John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the sponsor of this resolution, the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

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 South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), rattled off a number of bills that he thought should become law. The fact is, many of these bills have been passed by this House. As a matter of fact, there are some 50 bills that have been passed by the House, but yet the Senate has not acted. One of those bills would be the prescription drug bill, passed by the House, but yet the Senate has not acted. Another one of those bills is the welfare reform bill that we are dealing with here today. In 1996, when we passed welfare reform, all the naysayers said that it will push people into poverty, it will push them onto the streets; we should not do this. I recall the gentleman from Massachusetts making remarks to that effect. The fact is, since 1996, we have reduced welfare caseloads in America by some 60 percent. Three million children in America today are no longer in poverty because we helped move people from welfare to work. We can make an awful lot of additional changes and help more people in welfare if we are willing to move the reauthorization of that bill. Now, it just so happens that the welfare bill that we passed in 1996 expires next week. The gentleman wants to get our work done? So do we. That is why we have this resolution on the floor today, to urge us to complete action on this bill so that we can in fact get it to the President's desk.

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for introducing this important resolution, and I appreciate his efforts to recognize the importance of historically Black colleges and universities. HBCUs, as they are known, were created more than 150 years ago to provide African Americans with access to higher education, and currently there are 105 historically Black colleges and universities across the United States. In my State of Ohio, there are two HBCUs, Wilberforce and Central State Universities, that provide an invaluable education to the youth of Ohio. While comprising only 3 percent of our Nation's 2- and 4-year institutions, HBCUs are responsible for producing 28 percent of all bachelors' degrees and 15 percent of all masters' degrees and 17 percent of all first professional degrees earned by African Americans. In 1998, Congress enacted the Higher Education Amendments to make improvements to programs designed to help HBCUs strengthen their institutions and graduate and professional programs under the Higher Education Act, and these changes included allowing institutions to use Federal money to build their own endowments and to provide scholarships and fellowships for graduate and professional students. Since 1995, Congress has increased its financial support of HBCUs by 89 percent, and President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget, passed by this House in March, included more than $213 million, a $7 million increase over the current fiscal year, to strengthen HBCUs across the country. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years leaders here in Congress have continued to demonstrate their commitment to historically Black colleges and universities. The Committee on Education and the Workforce has visited a number of HBCU campuses within the last year to consider the issues and concerns of minority-serving institutions to better address their needs through Federal education programs. Tomorrow we will continue our series of hearings on this very important topic. Finally, I would like to thank and commend my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and others for their leadership on this issue and for their tireless efforts in promoting HBCUs in the House. I want to urge my colleagues today to vote yes on this important resolution. It is my goal and the goal of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to build on the record of academic excellence of students attending these universities and colleges. This resolution honors their important work done at HBCUs and encourages all students to attend college and prepare for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 523.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the chairman of the Republican conference.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 523) recognizing the contributions of historically Black colleges and universities.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank Chairman Watts for this resolution today that honors the significance and the importance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. They are unique institutions in our country that serve the African American community and populations that have been traditionally underserved. Congress' role over the last several decades in terms of providing funding to strengthen these institutions has continued to increase. As I mentioned earlier, funding for these institutions from Congress has increased some 89 percent since 1995. That does not include the $7 million increase that is called for by the President in this fiscal year's appropriation bills. When we finally come to some resolution on these, I fully expect that that number will be met in the appropriations process. As I said before, these are unique institutions, and they deserve our support.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate our colleague from California, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. Thomas), for what really was a very successful negotiation with the Senate over putting this Trade Promotion Authority bill together. We all know that much of the growth in our economy over the last 10- 20 years has come from our ability to trade more with others around the world. As we reduce trade barriers around the world, it will continue to enure to the benefit of our children and theirs in this global economy we find ourselves in. The most significant part of this package, though, is the fact that, for the first time, we make a significant effort to help those who may lose their jobs as a result of their company ceasing operations here. I think the help that is in this bill is in fact substantial. We expand the National Emergency Grants to help those workers, whether it is with health care, child care, transportation, training. This bill authorizes some $510 million to help dislocated workers through these grants. It is a good bill. It deserves our support.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent and friend, Fred Worth of Troy, Ohio, on the occasion of his 50th birthday on July 26, 2002. Fred began his life of public service as a high school government and history teacher, and baseball coach. His enthusiasm for these subjects along with his dedication to his students have combined to make Fred Worth's 26 years as a public school teacher a success. Fred's teaching methods have never been confined to the classroom. Fred and his students organize fundraising drives to provide Thanksgiving meals to families that are less fortunate, and to purchase Christmas gifts for the children of these families. When the Ohio River flooded in 1997, Fred and his students traveled down to Hamilton County and assisted the local residents in the clean up of their flooded homes and businesses. Every election year, Fred makes sure that all of his eligible students are registered to vote, and also have the opportunity to volunteer for the campaigns of local candidates. And, twice a year, Fred arranges a trip to Washington, D.C., so that his students can meet their Congressman and see firsthand how their Federal Government works. Fred's commitment to providing his students with the opportunity and knowledge necessary for success has endeared him to two generations of young men and women who call Miami East High School their alma mater. Also, Fred leads his students by example, and has been an active participant in all levels of government in Miami County. Every Republican candidate who has run in Miami County in the last 20 years has benefited from Fred's hard work. Whether distributing campaign literature, putting up yard signs, or serving as Chairman of the County Board of Elections, Fred has always dedicated his time and resources to local candidates and the Miami County G.O.P. owes him a great debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Fred Worth's career of public service, and to wish him a happy 50th birthday.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report before us contains two provisions that were in the Pension Reform Act passed here in April. These two provisions were in the Senate bill and were agreed to in the conference, one providing a 30-day notice of any potential blackout period and, secondly, a proposal to make sure that the top floor and the shop floor have the same rights when it comes to selling of stock during blackout periods, and there is a prohibition on 16(b) employees, top-end employees, from selling stock during a blackout period. I am also pleased that contained in this legislation are new penalties for violations of ERISA. The penalties have not been increased or changed since 1974 when ERISA was first enacted. They are in this bill. Let me make it clear that the pension provisions that are in here which mirror proposals made by President Bush back in April come nowhere close to the comprehensive Pension Protection Act that the House passed on April 11. We are still waiting for the other body to act, and as the Washington Post noted this morning in their lead editorial, this bill that we are passing today is the first step, but if we are serious about restoring investor confidence, restoring the confidence of American workers in their own retirement plans, it is time for Congress to act on a pension bill. While there is a lot of rhetoric coming from the other body, there is no legislation and there is no opportunity to go to conference like we did on this bill and to bring about good policy. Several days ago, I described what was happening on this bill as a stampede, and I want to say that I am very surprised, and I am very surprised because we have two adults in this body, the two people who chaired this conference, my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who stood up to say, slow down, let us try to make sure that we have sound policy here, and the gentleman from Maryland was under great political pressure to do nothing, but I have got to give him an awful lot of credit for his willingness to sit down and to fix what were glaring problems that many did not want to fix and wanted to pass in a rush to judgment. They both should be congratulated for their excellent work.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and let me rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and others that really would be a back-door attempt at making substantive changes to our pension law. The fact is that this issue has been debated in the Portman-Cardin bills from 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. We also dealt with it in the Pension Reform Act we had on the floor of this House this past spring. In every case, the Congress has decided not to discourage the conversion to cash balance plans. Now, cash balance plans are a hybrid between traditional defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans. Companies that have traditional defined benefit plans were under pressure, under pressure from younger workers, who felt that they were not getting the benefit of their pension benefits until they had stayed there for 20 or 30 years. These conversions to cash balance plans, these hybrids, are in the best interest of all employees of these companies. Now, we should all know that there have been over 500 conversions from defined benefit plans to cash balance plans. In almost every single case, companies made all employees whole. Now, there is a case, and maybe a case and a half, where companies early on did not do this. And the gentleman who is the sponsor of the amendment, and his colleagues who are sponsoring amendments, all happen to represent various facilities of the one company who did not do a very good job in their conversion. We do not want to make this huge change in pension laws on an appropriation bill. It is not the right venue. The gentleman, I am sure, is well aware of that. On top of that, the policy that is being proposed here is not the right policy for the interest of American workers. Younger workers want to be able to see what kind of pension benefits they have accumulated. Cash balance plans are a way for traditional companies with defined benefit plans to in fact do that. I think this is unwise. We should not go down this path today, and I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) would never accuse me of being unfair. We have had a very good process in our committee over the last 18 months, and I think Members on both sides of the aisle have far more respect for each other than we have seen for certainly the 12 years I have been on the committee. What we went through was a bipartisan, commonsense exercise to ask the higher-education community what is it that makes your life more miserable that we can address. We went through a commonsense, bipartisan effort to put this bill together. The agreement early on was if we could not come to an agreement on the issue, it did not go into the bill. But there are 30 issues in this bill that have common agreement, that we all agreed that this would happen. Then all of a sudden along the way the track either got crooked or the train ran off the track and there are other issues that wanted a place in this bill, issues that unfortunately cost an awful lot of money. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) pointed out, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported everything in the bill. As I said before, let us not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We will have ample time to deal with these other issues next year when we get into the reauthorization of the higher education act, but in the meantime let us do what we can to help more students get a better shot at a good college education.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said earlier, the whole FED UP process was really a rather innovative idea put together in a bipartisan way to try to get input from educators and those involved in higher education around the country, and my colleague, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) will get into more of that in detail. What we tried to do was to do on a regulatory side what could be done, and the Secretary of Education has done a good job in addressing many of these comments that we received on that that could be addressed in the regulatory process in that venue. What we are trying to do here was to find those issues where there was bipartisan support that did not cost money. My colleagues all know we have to live under the Budget Act. There are three issues that we desperately wanted in this bill from our side of the aisle, the two extenders and the drug provision that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) just referred to. We could not find budgetary offsets. Together those three issues did not even cost $10 million a year. Some of the proposals outlined by my good friend and colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) cost far more than that. We would love to address forgiving teachers student loans for those in title I schools, $275 million in budget authority. How about allowing judges to set aside the ban on student aid for drug offenders, I think misconstrued by the Department, but again to fix it, $135 million in budget authority. Or how about the proposal by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), my good friend and colleague, someone whom I have been frankly working to try to help, on forgiving student loans for spouses of victims of 9/11, $3 million. We did not put our proposals in the bill that cost money, and the proposals that have been outlined by my colleague cost significant amounts of money, and the fact is that the offsetting amounts from somewhere were never presented. What we have before us is a very good bill, and what we should not do here is we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The gentleman knows we have a very good bill on the floor today. It has broad support in the higher-education community, and it deserves the broad support of all of our colleagues. So let us not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.