It is unclear how McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, will pay for the award if he decides not to appeal it further. He turned down an offer to settle the case for $10,000 last summer. McDermott's lawyers were reviewing the court's decision, said his press secretary, Mike DeCesare. A popular liberal lawmaker in a safe Democratic district, McDermott is expected to win re-election easily and has only $45,000 in his campaign account. McDermott's legal-defense fund, formed in the late 1990s to fight the lawsuit, has about $10, according to his office. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, filed a civil suit against McDermott in 1998. The case began with Boehner's cellphone conversation in the parking lot of a Waffle House restaurant in northern Florida. During a conference call with Republican leaders, Boehner talked about the pending Ethics Committee probe of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich over the way Gingrich funded a college course he taught via satellite through a tax-deductible political-action committee. A Florida couple intercepted and taped the call and gave it to McDermott on Jan. 8, 1997. At the time, McDermott was the highest-ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee, which handles complaints against members of Congress. McDermott then leaked the tape to The New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The New York Times published a front-page story Jan. 10, 1997, with the headline: ``Gingrich is Heard Urging Tactics in Ethics Case.'' Three days later, McDermott resigned from the Ethics Committee after the Florida couple identified him as the recipient of the tape. Gingrich later was fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House. He resigned his seat in November 1998. The couple who gave the tape to McDermott later pleaded guilty to unlawfully intercepting the call and were fined $500 each. The Justice Department has never pressed charges against McDermott. Boehner sued McDermott, charging the eight-term lawmaker violated state and federal wiretapping laws. McDermott won the first legal round when a federal judge ruled his actions were protected by the First Amendment. The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which bounced it back down to lower courts. In August, Judge Hogan determined McDermott ``participated in an illegal transaction'' when he accepted the tape from the Florida couple, and his actions weren't protected by the First Amendment. Prior to the August ruling, Boehner said he was approached by a lawmaker on McDermott's behalf to broker a settlement. In an interview during the Republican National Convention last August, Boehner said he set three conditions for McDermott: a $10,000 donation to charity, an admission of guilt, and a letter of apology to the Speaker of House. Discussions broke down, and Hogan submitted his decision Oct. 22. ``The Court finds that (McDermott's) conduct was malicious in that he intentionally disclosed the tape to the national media in an attempt to politically harm the participants through an invasion of their privacy,'' Hogan wrote. ``(McDermott's) argument that he was acting in the public interest by exposing official misconduct is unsupported by the evidence.'' Boehner's office said a settlement now was out of the question. ``This is full vindication of our view in this case,'' said Boehner's chief of staff, Mike Sommers. ``We're looking forward to getting this case behind us.'' Sommers said Boehner spent about $545,000 in legal fees, paid from his campaign accounts. ``It's all been referred to legal council,'' said DeCesare, McDermott's press secretary. ``It's a legal decision, and it needs to be analyzed.'' McDermott's legal-defense account has paid about $350,000 in attorney's fees since the case began, and now owes $21,600 in legal bills, DeCesare said. Asked if McDermott would embark on a fund-raising campaign to pay the legal bills, DeCesare replied: ``The only next step is to let the legal team review the judge's decision and make a recommendation. It doesn't make sense to speculate on anything else.''

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding. This concurrent resolution allows the Enrolling Clerk to make a technical correction to the conference report on H.R. 1350.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 524) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make certain corrections to the enrollment of H.R. 1350, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the YMCA Retirement Fund Act, a bill sponsored by Mr. English. Strengthening employee pension plans has been a longstanding priority of mine, and I'm pleased to support this common sense reform that will strengthen pension benefits provided through the YMCA Retirement Fund. This bill will ensure the Young Men's Christian Association's pension plans are treated as church plans under the Internal Revenue Code, and its employees are provided many of the important protections under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (``ERISA''). The YMCA Retirement Fund has been in existence for more than eighty years, and provides meaningful pension benefits to more than 80,000 participants across the nation. Employees of local YMCA's participate in these pension plans and enjoy a vesting period of either two or three years. These employees obtain a non-forfeitable right to their pension benefits faster than employees under traditional qualified plans. I'm pleased today to support this bill to ensure the YMCA Retirement Fund may continue providing these important pension benefits to its employees, many of whom will now also benefit from the important protections provided under ERISA. Under the bill, the pension plans in the Fund may commingle assets for investment purposes. While there may be certain restrictions on this practice under the Internal Revenue Code, it is important to note that it is not a per se violation to commingle assets under ERISA, provided that the plan and its fiduciaries maintain appropriate records. Therefore, the language should not suggest that other qualified pension plans under ERISA cannot engage in this widely accepted practice. If the YMCA Retirement Fund's status as a church plan under the Internal Revenue Code is not clarified for this narrow purpose, the Fund may not have the ability to continue to provide the same generous pension benefits to its participants, most of whom are modestly paid. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that while this legislation will solve a problem for the more than 80,000 Americans involved with the YMCA pension plan, the laws that govern all American worker pensions will remain outdated and in desperate need of reform and repair. The failure to update these laws has resulted in a very real threat that taxpayers will be forced to pay for a multi-billion bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which protects workers' retirement benefits when their companies fail. It's absolutely critical that we act in a bipartisan manner in the weeks and months ahead to enact comprehensive, broad-based reforms that will modernize our nation's pension laws and restore security for workers and taxpayers. This is a top priority for me and the members of our committee, and I know it is for Chairman Thomas and the members of the Ways and Means Committee as well. I want to thank Chairman Thomas and the bill's sponsor, Mr. English, for their cooperation in bringing this bill to the House floor today. I'm hopeful that we can build on this important legislation, and continue our efforts to craft a solution that will protect the retirement security of all our nation's workers in the same serious and thoughtful manner that produced the bill we're considering today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 years that I have had the pleasure of chairing the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I think we have come an awful long way in terms of transforming the Federal role in education and trying to help all of our kids in our country get a chance at a good education. And I think we have been fortunate to be able to do almost all of this in a broad bipartisan way. The bill before us today is the result of a lot of commitment and hard work on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle. And while we have heard an awful lot of talk about IDEA and how we are transforming it, I think there is one important point that continues to be lost on many people. When we passed No Child Left Behind, we created a new paradigm for how we are going to judge the education of our special-needs students. By disaggregating data in four subgroups in each school, including those with special needs, what we have done is we have asked schools to focus on results for our special education students as opposed to being burdened with a lot of paperwork, dotting I's, crossing T's and worrying about lawsuits. Now schools are judged on the results that they produce for these children. There was some resistance to this, of course, because we still have people in America who think that students with special needs cannot learn. But that is nonsense, and I think all of us understand that have worked on this that these children can learn, and should learn, and society and our country owe them an opportunity to learn. So schools now are having to produce results. And as a result the Individuals With Disabilities and Education Act itself had to be more integrated with No Child Left Behind, which we have done in this conference report; and we needed to take the shackles off of our local school administrators and teachers so that they could focus on producing results as opposed to dotting more I's and crossing more T's and having the burdens of paperwork and lawsuits coming at them. So I am proud of the bill that we have before us. It is not exactly what I would do, certainly not exactly what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) would want. But that brings me to my last point. The Congress, over the last few years, the last several sessions, let us call it 5 years, 6 years, 8 years, has been gripped in an awful lot of partisan strife. And what we have shown on No Child Left Behind, what we have shown on the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization we had earlier this year, the Vote Rehabilitation Act, and again today on IDEA reauthorization is that we can in fact work together. I really do want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat. He referred to us last night in the Committee on Rules as the political odd couple, and we are. I would describe myself as a mainstream conservative Republican, the gentleman from California I would describe as a liberal Democrat. Neither one of us is shy about our opinions. But there is an issue here that I think can help not only the progress in our own committee but the progress in this House, and that is to learn to trust one another. The gentleman from California and I began this process, this journey, 4 years ago by developing a trust with each other. And while we may disagree on many issues every day, he and I both know that we can trust each other and trust our word. I went to the gentleman from California and I went to Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg back in September. And as highly partisan as things were leading up to the election, I looked them in this eye and said we can do this. We can do this if we trust each other, all work together, and there is a small opening that we may actually be able to finish this bill this year. The reason we are here today is because we did in fact trust one another. We worked together. And I think once again we have produced an example of what can occur in this House each and every day if we are willing to put our partisan differences aside once in a while and think about why we are here and the trust and responsibilities that the American people have given us in order to do their work and not ours. I thank all my colleagues.

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

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee.