John Boehner

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 the bill, H.R. 1350, which was just passed.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker may be permitted to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules on Wednesdays through June 25, 2003, as though under clause 1 of rule XV.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1350, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, for offering this amendment and congratulate him on his effort in promoting new and innovative ways to deal with children with special needs. These children require the utmost in flexibility in their education; and the amendment before us encourages innovative options and provides States with much-needed flexibility. The amendment would accomplish three goals. First, it encourages States to establish innovative solutions by providing seed money to develop new programs. Second, it answers the call of parents of children with disabilities to ensure that educational opportunities are not withheld and that States may choose to implement as much or as little flexibility as the State deems appropriate. Third, it allows States to use Federal dollars in flexible programs already utilizing State resources to provide services for children with special needs. The amendment does not, as has been claimed by some critics, provide vouchers. It simply affords States the flexibility they are seeking to provide individualized options for students with disabilities. This amendment is not a mandate in any way, shape, or form; but it makes new options available for States who choose, these are only for States who choose, to want to look at new options and new technology and more flexibility in terms of meeting the needs of special needs children, of all of their children in their State. Each participating State must determine which approach and what type of program will best serve the children with disabilities in their State, including options such as public schools, charter schools, or private schools, whatever is in the best interests of the child. So children with disabilities today deserve every effort that can be made to provide them with a high-quality education, and their options and the options of the States should not be limited.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to our Members that our friend from the State of Washington makes a valuable contribution to the bill, and I would urge the Members to support his amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have a chance today to consider the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act, H.R. 1350, legislation that will strengthen our Nation's education law for children with special needs. I am very grateful for the work of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on this important legislation, and for all of the hard work all of our committee members have put into this project over the last 18 months. I also want to thank the ranking member and my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for his work during this process. While we are not in complete agreement with the bill that we have before us today, his efforts have been extraordinary and very helpful. The issues addressed in this bill are important ones for our constituents. I hear more comments from Members about IDEA than I do about any other Federal education program. Today is a chance to do something that will make a real difference in our schools. The bill that we have before us today is an important bill for our children and our schools. It is the next major step in education reform and the next step in the process of ensuring that Washington no longer spends billions of dollars a year on education programs without insisting on results for our children. This bill is important as an opportunity for us as legislators. The reforms in H.R. 1350 are strongly supported by teachers, school administrators, principals, and other educators, those who have been asked to do the most under the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. This bill gives teachers and school leaders better tools to meet the high standards in No Child Left Behind, and they support it. When Republicans and Democrats came together some 16 months ago to pass No Child Left Behind, we vowed to bring a generation of failed Federal education policy to an end. We acknowledged that money alone has failed to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. We declared that Washington would no longer pump billions of dollars a year into education without insisting on results for the children those dollars are supposed to serve. No Child Left Behind was the beginning of this process, not the end of it. The No Child Left Behind law requires that every child in America be given the chance to learn and succeed, including children with special needs. When we passed the law, we promised we would follow up by giving teachers and educators the tools they need to meet these high standards. We promised that we would revise laws like IDEA to ensure that the focus is on results being produced for our children, rather than on compliance with complicated rules and paperwork. We said that these things we could finally do, now that an accountability system was in place to ensure that parents know when their children are learning. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to make good on that commitment. The measure before us provides powerful reforms requested for years by teachers, principals, local educators, the people on the front lines of education in our country. The American Association of School Administrators, which represents some 14,000 educational leaders nationwide, calls H.R. 1350 ``the best special education policy revisions we have seen in decades.'' The legislation aligns IDEA with No Child Left Behind and gives our school districts greater flexibility in reviewing the progress of a child by replacing benchmarks and short-term objectives with regular reporting requirements that are contained in No Child Left Behind. The bill before us reduces the paperwork burden on teachers. Good special education teachers are leaving the profession in frustration because of the IDEA paperwork burden, and there is a growing shortage of quality teachers in special education. This legislation before us allows parents to choose the option of a 3-year individualized education plan instead of an annual one. And it is at the option of school to offer it and at the option of parents if they want to move to a 3-year plan. And the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) has been promoting this idea for several years. I want to thank him for his contributions in this bill. H.R. 1350 will reduce the numbers of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special education, a problem that particularly effects minority children. As the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University has shown, African Americans are nearly 3 times more likely to be labeled as mentally retarded under the current IDEA system and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Thousands of children every year are inappropriately identified, while many others are not identified at all. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our colleague, gave us compelling testimony during committee sessions in the last Congress to help us address this, and I am proud to say that it is being addressed. H.R. 1350 gives local school districts new flexibility and resources to improve early intervention and reduce misidentification of children into special education. The bill before us would reduce destructive lawsuits and litigation in special ed, it encourages the use of mediation as early as possible, and creates new opportunities for voluntary binding arbitration. The bill encourages parental involvement and allows IDEA or school districts to use IDEA to support supplemental services for students with disabilities in high priority schools. It also allows parents to choose to keep their children with the same educational provider from the beginning of service until the child reaches school age. And I am grateful for the help from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) who helped devise these provisions. The bill also charts a clear path to full funding within 7 years. Thanks to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), it authorizes a systematic increase in special education aid to the State that would result in the Federal Government paying an unprecedented 21 percent of the total cost of special ed in America next year. And as the chart shows, as this chart shows, we have had unprecedented increases over the last 7 years. And the budget resolution that we passed just several weeks ago brings an increase this year of over $2 billion and authorizes an additional $2.5 billion next year. This is by far the highest percentage in history; and the Porter language will allow appropriators to increase IDEA spending through the traditional spending process, the same process that Congress has used to increase IDEA spending by almost 300 percent over the past 8 years. H.R. 1350, the bill before us, will enhance school safety, requiring districts to continue to provide educational services to students with disabilities while allowing the school district personnel to have one uniform discipline policy for our children. And the gentleman in Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been a very effective member in leading the Congress to deal with this issue for many years. And I really do want to thank him for his willingness to work with the committee to craft the discipline provisions that we have in our bill. Let me just say as I close, I want to commend my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to this point. It is an excellent bill that will make a positive difference in the lives of parents with special needs children, teachers, school boards members and others, and I urge all of my colleagues today to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a friend and member of the committee as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friend from California (Mr. George Miller), one of the authors of the original underlying legislation, there is a point that is being missed here. In all, the conversation that we heard from my friend from California revolved around the current system and how the current system works and the changes to the current system. But there is one very large dynamic that is being changed, and it changed under No Child Left Behind when we require school districts to disaggregate data and we require them to disaggregate the test data by subgroups including special education children. For a school to succeed under No Child Left Behind, all the sub-groups have to show improvement. And so school districts under No Child Left Behind are going to have to ensure that their special needs students are improving and showing progress. This is a dramatic change in terms of how we are going to deal with special ed students. And as a result, the changes that we are putting in the bill will allow school districts to have more flexibility to move this program to one that will bring results for our special ed students as opposed to being locked in the process. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time and for his great work working with myself and the members of our committee and others to help craft the bill that we have before us today. Let me also thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for their consideration of what I think is a very fair rule for Members on both sides of the political aisle. There is great opportunity for Members to offer amendments. Let me also thank my good friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Education Reform, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for the tremendous work that he did, and the members of our committee and our staff, by the way, for all of their hard work in getting us here today. I will have a lot more to say about the bill when we actually get into the bill, but we are on the rule. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation this morning about the issue of mandatory spending versus full funding. I just want to say that the amendments that were offered that were not made in order with regard to mandatory spending were not made in order because they violated the rules of the House. You cannot bring a mandatory funding amendment here without getting a waiver of the Budget Act. The fact is that neither of these amendments were crafted in such a way that they did not violate the rules of the House. That is why they were not made in order. Let me also say that mandatory funding for this program is the wrong way to fund the program. We would not be here today making the improvements in this bill to help children with special needs and to help our teachers, principals, school board members and superintendents if it had not been for the fact that we have this bill on a 5-year reauthorization track. It forces the Congress to step back and look at this Act and to determine, is it working the way we intended it? Are there better ways to achieve our objective? I would suggest to all of my colleagues that if it had been under mandatory spending, we know what happens with those programs; they get put on automatic pilot and are very seldom looked at. That is not in the best interests of special needs children, and it is not in the best interests of our schools. Let me also say what my colleague from California pointed to. The first 20 years of this Act Congress never really stepped up to the plate. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge. Even in 1993 and 1994, when they had control of the House and Senate and the White House, there was no move made to make this a mandatory funding program. So why do we hear about it now? I would just suggest to my colleagues we do two things here in this town; we do public policy and we do politics. We would like to get the politics out of it, but it is kind of hard to take politics out of politics. But when we hear all of the discussion about mandatory funding, trust me, it is nothing more than politics. Since 1996, all you have to do is look at the chart next to me and see the dramatic increases in funding. 1997, a 33.7 percent increase in IDEA spending. In 1998, a 22.3 percent increase in spending; then we raised it another 13.2 percent in 1999; how about the year 2000, 16 percent more on top of that; the year 2001, a 27.1 percent increase; or how about 2002, an 18.8 percent increase; or how about this year, 2003, a 17.8 percent increase. All of these are built on top of the previous increases. And in the budget resolution that we adopted just several weeks ago we called for a 24.8 percent increase in IDEA spending. For someone to suggest that we are not doing our job, we are not trying to meet our responsibilities, I think, misses the point entirely. In this bill that is before us, we have a glidepath to get from the 20 percent of funding, in round figures, 21 percent at the end of this year, to 40 percent. I think that is a reasonable approach, it is the right way to go, and none of us, none of us, should hang our heads when it comes to the question of whether we are meeting our obligations to fully fund IDEA.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) offers a very good amendment to the bill. We are, over the next 7 years, doubling the amount of money we will be spending on special ed. I think it is right to take a look at what are the total costs associated with this program, and I think the gentleman makes a good addition to the bill, and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I include two letters for the Record on H.R. 1350. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, April 29, 2003. Hon. John Boehner, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Boehner: In recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results in Children with Disabilities Act of 2003, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. Section 205(i) makes changes to the attorneys' fees provisions for IDEA cases, and these provisions fall within the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. However, given the need to expedite this legislation, I will not seek a sequential referral based on their inclusion. The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1350 on the House floor. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with my friend from Oregon. We have worked on this amendment during committee, and we have worked on it since. The committee and I are in full support of the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the opportunity to work with him to help fine-tune this and would recommend to our colleagues that we adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), another member of our committee and a subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was absent for roll No. 140 and 141. I respectfully request the Record to reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on each.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 342) to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to make improvements to and reauthorize programs under that Act, and for other purposes, with the House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoekstra amendment to strike a non-emergency provision in this bill that provides $64 million in new funding for the Corporation for National Community Service. Last month, the Administration requested $64 million in new funds for the Corporation to ``liquidate obligations incurred in previous years'' in the National Service Trust. The Administration requested these new funds to make up for a shortfall that was incurred because of poor tracking procedures at the Corporation with regard to AmeriCorps participants and a recent decision by the Office of Management and Budget to change the way the Corporation has been determining the amount of funds available in the National Service Trust. The purpose of the Administration's request is to ``complete the implementation of a comprehensive corrective action plan developed by CNCS to strengthen financial management of the Trust, change reporting procedures, and restore [National Service Trust] fund balances.'' While I will continue to work with President Bush and Mr. Hoekstra to reach agreement on a bill to reauthorize our national service laws-- this is not the right time or place to address Corporation financial difficulties. Mr. Hoekstra is currently working on this very issue in his Subcommittee. In fact, he held a hearing this week on ``Performance, Accountability, and Reforms at the Corporation for National and Community Service.'' There was significant discussion on this $64 million shortfall. I am concerned about adding money to the National Service Trust at this time because, we can't exactly figure out why there is a $64 million shortfall in the Trust, especially considering the language in section 129(f) of current law. Section 129(f) explicitly states that ``the Corporation may not approve positions as approved national service positions . . . for a fiscal year in excess of the number of such positions for which the Corporation has sufficient available funds in the National Service Trust for that fiscal year . . .'' In addition, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has been examining this issue and this provision was added to the supplemental without prior consultation with our Committee. Accordingly, I believe that funding to eliminate the shortfall should be addressed after Mr. Hoekstra and other Members on our Committee have had time to make sure that these financial problems do not continue at the Corporation. This is a specific issue that will be examined during reauthorization and I ask my Colleagues to let the Committee do its work and to support the Hoekstra amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, as I have mentioned to the gentleman and staff, we have worked on his important addition to this bill, but under the 1973 Budget Act we are required to find offsets. As the gentleman is aware, there is about a $10 million cost estimate from the CBO on this bill. But I commit to the gentleman we will continue to work with you to try to find these offsets under the Budget Act so that we can, in fact, bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, and congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), one of our freshman members of the committee, for the introduction of this bill. Let me also thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), another freshman member of our committee, for his contributions to this effort. None of us believe that our active duty soldiers should be in a position where they are going to have to make payments on their student loans while in fact they are not here. This discretion has been given to the Secretary under the Higher Education Act Amendments, the recent reauthorization. What we want to do here is to make it clear to the Secretary that not only does he have that authority and we expect that he will work with it, but also to give him a more permanent authority in the case of a national emergency that he can, in fact, defer these payments. Members of our committee have a very good relationship with the Secretary of Education. He is working with those institutions and agencies today to ensure that our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and the rest have this protection. I do think the passage of this will give him clear authority to make sure that they and their families do not have this in this time of war. Again, I wanted to congratulate both of my colleagues for their efforts on this bill and urge all of my colleagues in the House to support the HEROES Act of 2003.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation to establish a compensation program for our Nation's emergency personnel in the event they suffer complications from smallpox vaccinations. As our United States troops fight the battle for freedom in Iraq, I am pleased that Congress can contribute this important piece of legislation which has been crafted to aid in our war effort and to enhance the safety of our Nation. The face of war is changing. While past efforts may have focused solely on the armed aggression, the new face of war includes new threats in the form of biological or chemical warfare. Our Nation's armed services are not the only ones on the front lines of this conflict, because the threat of terrorism is here in the United States. Our emergency personnel, health care workers, and first responders are also on those front lines. Health care workers, law enforcement officers, firefighters and others across the country are currently being vaccinated for smallpox. With this vaccine, as my colleagues have heard, come some risk of some workers having serious reactions to the vaccine. It is also possible, though unlikely, that some may suffer life- threatening complications and even death, and fittingly, this measure will provide security to these workers who put their own health at risk in order to help the American public. This legislation provides an important backstop to ensure that workers and their families will be protected if they suffer complications from the smallpox vaccine. Workers injured in the line of duty will be compensated first by their employers and second by the United States Government. For those who may not have access to workers compensation and other employer-sponsored health care, the Federal Government will provide appropriate compensation. Even those workers who have access to employer-sponsored benefits may receive additional compensation from the smallpox fund; and as such, the bill sets a Federal floor and ensures that each worker will be adequately compensated. Under the bill, workers who might suffer a totally disabling injury or death as a result of the vaccine will receive cash benefits consistent with the amounts of benefits paid under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program. For workers who suffer a less serious injury, the bill provides compensation for medical expenses and the loss of employment at a rate of 66\2/3\ percent of monthly pay, and workers who have dependents will be compensated at a rate of 75 percent monthly pay; and if a worker is eligible for less compensation than the federally established level, the fund will compensate the individual at the higher Federal level. As chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am pleased to assist in helping my colleagues at the Committee on Energy and Commerce draft this legislation, which I believe will ensure the safety of health care workers and first responders. I am also particularly pleased because my committee has primary jurisdiction over the employer-sponsored health care and workers compensation disability programs, which would include the Federal Employee Compensation Act, which will be the primary payers of the compensation. This measure will not only help our emergency personnel and first responders but enhance the safety of our Nation as well. I want to urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act, which strengthens the punishment and consequences of those criminals who would dare to harm our children, as well as provides for the national coordination of the AMBER Alert communications network. This legislation also increases the authorization for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which serves as the national resource center and clearinghouse to aid missing and exploited children and their families. H.R. 1104 includes Section 305, which increases the authorization level of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to $20,000,000 for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. As the nation's resource center and clearinghouse for missing and exploited children, the Center carries out many important responsibilities that provide assistance to families and law enforcement agencies in locating and recovering missing and exploited children, both nationally and internationally. In order to do this, the Center operates a national 24-hour toll-free telephone line for individuals to report information regarding the location of any missing child. A call to NCMEC's Hotline sets into motion the Missing Children's Division where Case Management staff: Disseminate lead information to the investigating agency in charge of a missing or sexually exploited child's case; Assist citizens and law enforcement in filing missing person reports; Verify information on missing children entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer system and instruct law enforcement in the proper handling of these cases; Offer resources and information to assist in local, regional, national, or international searches; Coordinate with and send publications to enhance the investigative skills of law enforcement officers handling these cases; and Work in conjunction with INTERPOL, the U.S. Department of State, FBI, and the U.S. Customs Service. And on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, NCMEC handles cases coming into the United States arising from the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. This worthwhile organization deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1104.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 14, the ``Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.'' This bill reauthorizes the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, and related child and family protection acts. H.R. 14 represents our efforts and commitment to once again ensure that programs aimed at the prevention of child abuse and neglect are strengthened and continue to serve vulnerable children. It's fitting that we are considering this bill today, as next week marks the beginning of National Child Abuse Prevention Month. This bill reflects our strong belief that every child in America deserves the security of being a part of a safe, permanent, caring family. H.R. 14 aims to improve program implementation. It makes improvements to current law to ensure that states have the necessary resources and flexibility to properly address the prevention of child abuse and neglect. It ensures that children are protected from abuse and neglect through best practice prevention and treatment services. It also reflects our belief that we can help achieve this goal by maintaining resources for adoption opportunities, identifying and addressing the needs of abandoned infants, and ensuring that resources continue to be available to promote family violence prevention activities. This bill also addresses the problem of child abandonment and abuse with effective solutions that can make a real difference in the lives of children. H.R. 14 appropriately addresses issues regarding child protective services across the United States by enhancing training for personnel, requiring more effective partnerships between child protective services and private and community-based organizations, and improving public education on the child protection system. This bill enjoys bipartisan support and is widely supported throughout the child abuse prevention and family violence prevention communities. Finally Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues--Select Education Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra, Mr. Greenwood, and Mr. Miller, the ranking member of the full committee--for their efforts in bringing forward this important and timely legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 14, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 113 offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth. House Resolution 113 recognizes the social problem of child abuse and neglect and supports the goals and ideals of the National Day of Hope. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on behalf of it. This resolution addresses an issue that, unfortunately, plagues many of our districts. Each year approximately 3 million reports of possible child abuse and neglect are made to child welfare agencies. As a result, about 556,000 children are unable to live safely with their families at home and are placed in foster care. Child abuse and neglect is a social problem that affects all Americans. The results of such abuse and neglect have great human and economic costs and are related to crime and delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and welfare dependency. Therefore, all Americans should strive to break the cycle of child abuse and neglect to give victimized children hope for the future. Childhelp USA is one of the Nation's oldest and largest nonprofit organizations dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect. As part of their efforts to bring attention to this issue, Childhelp USA has initiated a National Day of Hope to be observed on April 2, 2003. A day that is appropriate and timely as April is designated as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. This day of hope is a reminder to all Americans that they should keep the victims of child maltreatment in their thoughts and prayers, and it encourages community efforts to mobilize resources to assist abused and neglected children. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very simple and straightforward. It rightly recognizes the need for more public awareness of the problem of child maltreatment and supports the goals and ideals of the National Day of Hope. I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership on this matter and urge my colleagues to vote in support of the resolution.