John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I understand the discrepancy in the funding in New York City. This was part of the 1994 act, under agreement by the Members from New York City, and I do think it had unintended consequences. We sat out early this year to try to bring some resolution, and the conference committee believed that the Members from New York should work this out amongst themselves and, frankly, they were unable to. As I have learned more about this issue, I do understand the gentleman's concerns, and I have expressed to other Members of the New York City delegation and to Senator Clinton that as we proceed in the coming years, that we would continue to look at this and to work with this to see if we cannot bring about some better resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I feel today like I did on the day of the birth of my two daughters: exhausted. It has been a long process and a long year. And as tired as I and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the members of the committee are, I think all of us understand that our staffs have done much, much more than we have, and have spent much, much more time. And I think that the Members here deserve to give our staff a big round of applause. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of thank-yous that have gone around today, and a number of people have mentioned the President. I think a lot of us know that President Bush, during his campaign last year, took a courageous stand, as a Republican candidate for President, when he took the issue of education and our party in a new direction. It was a bold and courageous move on his part, but he did it. But not only did he do it during the campaign, he maintained that effort and that focus to make this his number one domestic priority. That is when the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I, and others, were brought down to Austin, Texas, to talk about the foundations of this bill. That is why the first full day in office, on January 22, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), Senator Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, and I were in the Oval Office with the President telling us how important this bill was. The President believed that we needed more accountability in our Nation's schools; that we needed more flexibility for our local schools and our teachers at the local level; that we needed a new investment in early childhood reading programs and early grade reading programs; and that we needed to consolidate the number of Federal programs; and, lastly, to refocus the Federal Government's efforts at the neediest of our students. But as important as this bill is, there is another important dynamic that occurred over the course of the year, and that is how this bill is going to become a law. If we go back to last year during the campaign, the President talked about the need for a new tone in Washington. The President said that we needed to be more bipartisan here in Washington, and the American people applauded him for his willingness to say that. When the President brought us to Texas on December 21 of last year, he brought us down there to talk about education, but he also talked to us about wanting to move ahead together. And on January 22 when we were in the Oval Office, it was the President who once again said that we need to move this process together, and we need to work together. I can tell Members that I believed the President when he was a candidate, and I believed him all during this year. And I believe, as many of our Members on both sides of the aisle believe, that it is time that this body become more bipartisan. Now if the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who, as he said, have spent 10 years throwing bricks at each other, and every Member knows that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I can be as partisan and as hard-nosed as anybody on either side of the aisle, if we can work together with the members of our committee, which is a very partisan committee, it has been the most partisan committee in this House for the last 3 decades, if we can do it, there is no reason why any other committee in this House cannot do it. I can tell Members during the 20 years that I have been in this business, this is by far the most important piece of legislation that I have ever worked on. It is my proudest accomplishment. It is the work product that I am proud of; but, as importantly, the way that we did this. Bipartisanship means that Members have to trust each other. Bipartisanship means that Members need to work together and find common ground. To the pundits who said that the bill was stalled, were not sure we were going to get it, let me suggest the bill was never stalled. It took a great deal of patience and listening, and it took a great deal of trust to actually bring this product to where we are today. As I said earlier, I could not have had a better partner in this process than the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). We did not know each other very well when this year started, but I laid out a vision for our committee and a vision for how this bill could become law, a vision of starting in the right place in order to end up in the right place. The gentleman from California had his critics on his side of the aisle who could not understand how he could support a bill that I was supporting; and I clearly had my share of problems with Members that could not believe I could be supporting a bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was supporting. Mr. Speaker, we went through this process together, and I could not have enjoyed our experience, nor could I have developed a better friend than the gentleman from California. Let me say to my colleagues in the other body who worked with us over the last 4 or 5 months, Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, their willingness to sit and work through this process, their willingness to take the time and to trust each other, helped to develop what I think is a landmark piece of legislation. I thank all of them for their efforts. When we step back and look at what we are trying to do here, it is simple. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said it in his closing remark, and that is the gentleman from California and I, Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Members on both sides of the aisle are committed to the concept that every child in America can learn, and that every child in America should have the opportunity to get a sound, basic education. Every Member in this body understands that without a sound, basic education, the chance at the American dream does not exist. For 35 years we have promised from the Federal Government that we would help the poorest of our children. We failed, and we failed miserably. This is not the end of this process. Let me suggest to Members, this is the beginning of the process. The writing of the rules, the implementation of this bill in each of our 50 States is going to be a Herculean battle, not unlike what we have seen over the course of this year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not only vote for this bill today, but to keep up their vigilance at home to get this bill implemented correctly because at the core of it, what we are trying to accomplish here is to ensure that every child in America has a chance at a good education, and that every child in America has a chance at the American dream.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a valued member of our team.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), who provided a special focus on this conference to the needs of rural schoolchildren.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, since the eleventh of September, our nation has demonstrated a genuine solidarity and an enthusiastic sense of patriotism. In the process, many parents have struggled to find the right way to tell their young children about the horrific nature of the terrorist attacks on our nation. Indeed, the events of September 11 brought to the fore unsettling questions about the problem of human evil and hatred. As parents have sought to instill patriotism in their children-- telling them about the decent values that America represents and the civilized traditions our nation carries on--it seems that some teachers are sending young students the ``Blame America First'' message. Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a former assistant secretary of education, has observed that the curricular guidance coming from state and local education leaders suggests that the United States brought the September 11 attack on itself--through its ``imperial'' foreign policy and ``ignorance'' of other cultures. Nothing could be further from the truth; this is not the kind of overly politicized message students should be hearing. I'd like to commend Mr. Finn for exposing this activity. I'd also like to commend former Education Secretary William Bennett for developing an alternative to this kind of anti-Americanism. Mr. Bennett's education firm K12 has creating an instructional resource for parents and teachers to use in teaching children about patriotism. Available on the K12 website and geared for most ages, the lessons--ranging from civics, history, and geography to singalongs and storybooks--emphasize the principles that make America the beacon of liberty it is today. The September 11 terrorist attacks may prove to be the largest, most significant event in our lives. We need to ensure that our children understand what caused it; we need to make sure the truth is not lost in a fog of political correctness.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 289) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the concurrent resolution before us allows the Enrolling Clerk to make a technical correction in the conference report to H.R. 1.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, recently, I was disheartened to learn that some children of the men and women who proudly serve our country in the U.S. armed services are unfairly losing their eligibility to receive free- and reduced-priced school meals. This is occurring for no reason other than that their family home is being privatized or they have been asked to move into a new, privatized military home. Because program eligibility is based on income, the additional compensation in the form of a housing allowance received by military personnel to pay for privatized military housing can result in the loss of meal benefits, although there is no real increase in salary or disposable income. In addition, schools attended by the children of military personnel could lose Federal and State education aid based on free- and reduced-priced meal counts, including their designation and funding as title I schools. I support the Department of Defenses' plan to improve the standards of military housing through privatization, but Congress must resolve this unintended consequence of the Department of Defense's housing policy before more otherwise qualified children lose access to free- and reduced-priced school meals. H.R. 3216 addresses and solves this problem for the next two school years at no cost. By excluding housing allowances used to live in privatized military housing from income when determining a child's eligibility to receive a free- and reduced-priced lunch, we can restore and preserve this benefit for qualified military families. Many of our service men and women take comfort in knowing that their children can receive a nutritious meal in school at little or no cost. Especially now, when many of our service men and women are being called to war to defend our safety and freedom, we should not deny this benefit to their deserving children.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a subcommittee chairman over in our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, in reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has worked on this bill with me over the last several years. Although we may be in some slight disagreement today over how much protection is available in this bill, he has been a faithful partner as we have tried to reach some accord. The gentleman from North Dakota and I have also been working together to try to bring the protections in this bill into a proper balance. I want to thank him for bringing these pertinent modifications to my attention. I support the changes that the gentleman has described which will further protect workers' retirement income security. I support the creation of a model disclosure form as well as a requirement for advisors to disclose to plan participants that independent advice is available. In addition, I support the gentleman's proposed changes to the qualification section which would ensure that only licensed individuals provide this advice; or in the case of banks, such advice be provided by trust or custody department employees who are individually accountable to State or Federal regulators. During conference negotiations with the Senate, I will work with my colleague from North Dakota and others to make these modifications for the further protection of workers managing their retirement income assets.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 288, I call up the bill (H.R. 2269) to amend title 1 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to promote the provision of retirement investment advice to workers managing their retirement income assets, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for his work on this bill and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and all of the work that they have put into it over the last several years. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has worked closely with me as we have developed this bill. Obviously it does not have as many protections as he would like at this point in time. But as I have pledged to him over the years, we will continue to work through this process. We have got a strong bipartisan bill. We have added new protections or at least have an agreement to add some additional protections based on a colloquy I had with the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). But I think all of us know that the substitute that we have before us just goes way too far. While it is well meaning and well intended, expanding litigation in our country is not going to create an environment for employers or their advisors to want to give investment advice which I believe the substitute does. The extra regulatory burdens that are contained in the substitute will again discourage employers and their advisors from engaging in making sure that the American workers get the kind of investment advice they need if they are going to increase their retirement security. Why is this investment advice so sorely needed? Because we have got all kinds of problems out there, with people who are underinvested in their self-directed accounts, having their money in low-yield instruments for long periods of time when we know that over a course of 10, 20, 30 years, equities would provide a much greater return and much greater retirement security. On the other end of the spectrum, we know that we have got employees who are overinvested in one sector or another and we have seen this happen, especially in the technology sector, when people were overinvested in that industry and what has happened to their self- directed accounts over the last 18 months to 2 years. So we know investment advice is necessary. We heard the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) talk about the advice that he got from his tailor. Let us say that an employee today outside of his employment with his own savings, his or her own money, if they want to go to a broker, a mutual fund, and they ask for advice, guess what? They get all kinds of advice. Why? Because outside of ERISA, outside of an employer-provided plan, there is plenty of advice. What we are trying to do here is make sure that those same employees within the employer plan have the same kind of access to that advice that they have outside of the employer's plan. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote no on the Andrews- Rangel substitute and to support final passage.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment, and I do so claim the time.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we just have the remaining time we expect to use. Who has the right to close, or what would the order of closing be?

Mr. BOEHNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.