John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any at the present time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman,I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it should be clear to our colleagues today that the underlying bill, the reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant program, has been done on a broad bipartisan basis. The only issue here of disagreement in the Chamber is the issue of whether faith-based providers would give up their title VII exemption in order to continue working in this program. As I mentioned before, for the last 6 years this language allowing faith-based providers to receive federal funds and to maintain their exemptions under title VII has in fact been the law. And to my knowledge, there has been no complaints. Now, it is pretty clear to me, and I think to most of my colleagues, that faith-based organizations, whether they are using their own money or they are using federal funds, I would venture to say that the vast majority of them probably would never take up their title VII exemption or need it. But the fact is that that is the law. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it very clear that religious organizations did not have to give up their rights to hire the person of their choice under that act. And all we do here is maintain that and we have been doing this, as we said, in the welfare reform law, a number of other laws, over the past decade or so. And for those who have differences with this law, and I certainly respect their opinion, the fight should not be here on this bill. If they really feel strongly that the title VII exemption for religious organizations should be taken away, they should go to the Committee on the Judiciary and move a bill to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But let us not do it on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has worked diligently on this program, not only here as a Member of Congress, but in his prior life of Governor of the great State of Delaware.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time. In answering the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)'s question, the fact is this has been the law of the land in this program for 6 years, and I challenge anyone to come to the floor and say where there has been a problem, because there has not been a problem. But in the bigger question, let us not forget that these faith-based organizations in many of our poorest communities are doing tremendous work to help needy people. And my concern, by changing the law along the lines of what my two colleagues would like to do, would be to provide a chilling effect on faith-based organizations from participating in programs to help their fellow citizens. So we will have plenty of time for this debate this afternoon once we get into the bill, but I do think that there are various points of view here. They ought to be heard. The rule allows for a clear and open debate on this question and the rest of the bill, and let us have that debate then.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are debating the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), our good friend and committee member; and the only difference between the substitute and the underlying bill is the issue of whether faith-based providers can continue to maintain their title VII exemption under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The gentleman from Massachusetts made a case for the fact that we should not continue to allow this to occur. The fact is that the Congress in 1964, and as amended in 1965, went out of its way to say that religious organizations, when it comes to their hiring, can, in fact, make a decision and use religion as a basis of hiring. That is the law; and for our colleagues who disagree with that, as I said before, let them take this case to the Committee on the Judiciary. Let us go amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but it is not the issue here. Secondly, I would point out that these faith-based organizations in many cases are very effective organizations, helping needy people who need our help, and they do tremendous work; and in many cases, these organizations, faith-based community organizations, hire people who have multiple jobs. My concern with the language that is being offered in the substitute is that it will, in fact, have a very chilling effect on these faith- based organizations when it comes to their willingness to participate in Federal programs to help meet their mission and our mission of helping poor people that are in crisis. These organizations have been doing this work for a long time. Many of them have participated in Federal programs where they were protected, like the program we have before us. The Community Service Block Grant program going back to 1998 has the same language in it that the bill has in it today. I have not heard one complaint from anywhere in the country that because they are allowed to have their 1964 civil rights protections that they have discriminated against anyone. The fact is that these organizations do very good work in our communities. We ought to allow them to participate, as we have. And it is not just this program. There are at least a half dozen other programs, including the 1996 Welfare Act, that allows faith-based organizations to provide these services while maintaining their protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So all we are asking in the underlying bill is to maintain the current law and continue to allow these organizations, who are doing great work, to keep doing what they are doing. I think that is a reasonable assumption, and I believe that most Americans would support what we are trying to do with the underlying bill.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, we are debating the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization program that funds the community action agencies in all of our communities to help the poorest of the poor, Meals on Wheels, other coordination of social services, to help those that are very needy. It is a very important program and a program that needs to be reauthorized. But out of nowhere, at the 11th hour, we get this cynical attempt to talk about extending unemployment benefits. It has no business on this bill. As I said before, this is an authorization. There is no money attached to it; and for goodness sakes, no unemployed worker in America ought to count on anything happening out of this bill because it never will be funded. The gentleman from California, my good friend and colleague, although we do disagree and we are disagreeing today, knows that this has no chance of becoming law. We are here scoring political points today at the expense of unemployed workers, and I really do think that is a sad use for the U.S. House of Representatives, not that there is never politics played here, but they are not usually played on the backs of the unemployed. I think that is what causes me such distress as I stand here today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Two years ago, when we sent this $8 billion out to the States for unemployment out of the Federal unemployment trust fund, we told the States they could do a number of things with that money. They could increase benefits. They could add additional workers. They could increase the amounts or they could extend unemployment benefits for those whose were expired. As we have heard in the debate today, 45 States have almost all of the money that we sent them, 45 States; and so the money is there and the States, in my view, are acting to help those people. Why are we here? Even if this were germane and it were in order, the money would go out to the States. The same States that already have the money, would they really help any more unemployed workers? The States ought to get off their rear ends and help those who need help. We know there are people out there whose benefits have run out, and those State legislators and those Governors ought to step up to the plate and use the money we sent them out of the Federal unemployment trust fund to help them. In the meantime and back to this debate, this amendment does not deserve to be here. This amendment does not deserve our vote. I will not vote in a cynical way to try to tell unemployed workers we are going to extend their benefits when I know, when I know that this bill will never be funded, and this program, even if it were funded, would take years and years to actually implement the extension of benefits for these workers. It is not fair to them, and playing politics on the backs of unemployed Americans is beneath the dignity of this institution.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 492) honoring the contributions of Catholic schools.

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 H. Res. 492.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 492, offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). This resolution honors the contributions of America's Catholic schools, which are dedicated to not only educating their students academically but to developing their moral, intellectual, physical, and social values. January 25 through the 31 is Catholic Schools Week, an annual tradition jointly sponsored by the National Catholic Education Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and it is in its 30th year. The purpose of this resolution and Catholic Schools Week is to celebrate the vital role that Catholic elementary and secondary schools play as they provide a values-added education with high standards of quality and excellence to many of America's children. As President George W. Bush noted earlier this month in recognition of the National Catholic Education Association's 100th anniversary, ``Catholic educators share the basic conviction that every child can learn,'' a principle that we are extending to public education through the No Child Left Behind Act. The President also pointed out that high expectations that characterize Catholic education have provided students with overwhelming results. More than 99 percent of students participating in Catholic education graduate from high school and the majority of those go on to college. As a product of Catholic education from elementary school through my education at Xavier University, I have found that my foundation in Catholic education has helped me strengthen my sense of purpose in life and prepare me to achieve my goals. My home State of Ohio has more than 500 Catholic schools, including my alma mater, Moeller High School. In Ohio, the Catholic schools serve more than 180,000 students, including more than 56,000 students attending 135 Catholic schools in the archdiocese of Cincinnati that is part of my district. I appreciate the great work being done by Catholic schools, their administrators and teachers, as well as their parents and volunteers. And as the President noted earlier this month, ``Catholic schools carry out a great mission, to serve God by building the knowledge and character of young people.'' I commend my colleague from Louisiana for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of one of our subcommittees of the Committee on Education.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the author of the resolution that we are considering.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues who have come to the floor today to help us celebrate Catholic Schools Week. As I said, not only am I a graduate of Catholic education, but so are my 11 brothers and sisters. If it were not for the commitment of my parents to send us to Catholic schools, I do not think that we would be what we are today. I cannot really go on much further in talking about Catholic education without admiring the work of Cardinal McCarrick here in Washington, D.C. While there are many Catholic schools here in Washington, there are 13 very special Catholic schools here in Washington called the Consortium Schools that are in low-income neighborhoods. They are 95 percent minority, 80 percent non-Catholic. Cardinal McCarrick and the volunteers at the consortium have worked to keep those 13 schools open for the benefit of those children in those neighborhoods. Last year, Senator Kennedy and I worked to help raise money to keep these 13 schools open. I made a commitment to go see all 13. I made it to four. I have got nine more to go. But there is amazing work that is going on at these 13 schools here in Washington where we all know the condition of the public schools. I just want to take a moment to thank Cardinal McCarrick and those at the City Consortium Schools for the work they are doing to help minority and poor children here in Washington, D.C.

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the sponsor of this resolution for the time and congratulate him for his leadership on the very important issue of mentoring. As he pointed out very rightly, many children in America need the help and support that many times they do not get at home, and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) has led the efforts over the 3 years that he has been here in Congress to bring our attention to the need for more mentors, and probably no one in the Congress is more qualified to talk about the need for mentors than someone who mentored a young man on the football field for many years. But beyond his prowess as a coach and mentor of a lot of young men, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) spent much time around his State of Nebraska helping to establish mentoring programs there, and during the years he has been in Congress, has continued his efforts, and I want to congratulate him for all of his work. Mentors do provide affirmation and a guidepost for many children who do not get affirmation and do not get the kind of guidance that they need. I know in my home State of Ohio we have a program called Ohio Reads. Many schools in my district have grants where it is a mentoring- based program to help children who need help in reading, and many people throughout my community and communities throughout my district and the State mentor in many schools to help young people achieve more proficiency in their reading. Here in Washington and other cities around America, there is a program called Everybody Wins, and here in Washington, that program involves many staffers here on Capitol Hill and Members who read to children in various schools throughout the city. I am proud that many of my staff, both of my committee staff and my personal staff, are mentors to young people, again trying to help them read and to provide guidance for them. One of those mentors is my assistant in my office, Amy Hobart, who for 5 years, has read to a young girl at Tyler Elementary School here on Capitol Hill, and the child has her share of problems, but every week, Amy goes over there and spends an hour helping that young lady master her reading skills. But those are just several mere examples of the millions of Americans who do, in fact, volunteer. The last point that I would make is that many of us as Members, as we go around our districts and around the country, people always ask, well, what can I do, what can I do to help, and everybody in America has something to offer to some young person in America. So I would suggest to my fellow Americans that they can volunteer, whether it is reading to someone, whether it is going to a Boys Club or Girls Club, whether it is going to a juvenile detention facility. There are many ways that the people can help, and I would urge them to do that. I congratulate my colleague for bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time and congratulate him and all of his committee members on a job well done. We can look at a lot of the things that we do around here as though it were a half a glass of water. We just heard a description of the bill from our colleague and friend from Wisconsin describing the glass half empty. I would suggest to all of you that we should really look at this bill today before us as a glass that is half full. The committee, under very difficult circumstances, had a lot of decisions to make; and I think they have made them very well. In the area of education, an area that I am very interested in as the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act in a broad bipartisan way, our commitment was to adequately fund the reforms in education. There was never any discussion about fully funding to the authorized levels. The commitment was to adequately fund our efforts to renew American education. In this bill we continue that effort. In the area of Title I, we increase Title I spending by $700 million to $12.4 billion annually. This is more in the last 2 years than we saw in 8 years under former President Clinton in terms of increases to Title I. We should be very proud of that commitment. Another major area of our concern in education comes to children with special needs, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, where we attempt to fund a portion of the cost for those students that have special needs in our local schools. Congress has been involved in this since 1975, and from 1975 to 1995, as this chart will show, we move spending from zero to about just a little over $3 billion. And since 1995, we are not only just shy of $10 billion, but in this conference agreement the number is now $10.1 billion; $10.1 billion, over a 300 percent increase since 1995. That is something that I think this Congress ought to be very proud of. Let me make one other point about the bill we have before us. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who just spoke, who chairs the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, and that is the effort to help children in the District of Columbia who are stuck in very bad schools, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I worked diligently over the course of this year to help the Mayor and the School Board who requested our help in helping children that were stuck in failing schools. Of all the big urban systems around the country that have problems, and there are a lot of them, there is none that have bigger problems than the schools right here in the District of Columbia. The children here deserve as good a shot at an education as the children in our own districts. And for those children who are trapped in very bad schools, we believe they ought to have some choice. They ought to have a chance to go to a real school and get a real education. And the $13 million that is in this bill will help about 1,700 students here in the District of Columbia be able to choose a school of their choice, and I do believe this is good for those children, and it will be good for the DC schools because when we bring competition into where children can actually go to school, we have seen the public schools do improve. And I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and certainly, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his cardinals and the members of his committee for a job well done.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the significant pension underfunding problems that we face in this country have critical implications on the retirement security of American workers. Traditional defined benefit pension plans promise workers a set monthly benefit at retirement, and we have a responsibility to ensure that these important pension benefits for millions of American workers will be there when they retire. The tax extension package that we have before us today includes a key pension funding change that was included in the Pension Funding Equity Act, the bipartisan measure that passed the House previously on October the 8th. It would have replaced the current 30-year Treasury bond interest rate that is used by many employers to calculate the amount of money they must set aside in their pension plans with a blend of corporate bond index rates for the next 2 years, through 2005. Because the current fix expires at the end of 2003, there is an urgency on the part of employers, unions, and workers to address this issue. Let me explain why this change, I think, is so important. Strengthening the funding of defined benefit pension plans in the short-term will reduce the likelihood that the Federal Government will have to step in and pay benefits for underfunded plans, often at lower benefit levels for American workers. Moreover, employers who are making major short-term financial decisions need greater certainty to make key decisions about how to allocate scarce resources. Doing nothing could jeopardize employers' willingness to continue their defined benefit programs that provide a stable and secure pension benefit to workers during their retirement. Doing nothing is not an option, and for the good of our economy and for the good of American workers we need to act. This measure also includes an additional item that would reduce additional payments that airlines must make to their pension plan when their funding falls below 90 percent of liabilities, called deficit reduction contributions, and we would reduce those contributions by 80 percent for just the next 2 years. I remain concerned about the possible consequences of reducing deficit reduction contributions. Certainly, it is a last-resort approach. I would prefer not to single out any one industry for special relief, but enough of our colleagues in the other body feel differently, and we are nearly out of time. So I am pleased the DRC relief included in this measure is limited to 2 years, and I plan to support this measure for the good of our economy and the overall health of our Nation's pension system. I am committed to ensuring that any DRC relief we enact is responsible and limited in scope to avoid compromising the defined benefit system as we look at broader, long-term reforms in both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 and in particular Title VX, which sets forth a Renewable Fuels Standard to advance renewable fuel development in this country. As a representative of the nation's third-largest ethanol consuming state, I congratulate my colleagues on incorporating this standard into a national energy policy. In my view, a renewable fuels standard achieves two policy objectives simultaneously--it begins to break out nation's dependence on volatile sources of foreign oil, and it creates new market opportunities--with a tremendous upside for America's farmers. This provision has been criticized because of its costs. But let me remind those critics of another cost--the cost of farm program payments. By reaching 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012, the RFS will provide a tremendous boost to annual farm income and add substantial value to the corn market--value that will reduce the amount of money going out of the federal Treasury in the form of price support payments. The RFS and expanded ethanol production will add value to agriculture and provide price and income support to our nation's ailing farm sector in the most sustainable way possible--through the marketplace. In addition, this bill sets the foundation for a correction to a flawed highway funding formula that penalizes ethanol consuming states to the tune of $2 billion a year, including my home state of Ohio, which loses nearly $160 million per year in valuable transportation infrastructure dollars. I congratulate the Chairman on his hard work to make comprehensive energy policy a reality, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 280, the National Aviation Heritage Area Act. One hundred years ago, the Wright Brothers made Ohio the ``Birthplace of Aviation.'' It was in their bicycle shop in Dayton that the Wright Brothers researched and designed the first successful, heavier-than- air, manned, powered aircraft. It was there in Dayton, on the Huffman Flying Prairie, where the brothers learned to fly--where they learned to control and maneuver their aircraft. Today, the tradition of the Wright Brothers lives on in the Miami Valley community. Engineers, scientists, and inventors continue to research, develop, and test the latest advances in air power at the Wright Patterson Air Force laboratories. At the Air Force Institute of Technology, they learn the technical skills to build the aircraft of the future. And at the United States Air Force Museum, three hangars attest to the commitment the community has to preserve the history of the Air Force and its contributions to the advancement of powered flight. In addition to the public sector efforts, the Miami Valley has been fortunate to have numerous dedicated individuals and private organizations who work to provide an educational and recreational preservation of the area's aviation heritage. In 2003, the 100th anniversary of Powered Flight, Ohioans have come together in unprecedented ways to celebrate, preserve, and promote the dream of Wilbur and Orville Wright. I can think of no better tribute to their efforts than to establish this heritage area, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill. In the Miami Valley, the legacy of aviation is celebrated for its critical contributions to the economy, to business and personal travel, and to our military. I join my Miami Valley colleagues, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Turner, and other Ohio Members in saluting our constituents' hard work in preserving a nationally important story, a story which captures the dreams and imagination of the young and old alike--the dream and the reality of powered flight.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and thank a great resident of the Buckeye State, Joe Nuxhall. To fans of the Cincinnati Reds baseball franchise, Joe Nuxhall is-- quite simply--an icon. To his family, he is a terrific husband, father, and grandfather. And to his neighbors in the Cincinnati area, Joe is a true community leader. Born, raised, and still residing in southwest Ohio, Joe is nothing short of a Cincinnati sports legend. As a lifelong Reds fan myself, I place Joe's name among those of other all-time Cincinnati baseball greats like Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, and Frank Robinson. From the moment Joe stepped onto the pitcher's mound at the history- making age of 15 to his current work beside Marty Brennaman in the Reds' radio booth, ``The Old Left Hander'' is as synonymous with Reds baseball as anyone in the organization's long and storied history. And this summer at the Reds' new Great American Ballpark, the team erected an impressive statue of Joe to prove it. Next week, the community foundation in Joe's hometown of Fairfield, Ohio will honor him at a reception being billed as ``All-American Evening Honoring an All-American.'' Certainly, those attending the event will celebrate with Joe his unique accomplishments on the baseball diamond. But just as importantly, donations will be collected at the event to benefit the Joe Nuxhall Character Education Fund, an organization that highlights Joe's role as a leader off the baseball diamond as well. Mr. Speaker, for more than five decades, Joe has served and represented Cincinnati as well as anyone in the community possibly can. The only fitting way to end my remarks is to applaud his continued service to the Reds and to Cincinnati--and to borrow his trademark phrase of ``rounding third and heading for home.'' I congratulate Joe and wish him and his family a wonderful evening next Tuesday in Fairfield.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 300, recognizing the contributions of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian colleges and universities. The month of October is recognized by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities as ``Christian Higher Education Month.'' The United States has benefited tremendously from the over 1000 Christian colleges and universities that have been founded since the Nation's first Christian college was founded in 1636. My home state of Ohio has a number of Christian institutions, including my alma mater Xavier University. In a national survey by the Council for Christian College and Universities of Council member schools' alumni, 95 percent reported that their Christian college education helped them develop moral principles that guide their actions and 90 percent said their Christian college helped them develop a sense of purpose in life. I have found that my foundation in Catholic education, including higher education, has helped me to strengthen my sense of purpose in life and prepared me to achieve my goals and ambitions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important resolution. The postsecondary education experience is enriched when students have the opportunity to determine their educational environment. H.R. 300 supports the goals and ideas of Christian Higher Education Month by recognizing and honoring the important work of all our Christian colleges and universities.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, over the past few decades, our Nation has made tremendous progress in improving the opportunities of individuals with disabilities I am proud to say that Congress has significantly improved the ability of individuals with disabilities to become more involved in their communities. We have passed historic legislation securing the rights of individuals with disabilities, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have clearly demonstrated our support for individuals with disabilities, and continue to be committed to improving opportunities for all individuals with disabilities. However, we know that there are millions of individuals with disabilities that face significant challenges in their daily lives. Those individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities who want to maximize their ability to live independently, find meaningful employment, and join the mainstream of American life continue to need our support and commitment. As a Congress, as a Nation, we must strive to help these individuals explore new and challenging opportunities. We must encourage people to pursue careers working with individuals with disabilities. We must provide opportunities to individuals with disabilities to make meaningful decisions about the jobs they pursue, the places they live, and the education they receive. We have made important reforms to key pieces of legislation this past year. In the Improving Results for Children with Disabilities Act, we have provided greater coordination of services for students as they transition away from school to postsecondary education, the workforce, or community living. We have made it easier for States to provide quality services, and enhanced the ability of individuals with disabilities, and their families, to choose what services they receive. In the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act, we have given individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate more meaningfully in the workforce by enhancing their ability to receive training, and we have increased the emphasis on serving individuals with disabilities. I strongly support this important resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Before we vote on this rather meaningless motion which I will probably support, I think it is important that we try to frame it in a proper context. I think what we have tonight is a vote that is politics, pure and simple. Virtually every Member supports providing the highest possible funding for the key programs in No Child Left Behind, and I fully expect whatever agreement we are able to reach with our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol will meet this goal. We will, once again, provide another major increase in funding for Federal education programs, the third major increase since No Child Left Behind was enacted into law. We have heard all year about this so-called under funding of education programs. I would point out that we have a dual process in this Chamber of authorizing and appropriating. The authorized level is the cap, the maximum amount that can be spent. At no time during my experience, the 13 years that I have been here, have we ever fully funded, as Members would describe it, these education programs. As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1995, the last year that Democrats ran the Congress and had the White House, the authorization for title I was $13 billion, and yet the actual funding for that program came in at $10.3 billion. I do not recall any Member of the House, Republican or Democrat, or the Senate, claiming we were underfunding our education commitment. Now, when it comes to the issue of whether we have kept our promise under No Child Left Behind, let us recall what the promise was. The promise was to have a significant increase in spending to help support the goals of No Child Left Behind. So what did we do? Fiscal year 2001, $24.5 billion. What happened when we passed No Child Left Behind, an increase of $5.4 billion to $29.9 billion. That is a real increase. Then we went to $32.8 billion, and this year we are at $34.6 billion. Now, these are the numbers. They are real. No one can say we have not kept our promise because we have had a significant increase in Federal education spending. Let us look at the largest of these programs where a lot of the money is, and that would be in title I, the money that goes to poor students and poor schools across the country. These bars here in yellow are the years when the Clinton administration was in office, and the red years are the Bush years. What do we see, significant increases since No Child Left Behind was put in place. As a matter of fact, to put it in even better perspective, during the 8 years that President Clinton was President, half of the time Democrats controlled one or both Chambers, the increase during those 8 years under President Clinton, $2.4 billion in title I funding over 8 years. That was the increase. What has been the increase over the first 3 years of the Bush administration, $2.9 billion. Now, to say we have not dramatically increased our commitment to education is just not true. But as I said before, all of us in this Chamber support trying to fund these programs at the maximum allowable level to get as much money as we can out there to help poor children have a chance at a good education. But as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and others sitting here would attest to, if money were to have solved all of the problems in K-12 education, we would have solved them long ago. Some of the biggest spending levels in our country are in urban centers which happen to have the worst schools. One only needs to look in Washington, D.C., the third highest level of spending in any urban district in America, and without a doubt, the worst schools in America. Money will not solve the education woes in our country. It is attitudes. It is attitudes and a commitment and a discussion about whether we, as a Nation, are willing to educate all of our children. We have had this discussion for a long time, and we all talk about public education and how important it is, but our Nation has never attempted to educate all of our people. We have never had a real commitment to educate all of our children. We have embarked on an effort to try to get to that goal. It is not going to be easy, and I am not sure we even know what the answers are in terms of how we educate all of our children. But I think we are going to learn those answers. Again, I am not sure that money is going to solve those problems. We need to have real changes of attitudes in our schools, in our communities, about really helping poor children have the same chance in life that all of us have had. They deserve that chance, just like our children deserve that chance, to get a good education. It is not happening today. I do think with the passage of No Child Left Behind, one of the most bipartisan bills of this session of Congress, we can begin to move toward that goal. We are meeting our commitment on the Federal end, and I know the States are having problems meeting their commitments to their local schools. We wish they would do more; but please, do not come here and say we are not meeting our commitment to helping every child get a chance at a good education.