John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot today about diversification, blackout periods, fiduciary duty; but at the end of the day what this bill really is about is real people and their own financial security. Current pension law is simply outdated, and we have the responsibility to change that. We have the responsibility to ensure that America's retirement futures are not jeopardized by laws that are out of step with our current times. If this bill had been law, it would have made a real difference for Enron's employees. Under this bill they would have had access to professional investment advice, people who could have warned them that they had too many eggs in one basket. They would have been better informed about upcoming blackout periods, and they would have had more freedom to diversify their portfolios. The retirement future of our Nation's workers is too important for political gamesmanship. In the wake of the Enron collapse, the American people are counting on us to make practical and necessary changes to our pension system that basically is healthy, and that, on the balance, works very well. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are being encouraged by the political leaders of their party to support an alternative to this bill that would do far more harm than good. Instead of supporting bipartisan protections that would shield millions of American workers, the partisan opponents of this bill are putting their own political interests ahead of those of ordinary Americans. The House Democrat leadership alternative is really no alternative at all. It would enrich trial lawyers. It would hurt small businesses, impose costly new mandates, and even endanger 401(k)-type plans. Most importantly of all, it would continue to deny workers from getting access to the professional investment advice that is crucial for them to maximize their own retirement security. In short, the opponents of this bill would take us in exactly the wrong direction. The underlying bill, the Pension Security Act, which has been embraced by Republicans and Democrats alike, would change what is wrong with current pension law without, and I say without, breaking what does not need to be fixed. I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and for the underlying bill.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a long-term member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of the time in opposition be given to the Committee on Ways and Means and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 386, I call up the bill (H.R. 3762) to amend title 1 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional protections to participants and beneficiaries in individual account plans from excessive investment in employer securities and to promote the provision of retirement investment advice to workers managing their retirement income assets, and to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit insider trades during any suspension of the ability of plan participants or beneficiaries to direct investment away from equity securities of the plan sponsor, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, this is a rather unusual motion to recommit. It does not change the bill and allow it to move on; it actually would send the bill back to the committee. After all of the work that we have done in two committees, and all of the work we have done here, the last think we want to do is send this bill off to a black hole. But more importantly, what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is suggesting is that we try to change IRS code and bankruptcy code through ERISA, trying to get at the top end of employees who have deferred compensation plans. All of us know that deferred compensation plans are not tax-qualified pension plans. They are payment plans for high-level executives. I could not agree more with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) that what Ken Lay and other executives at Enron did was absolutely wrong. But to try to change bankruptcy protections through ERISA is not going to change the employees who we are attempting to help in the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues, considering the time, that we do not want to send this bill off to oblivion. We want to move this process on. This is not a very good idea and will not help the employees that we are attempting to help. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, late last year, thousands of Americans employed by Enron Corporation watched helplessly as their company collapsed, and their retirement savings were lost with it. Today we are here to restore worker confidence in our Nation's pension system. Enron workers may be the victims of criminal wrongdoing. We do not know that yet. But we already know they are victims of an outdated Federal pension law. The bill before us today will modernize our Nation's pension law and help promote security, education, and freedom for employees who have worked and saved all of their lives for a safe and secure retirement. President Bush followed up his State of the Union speech this year by outlining a series of bipartisan reforms that could have made a critical difference for Enron workers who lost their retirement savings. The bipartisan Pension Security Act of 2002 is based on those reform principles. But let us be very clear: Congress should take action to protect Americans' retirement benefits, not endanger them. One of the great strengths of our country is that employees of companies can own stock in their place of business and become part of the corporate ownership. This has allowed workers who stock shelves at Wal-Mart and run the checkout counters at Target, not just the top-level management, allow these other workers to build wealth and significantly enhance their own requirement security. On a bipartisan basis, we have consistently rejected efforts to place arbitrary caps on a company's stock because Congress should encourage employers to provide matching contributions to their workers, not enact extreme proposals that could jeopardize Americans' retirement security, or spell the death of 401(k) plans altogether. The bipartisan Pension Security Act takes a balanced approach by expanding worker access to investment advice and including new safeguards to help workers preserve and enhance their own requirement security, such as giving employees new freedoms to diversify their own portfolios. But it also insists on greater accountability from senior company insiders. We believe it is unfair for workers to be denied the opportunity to sell company stock in their 401(k) accounts during blackout periods, while corporate insiders can sell off their investments and preserve their own savings. Enron insiders got away with this, and we are going to change it. The Pension Security Act before us gives rank and file workers parity with senior company executives. It also strengthens the notice requirements by requiring companies to give 30 days' notice before a blackout period can begin. The bill also empowers workers to hold company insiders accountable for abuses by clarifying the company is responsible for worker savings during blackout periods when workers cannot make changes to their 401(k) plans. Under the Pension Security Act, as under current law, workers can sue company pension officials if they violate their fiduciary duty to act solely in the interest of 401(k) participants. Enron barred workers from selling company stock until age 50. The bill gives workers new freedoms to sell their company stock within 3 years of receiving it in their 401(k) plan if they get company stock as a match. The benefits of diversification will help workers better plan and save for their own future over the long term. As we all know it, defined contribution 401(k) type plans have become a primary vehicle for retirement savings. Yet today, the vast majority of American workers receive no investment advice on how best to structure their 401(k) retirement plans, and most cannot afford to pay for it on their own like the company insiders can. I think it is time to fix outdated Federal rules that discourage employers from giving workers access to professional investment advice. Like most U.S. companies, Enron did not provide its workers with access to this type of advice. This type of investment guidance would have alerted Enron workers to the need to diversify their accounts, and enable many of them to preserve their retirement nest eggs. The pension act today that we have changes these outdated Federal rules and encourages employers to provide quality investment advice for their workers. We need to give investors more choices and more information to choose wisely, so that they are better able to navigate their way through the volatile markets and maximize the potential of their hard-earned retirement savings. Workers must also be fully protected and fully prepared with the tools they need to protect and enhance their retirement security. The Pension Security Act accomplishes these goals. I want to thank my colleague and the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson), who is also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for all of the work that he has done at both of our committees to enhance the bills that we have before us, and for the important role he played in the process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to my colleague that the act is not intended to apply to diversification provision in the indication of a nonpublicly traded employer with affiliates that have only a limited amount of publicly traded stock outstanding. In this special case, as in others that may arise, I would be pleased to work with my colleague to clarify the application of the provision to reflect this intent and to provide for flexibility that may be necessary to clarify the intent of the legislation.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, before us today is a bipartisan bill that will help promote security, education, and freedom for employees who have worked and saved all of their lives for a safe and secure retirement. Those of us on the Committee on Education and the Workforce have been engaged in pension reform issues for several years now, looking at ways to expand worker access to high-quality investment advice and encourage employers to sponsor retirement plans for their workers. As our committee began hearings to address the Enron collapse, we did so with a firm commitment to identify further reforms that will strengthen the retirement security of American workers. The Pension Security Act, based on President Bush's reform plan, sends a clear message that Congress is committed to addressing the Enron collapse by enacting new safeguards to restore worker confidence in the Nation's pension system. It accomplishes this goal in a number of ways: First of all, the Pension Security Act includes new flexibility for workers to diversify their portfolios and better information about their pensions. In addition, it requires companies to give workers quarterly benefit statements that include information about their accounts, including the value of their assets, their right to diversify, and the importance of maintaining diversity in their portfolios. President Bush has also called upon the Senate to pass the Retirement Security Advice Act which passed this House last November with a large bipartisan vote. The bill encourages employers to make quality investment advice available to their employees. Some of Enron's employees could have preserved their retirement savings if they had access to a qualified adviser who would have warned them in advance that they needed to diversify their investment portfolio. The Pension Security Act also ensures parity between senior corporate executives and rank-and-file workers by prohibiting company insiders from selling stock during blackout periods when workers are unable to change their investment mix. The bill also strengthens the blackout disclosure requirements and specifically requires 30 days' notice before a blackout period could begin. Lastly, the bill clarifies that companies in fact have a fiduciary responsibility for workers' investments during a blackout period. The Nation's private pension system is essential to the security of American workers, retirees and their families. Congress should move decisively to restore worker confidence in the Nation's retirement security and pension system, and President Bush's reform proposal will do just that. This is a bipartisan bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we move forward on this important issue. The rule today before us, I believe, is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Massachusetts' concern about his amendment that would seek to eliminate the ability of, frankly, some of the best advisers, some of the most successful companies in America, from offering investment advice to their employees. The fact is today we have some 50 million Americans who have self- directed investment accounts as part of their pension and retirement package from their employer. Only about 16 percent of these people have any access to professional investment advice. One of the things we have all seen with the collapse of the high-tech sector, with the Enron collapse, and about the dramatic fall in the value of a number of stocks that we have seen over the last several years, those employees today need more investment advice to help them make better decisions for their own retirement security. The two provisions in the underlying bill today, the Investment Advice Act that this House passed with all the Republicans and 64 Democrats last November is one of those provisions, and the provision from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) in the Committee on Ways and Means' section of the bill that would provide a tax credit, the ability to use pre-tax dollars to have their own investment, I think complement each other to the point where we will have much more investment advice out in the marketplace. But to say that people who sell products cannot offer investment advice I think is wrong-headed. Why? Because we are trying to encourage more investment advice in the marketplace, not less, and the fact is that if you do not allow those who sell products from offering advice, with protections for the employee as we have in the underlying bill, we will get very little new advice into the marketplace. That is not what employees want. In a recent poll, some 75 percent of employees said they need more investment advice. Well, why should we not get this information out in the marketplace for them? We will have much more debate on this when we get into the bill itself. But the gentleman from Massachusetts is a good friend, I know he means well, but in the end I think the provisions we have in the underlying bill meet the test of fairness and safety for all of Americans and America's employees.

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 H.R. 3762.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, this year's budget provides the resources for education reform while funding a nation at war. As one of the authors of the bipartisan education bill signed by the President in January, I'm proud to support this budget. It's a compassionate one that reflects our nation's priorities and helps states and local schools meet the promise of education reform. It's a clear statement that this Congress and this President will not turn its back on our children and their future, even in a time of war. This budget builds on the significant increases provided for education in recent years--an average annual increase of 14.3 percent over the past four years. [TEACHERS.] I'm particularly proud of the support this budget provides for school teachers. President Bush and Congress have provided a 35 percent increase in federal teacher quality funds to help states and local schools put a quality teacher in every classroom by 2005. The President's budget request this year maintains this historic level of support. We're asking a lot of teachers, and they deserve our support. [SPECIAL EDUCATION.] The budget provides a $1 billion increase for special education, putting us on track for full-funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act within 10 years. It also paves the way for us to make long-overdue changes to IDEA to ensure that children with special needs are not left behind. I'm especially grateful that our Budget Committee colleagues have taken this step. Building on last year's reforms, the budget also: [LOW-INCOME SCHOOLS.] Provides a $1 billion increase in Title I grants to low-income schools--on top of last year's $1.6 billion increase--focusing resources on the highest-poverty school districts. [READING FIRST.] Provides a $100 million increase for the President's plan to improve reading instruction by addressing reading difficulties at an early age through proven scientific methods. [HEAD START.] Increases Head Start by $130 million to increase children's preparedness for learning when they enter school. [CHARTER SCHOOLS.] Provides $100 million in new funding for charter school facility financing. [EXPANDED PARENTAL CHOICE.] Funds new tax relief measures, such as education tax credits, to assist parents transferring their children from chronically-failing or dangerous schools. [HISTORICALLY-BLACK COLLEGES & HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS.] Provides a 3.6 percent increase for assisting historically black colleges, universities and graduate institutions, as well as Hispanic- serving institutions. [PELL GRANTS.] Maintains the maximum Pell Grant at a historic high of $4,000. The budget also paves the way for other priorities such as welfare reform and child care. Funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) has more than doubled in the last five years to $2.1 billion. This budget keeps that commitment to help move more Americans toward independence and self-reliance. I also want to commend the committee for providing significant increases in funding for two key Department of Labor offices that help to safeguard the pension assets and retirement security of American workers. The budget provides a $3 million increase for the Office of Labor Management Statistics, and a $7 million increase for the Office of Inspector General. Budgets are about tough choices. But there are some who don't want to make choices. There are some who dare to suggest that this budget somehow shortchanges our children. They say they want more funding for education, but they won't put forth their own budget to tell us how they'd get to that goal. Students, teachers, and parents deserve to know: Which tax would they raise? Which program would they eliminate? Last week's action in the Budget Committee offered a hint. Last week, Democrats offered 17 amendments to the proposed budget. Taken together, the amendments totaled $205 billion in new spending and $175 billion in new taxes over five years. Mr. Chairman, in this time of national emergency, what Americans want is leadership--not gamesmanship. I'm proud to support this budget, which responds to our nation's challenges without forgetting the promise to the children who are our future.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today my many of my colleagues in the introduction of the Pension Security Act. President Bush has sent a clear message to Congress that he is committed to addressing the Enron collapse by calling for new safeguards to help workers preserve and enhance their retirement savings. I am pleased to introduce his proposal today. One of the tragic realities of the Enron collapse is that it has rattled the confidence of American workers in the country's pension system--a system that by and large has served employees and their families well. Even more tragic is the possibility that much of it could have been avoided. At least some of Enron's workers might have been able to preserve their nest eggs if Washington had taken some basic steps to update our nation's pension laws. For example, many Enron workers might have had access to a professional investment advisor who could have warned them they had too many eggs in one basket. Current law, enacted more than a quarter-century ago before the advent of 401(k) accounts, denies workers this opportunity. That is why today, my colleague Sam Johnson, chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee, and I are introducing the President's proposal as the first step toward a consensus product that can be signed into law on behalf of America's workers. Workers must be fully protected and fully prepared with the tools they need to protect and enhance their retirement savings. Specifically, the Pension Security Act includes new measures that give employees the freedom to diversify their portfolio and better information about their pensions. Under the bill, employees may sell company stocks and diversity into other investment options after they have participated in a 401(k) plan for three years. In addition, it requires companies to give workers quarterly benefit statements that include information about accounts, including the value of their assets, their right to diversify, and the importance of maintaining a diverse portfolio. In addition, as part of his proposal, President Bush has called upon the Senate to pass the Retirement Security Advice Act (H.R. 2269), which passed the House last November with a large bipartisan vote. The bill encourages employers to make investment advice available to their employees and allows qualified financial advisors to offer investment advice only if they agree to act solely in the interests of the workers they advise. The Senate has yet to act on this legislation, though it passed the House with the support of 64 Democrats. Current law continues to needlessly deny rank-and-file workers access to quality investment advisers to help them make sound investment decisions. Some of Enron's employees could have preserved their retirement savings if they had access to a qualified adviser who would have warned them in advance that they needed to diversify their investment portfolio. When senior executives face no restrictions on selling stock held outside the 401(k), it is likewise unfair for workers to be denied the same authority to sell company stock in their 401(k) accounts during blackout periods. The Pension Security Act ensures parity between senior corporate executives and rank-and-file workers by prohibiting executives from selling company stock during ``blackout'' periods when workers are unable to change investments in their plans. The bill also requires companies to give 30-days' notice before a blackout period begins. Lastly, the bill clarifies that companies have a fiduciary responsibility for workers' investments during a blackout period. Under current law, employers are not responsible for the results of workers' investment decisions. This ``safe harbor'' from liability will no longer apply during a blackout period. Under the Pension Security Act, employers will be responsible for the consequences of the workers' inability to control their investments if they violate their fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the workers during blackout periods. Congress has taken some positive steps in the recent past to update our nation's pension laws, and this committee has been central to those efforts. We passed the landmark reforms authored by my friend and colleague, Representative Rob Portman, that gave workers more pension portability, faster vesting, and a host of other needed changes. We passed the Retirement Security Advice Act to give rank-and-file workers the same access to professional investment advice that wealthy executives have. But in spite of these efforts, a lot of work still lies ahead. And in the aftermath of Enron, Congress must now confront this modernization effort with a new urgency. I am optimistic that common ground can be reached with Democrats because there is bipartisan support in Congress for the reforms I have just outlined. All are key elements of President Bush's proposal. The nation's private pension system is essential to the security of American workers, retirees, and their families. Congress should more decisively to restore worker confidence in the nation's retirement security and pension system, and President Bush's reform proposal will do just that. I urge my colleagues to respond to the needs of America's workers by supporting the Pension Security Act.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this economic stimulus package. In particular, I'd like to highlight the part of this bill that addresses the needs of working Americans and their families. I'd also like to thank Sam Johnson of Texas and Buck McKeon of California, who helped craft the National Emergency Grant provisions, which we originally introduced as part of the ``Back-to-Work Act'' to respond to the needs of displaced workers. As everyone knows, the September 11 terrorist attacks precipitated a downturn in our economy, and thousands of workers are now jobless. The proposal before us will help every worker return to work as quickly as possible--and in the meantime, that they and their families have access to quality health insurance as well as employment and job training resources. Last year, the Labor Department acted decisively to mobilize the existing safety net for displaced workers and their families. And Secretary Elaine Chao testified before my committee on how Congress can work with the Administration to further strengthen the safety net for these workers--which is what this worker relief package would do. As Secretary Chao said, and I quote, ``This Administration is committed to going even further than current programs allow to help families, industries and regions that have been hardest-hit by the terrorist attacks and their aftermath. Workers need help regardless of what industry they work in--not just a chosen few. The President's plan gets money to wherever people are hurting.'' The proposal before us is one that can be implemented quickly, flexibly, and without creating new bureaucracy. It's designed to do three things: (1) help those who have lost their jobs because of the economic downturn; (2) put people back to work to help get the economy moving again; and (3) ensure that displaced workers have access to health care. Specifically, this bill would expand the National Emergency Grant program and authorize and appropriate $3.9 billion to help dislocated workers. Under the bill, grants may be used by states to help ensure that dislocated workers: (1) maintain health insurance coverage; (2) receive some form of income support during the recovery period; and (3) return to work as quickly as possible with the help of employment training and job search assistance. Mr. Speaker, this proposal is a compassionate one--not just because it provides workers in need with flexibility and resources, but because it recognizes that a displaced worker's true goal, ultimately, is to return to work. A government program can help a worker survive. But until a worker returns to work, no economic recovery is complete. On behalf of our nation's workers, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this economic stimulus package.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me the time. Every 2 years we as Members raise our right hand and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That means when bills come before this House we have a responsibility to, in our opinion, look to see if we are, in fact, following the Constitution. One of the unconstitutional provisions in the underlying bill is this provision that would require broadcasters to sell time at the lowest unit cost of any time during the last 180 days. It is clearly unconstitutional. There is no requirement in here that newspapers sell us ad time at the lowest possible rate or radio stations who get their air waves from the public. There is no requirement there that they pay the lowest unit cost. This is a subsidy to Federal office holders and only Federal office holders. It is blatantly unconstitutional. We should support the amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and approve this product.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of House Resolution 335, which recognizes and honors the contributions of Catholic schools in the United States. I commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for his leadership in sponsoring this legislation, and I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a member of the committee, for bringing it to the floor today. As we all know, Catholic schools throughout our Nation have a storied and well-earned tradition of academic excellence and I am pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing them. This resolution is straightforward. We are honoring and we congratulate Catholic schools, students and teachers, for their continued contributions to education and society and the vital role they play in promoting and ensuring a stronger and brighter future for this Nation. This week is the national Catholic Schools Week, and it is fitting that today we are focusing upon the important role that Catholic schools provide in giving us a well-rounded education for America's young people, one that gives special attention to the academic, moral, and social development of our children. The very appropriate theme of this year's week is ``Catholic schools: Where Faith and Knowledge Meet.'' As Ernestine Sanders, the President and CEO of the Cornerstone Schools Association, a Catholic ``mini-district'' in Detroit, Michigan, has said, and I quote, ``At his core, a citizen is not a good citizen without virtue, without integrity, without honor, without a love for the other.'' I am proud of how all Catholic schools emphasize intellectual, spiritual, moral, and social values and produce well-rounded citizens. Catholic schools have found a way to teach students not only academic knowledge, but also real life lessons in service to mankind and respect for one's neighbors. Mr. Speaker, I can personally attest to the outstanding contributions and dedication of Catholic schools, as I am a proud product of Catholic schools in Ohio, having attended St. Peter and Paul Elementary School in Reading, Ohio, and Archbishop Moeller High School in Cincinnati, Ohio, and then went on to graduate from another Catholic institution, Xavier University, which is also located in Cincinnati. In the great State of Ohio, Catholic schools have made a positive impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of students. For example, Fenway High School in Middletown, Ohio, Chaminade- Julienne High School in Dayton, Ohio, and Badin High School in Hamilton, Ohio, are all excellent schools that have profoundly influenced the lives of their students and continue to make significant contributions to our community. The top priority of the past year in our Committee on Education and the Workforce was H.R. 1, a landmark reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides services and benefits to both public and private schools. Across our country, many Catholic schools participate in the programs and activities assisted by these funds. One of the primary goals of H.R. 1 was to improve achievement for all students, and thereby close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. Unfortunately, these gaps have remained stubbornly wide over the last 3 decades. However, without our Nation's Catholic schools and the dedicated teachers who serve them, the achievement gaps today would even be wider. In fact, some data indicates that one of four Catholic school students are from underprivileged backgrounds. Coupled with the fact, pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), that 98 percent of Catholic school students graduate and 83 percent of them go on to pursue a higher education, it is clear that Catholic schools have been very successful in educating all of the students who enter their doors. Indeed, of the total students enrolled in Catholic schools, almost 14 percent are not of the Catholic faith. These students come from a wide variety of faiths and they have chosen to attend a Catholic school. Catholic schools and educators have had tremendous success in reaching out to all students and their parents who are seeking the best possible education for their children. This is especially true for inner-city schools, where in some cases the majority of students enrolled are non- Catholic. Malcolm Forbes in his book ``What Big Cities Owe to Catholic Schools'' said, ``Catholic schools provide hugely consequential oases of impact and hope. Their value is literally and figuratively beyond measure.'' I strongly concur with this statement, and I urge my colleagues to vote today in support of this resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I failed to mention that we are joined by the president of the Ohio Senate, Mr. Richard Finan. I bring this to the attention of Members because he is a friend to all those who would serve in the State legislature; but he is another fine example of one who was raised by and attended Catholic schools. As a matter of fact, he is a proud alumnus of the University of Dayton, where he serves on the board of directors at UD, a fine Marianist university in Dayton, Ohio. But he is with us today, and it really goes to show you what a good solid education will do for all of us. As many know, I have 11 brothers and sisters; and my father did not make a lot of money, he owned a bar; but he felt strongly about the need for all of us to get a good education, and made the sacrifice to send all of us to parochial schools, to the point where heaven knows how my mother was ever able to balance the books and make this happen, but I thank them for their commitment to me and my 11 brothers and sisters, because without that commitment, God only knows, I may not be here today.

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 and include extraneous matter on S. 1762.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say a comment as we close. This really is important legislation. The costs associated with this bill are covered in the budget resolution that was agreed to earlier last year, and by doing this we will continue to have a strong availability of affordable student loans for our students. With that, I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.