John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the serious and hard work they have brought to our debate today. The entire process has been marked by bipartisan respect, and I am glad to see that is continuing today. I look forward to working with both my friends as this process continues. Nonetheless, I must oppose their amendment because it falls into the trap of so overprotecting people from one set of dangers that, instead, we push them into another. If the Andrews-Rangel amendment were adopted, we could say that workers would never receive misleading or self-serving advice, but it is almost certain that they would not receive any advice at all. Despite my good friends' intentions, I believe the substitute would practically guarantee that no employers would provide investment advice at all to their workers. First, the substitute unnecessarily intrudes upon an extensive and effective regulatory regime that protects investors who are paying for advice with their own money outside of an ERISA plan. In addition to this regulatory scheme, which includes banking, securities, insurance laws, regulations, and agencies at the Federal and State levels, the substitute requires Department of Labor qualitative oversight on computer models of advice, the substantive qualifications of financial advisors, and the adequacy of disclosure forms. Now, this not only creates overlapping and confusing jurisdiction between the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission, it adds additional and unnecessary regulations to existing securities laws. H.R. 2269, the underlying bill, seeks to reduce and streamline regulatory burdens on employers and financial advisors rather than to create additional rules and regulations. The new and unnecessary burdens created by the substitute will only drive up the cost of investment advice, discourage competition, and, in the end, mean that fewer numbers of American workers will ever get real investment advice. The substitute also requires that if investment advice is offered, two investment advisors must be offered to plan participants. Employers have told us that this simply will not work. When we are trying to make investment advice more accessible and affordable, I do not see any sense in driving up costs and compliance effort by, in effect, forcing employers to select and monitor two advisors instead of just one. Finally, the substitute creates huge problems with ERISA's remedy structure and would subject employers to a stream of unfair and costly lawsuits by reversing the burden of proof and dramatically increasing ERISA's already intimidating remedies provisions. The substitute also erodes ERISA's careful preemption which gives employers legal certainty and clarity amongst our 50 States. The underlying bill is meant to make very minor change to ERISA to allow employers to offer investment advice to their employees. H.R. 2269 works within the existing ERISA structure to do this without affecting ERISA's important protections or modifying the flexibility that courts have to fashion appropriate remedies within ERISA. Amending ERISA's remedy structure will likely have unintended consequences on all ERISA claims. And before significantly changing ERISA's structure, we should look at the remedies offered in more detail. ERISA's current remedies structure permits courts to flexibly fashion appropriate remedies, including attorneys' fees, economic damages, disgorgement of profits, and banning advisors. Moreover, reversing the assumption of proof will not protect plan participants, but will only line the pockets of trial attorneys. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitutes for these reasons. Put yourself in the place of an employer. Why would you offer investment advice to your workers if your litigation risks were so high that you might lose your entire business? Or in the place of an advisor, why would you even try to enter the investment advice market when, by doing so, would subject yourself to 50 different standards of litigation, 50 States under a standard of proof that guarantees you costly litigation, even if you have done nothing wrong? H.R. 2269 effectively protects plan participants in a way that still makes employer-provided investment advice economically viable to employers and their employees. The fiduciary duty that it imposes on employers and advisers alike is the highest duty of loyalty in the law. Its disclosure requirements are actually more consumer friendly than the Andrews-Rangel substitute because it requires disclosure on an annual basis, or when there is a material change in disclosure. And it provides for the most vital consumer protection of all, a vibrant competitive marketplace, by opening the field to many of the most highly regarded investment advice firms in the country. The underlying bill reaches the right balance of increasing worker access to advice while safeguarding the interests of the American workers without discouraging employers from offering any advice at all. Mr. Speaker, the Andrews-Rangel substitute, I do not believe, will protect workers; and I do think it will discourage any employer from offering advice. This will not help workers that desperately need this kind of advice to try to increase their own retirement securities. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us agree that we want to do everything possible to improve the retirement security of all American workers. And I think, based on what we have heard here today, all of the Members believe that providing investment advice for those employees who have self-directed pension accounts is vital. In 1974, when ERISA was enacted, 95 percent of pension assets were in defined benefit programs. And no one in 1974 with the enactment of ERISA ever envisioned that we would have the number of self-directed accounts, such as 401(k) accounts, and the amount of participation and the huge shift in assets away from defined benefit plans towards defined contribution plans. What that has done is leave us in a situation today, where millions of American workers have trillions of dollars in their retirement savings, that basically they are left to their own ability to hire an investment advisor, because under the law as written in 1974, we have so protected and insulated American workers that there is really no place they can turn for advice. And so where do they turn for advice? They turn to Bob at the coffee shop. So what we are trying to do here in this bill today is to provide a mechanism for providing specific investment advice to employees while providing safeguards to protect their retirement security. We believe that there has to be a balance between the offering of the advice and the amount of protections. Is there risk involved in this bill? Yes, there is. Do we think American workers are smart enough and bright enough to make these decisions? Yes, they are. It is a completely voluntary program for employers and employees. Once the advice is given within the safeguards that will be outlined in this bill, the employee has no inhibitions about making their own decisions about how they want to allocate their assets and their needs based on their own retirements. The problem that we have with the additional safeguards that are being proposed here is that they will so restrict the ability to get advice that we will get what we have today and that is no advice at all. Now, if our goal truly is to provide more investment advice for American workers, we have got to strike a balance, a balance that will work for employers and those who would be there to provide advice. Now, we are hearing an awful lot of criticism about people who sell products and the fact that under this bill they would be able to give advice after they have disclosed any potential conflicts, after they have disclosed their fees, and with other protections. Now, what they really want to do is, they want to eliminate this sector from being able to give advice. These are the most respected investment firms in the country, with the best track record of investment advice in the country, that we would want to shove out of this market and prevent these people from giving their expertise and advice to the American workers. I just do not think that that makes any sense in the marketplace we are in. And so I think if we all step back and look at where we are trying to go, I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle trying to craft a proper set of balances. And in the debate today, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and I came to an agreement to add additional protections to this bill that I do think will protect American workers more without hindering the ability of employers or their agents to provide the kind of investment advice that American workers so sorely need and want today. So I would ask my colleagues, as we continue to move this process along, that we continue to work together to try to find the right balance, because, as we know, the action in the House today will not be the end of the process. It is actually the beginning of the process. This bill will have to go through the Senate, and I am confident that we will be able to continue to move this in a strong bipartisan manner. I ask all of my colleagues today to support the underlying bill and do what we can to help American workers increase their retirement security.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, this week we found that for the first time in our Nation's history, more than half of all American families have invested in the stock market. I think that is enormously significant. For years, certainly when I was growing up, we thought of the stock market as something only the wealthy cared about. And for the most part, it was. As late as 1982, fewer than 15 percent of all American households held stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. Right now, the number is 52 percent. Today, the working class and the investor class are one and the same. It is these new entrants into the investment markets that H.R. 2269, the Retirement Security Advice Act, is meant to help. We have seen an explosion in the number of 401(k) plans and IRAs, defined contribution plans in which the employee decides how much to invest and how to invest. As we see from this chart next to us, more than 48 million Americans participate in defined contribution plans today. These plans offer great opportunities for investors, but they also pose many risks. The best way to maximize opportunities and to minimize risk is to have access to high-quality investment advice. But access to advice has not kept pace with participation in these defined contribution plans. Every day, workers who are trying to figure out how to best invest their money go to their employers and ask for guidance. Sadly, current law cripples employers who want to provide it. So, how did we get to this point? The 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, enacted long before the advent of 401(k)s and other defined contribution plans, continues to needlessly deny many employers the opportunity to provide their workers with investment advice benefits that could help them enhance their retirement savings. We have heard from employers that they want to provide this service as a benefit to help retain skilled workers. We have heard from workers that they want quality advisers to guide investment decisions. The authors of ERISA never intended for millions of individuals to have to become investment experts. To illustrate this point, we have the chart next to me. Betty Shepard, the Human Resources administrator at Mohawk Industries Carpet Company in Kennesaw, Georgia, testified before our committee that, and I will quote ``Without this bill, I fear that many of our employees may overreact to market fluctuations and listen to the commentary of family, friends or the media to make retirement planning decisions.'' We know from survey after survey that a large majority of employees do not have access to quality investment guidance. In fact, as we see from this chart, only 16 percent of 401(k) participants have investment advice options available through their retirement plan, according to the Spectrum Group. It is this investment advice gap that H.R. 2269 seeks to close, and it does it in several ways. First, it streamlines the employer's duty in selecting and monitoring investment advisers. Employers will not be responsible for every piece of advice or every transaction, but when general problems arise, they must respond to them. Employers tell us this will give them the clear guidance they need to offer quality investment advice to their employees as a benefit. The following chart summarizes how this bill changes current law. Second, the bill maximizes competition in the investment advice market by allowing many of the most highly regarded investment firms to offer investment advice through employers. It will also protect workers by clearly requiring advisers to act at all times in the workers' best interest, and, if they have any possible conflicts of interest, to disclose them early and clearly. If they breach that fiduciary duty, they will be subject to civil litigation and even criminal prosecution by the Labor Department. The Department of Labor, which has the responsibility for protecting workers, tells us that this structure gives it all the authority necessary to protect workers from abuses. But competition is the best consumer protection available, and our bill creates a competitive marketplace that would be flexible and dynamic enough to respond to worker needs. I think everyone in this House shares the same ultimate goal of providing quality investment advice to workers who critically need it, and I urge Members today to support this bill. Employers, workers, both the Commerce and Treasury Secretaries, and the Nation's chief pension law enforcement official all support this commonsense measure. It takes a balanced approach for increasing worker access to advice while including safeguards to protect their investments without discouraging employers from offering any advice at all. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who, as a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means and also as chairman of our Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, has been instrumental in moving this bill through the two committees; and I want to thank him for the vital role he has played in this process. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that the American dream is within the grasp of all of our Nation's workers, not just a select few. Access to quality investment advice is one way we can help rank-and-file workers maximize their retirement security. 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2269.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support House Concurrent Resolution 239. The atrocities committed against the United States on September 11, the ongoing threats to our national security, and the realization that ordinary Americans can be targets in the struggle against the forces of domestic and international terrorism have left our Nation searching for comfort. They have also led many of us to pray and reflect on behalf of the Nation, each in our own way, and according to our own understanding of God. When events occur that confound and enrage and hurt us so deeply, it is natural for humankind, and Americans especially, to take time to seek wisdom and consolation from the Creator. I believe such times of spirituality are something to be encouraged, especially among our children. This House Concurrent Resolution makes clear Congress's support that America's schools should set aside a sufficient period of time to allow children to pray for, or quietly reflect on behalf of, the Nation during the difficult days we now face. I believe such ``moments of silence'' merely given students a choice--not a mandate--to pray and reflect, and are not only constitutional, but also consistent with this Nation's heritage of recognizing that America is indeed ``one Nation under God,'' as so many students around this great land recite each school day. As President Eisenhower once said, referring to the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, our Nation is one that reaffirms ``the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.'' It is appropriate that our schools encourage their students to seek comfort and answers--and strength--in their faith. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 239.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, as we have mentioned, we are going to continue to work together in a bipartisan way to address this issue. In what manner we will do it, I am not sure I am ready to commit to today, but we will continue to work together to make sure that those spouses and families of those victims are, in fact, taken care of.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3086, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2001. First, I want to offer my thanks and congratulations to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, the author of this bill, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the lives of our citizens were turned upside down. Since that day, the President has asked us to try to get on with our lives and to get things back to normal, or at least as normal as normal will be. In doing so, the people across the Nation have come together to help each other to do just that. Congress is also coming together to bring forward legislation to aid those directly affected by the attacks, as well as the military personnel that are being called to active duty. H.R. 3086 is one more step on the path towards recovery and normalcy. This bill is simple in its purpose. It grants the Secretary of Education waiver authority within title IV of the Higher Education Act to provide necessary relief to those affected by recent attacks on America and any subsequent attacks. This waiver authority allows the Secretary of Education to address the needs of students who are being called up to active duty, those active-duty military being relocated, and those students directly affected by the attacks. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides the Secretary the ability to provide relief to affected individuals and institutions where it is deemed necessary while ensuring the integrity of the students' assistance programs. The Secretary may relax repayment obligations for our active-duty Armed Forces, provide a period of time victims and their families may reduce or delay monthly student loan payments, and assist institutions and lenders with reporting requirements. The bill will allow the Secretary to provide relief for the men and women of our military who are defending the freedoms of this great Nation. As families say good-bye to their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and they embark on Operation Enduring Freedom, this legislation will allow the Secretary of Education to diminish at least some of the hardship for them and their families here at home. This bill, while it addresses the issue arising from what has occurred, also allows the Secretary to address needs arising from incidents that may occur in the future. In doing so, the Secretary is authorized to waive statutory and regulatory provisions within the student assistance programs of the Higher Education Act to ensure that affected borrowers of Federal student loans are not in a worse financial position; to relieve administrative requirements on affected individuals so they are minimized without affecting the integrity of the programs; current year income of affected individuals may be used to determine need for purposes of financial assistance; and institutions and organizations participating in the Federal student loan programs that are affected by the attacks may receive temporary relief from certain administrative requirements. Some are concerned that these waivers will be made in a vacuum. I trust that that will not occur. I will encourage the Secretary of Education and his staff to work closely with the higher education community, lenders, servicers, and others directly involved in the delivery of student aid to ensure that any waivers granted by the authority of this bill and any accompanying guidance is communicated swiftly and, where possible, after consultation. These student aid providers know the programs and the impact on their students better than anyone here in Washington. Where it is appropriate and feasible to engage in a consultative process, I will encourage the Secretary to do so. This will only result in better communication and a more appropriate response to the students' needs. I do want to thank the Secretary of Education for his swift response to the September 11 attacks by putting forward guidance to address what he could with the limited authority that he already has. I also want to express appreciation to the institutions of higher education, lenders, servicers, guaranty agencies, secondary markets, and others for their swift response to the attacks, and for their willingness to take some additional administrative burdens to address the needs of students during a very difficult time for everyone. Additionally, H.R. 3086 requires the Secretary of Education to report to Congress on the impact of the waivers implemented as a result of this bill. He will also provide recommendations for changes to statutory or regulatory provisions that were the subject of the waivers for our review for the upcoming reauthorization. The bill has the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Congress is making clear its commitment to our military and to our students and families, as well as to those working with students directly in making higher education available. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that all my colleagues in this Congress will stand proudly to vote yes today on H.R. 3086, and send yet another message to those who believe that they can topple the resolve of this great Nation or this government's commitment to its citizens. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this very important bill today.

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, there has been much said that this bill is good but it could be better, and it could be better. The issue of loan forgiveness for spouses and children of those who died in the tragic events of September 11, the issue came up last week, about the middle of last week. As most of my colleagues know, the House was shut down last Wednesday night. The documents that are being referred to and the additional information that we considered putting in this bill were not available. Secondly, as has been mentioned, the loans for those who were tragically killed in these incidents has been forgiven. To go beyond that, what we wanted was some type of CBO estimate on what the additional exposure would be. That information is not available. I think the commitment is clear from our side that we are willing to work as we have all year in a bipartisan way on our committee to address these issues. And certainly this issue will be addressed as this process continues to move.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support House Concurrent Resolution 248. The terrorist attacks of September 11 and ongoing threats to our security have left us all searching for comfort. They have also brought us together in our support for our Nation and for those defending us and our values. I believe we need to encourage even more public displays of support for America. One way to do this is by supporting the use of the phrase ``God Bless America,'' including the use of the phrase by schools. These words can provide the comfort communities need and show appropriate support for America. This House concurrent resolution makes clear Congress' support for displaying the words ``God Bless America'' by public schools as an expression of support for the Nation. We would expect schools, especially in this time, to want to convey the national ideal of patriotism for this country. It is only appropriate that we support schools in their quest to exemplify this idea. We must support the expression of patriotism for the Nation by schools. I believe that the words ``God Bless America,'' as used by this country's Founding Fathers, appropriately show this support. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 248.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding and begin by congratulating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and others who have worked so diligently over the last several months in putting together what truly is a bipartisan bill that we have on the floor today. All of us who have been here for any length of time know the difficulty this bill endures every year, and it is a real tribute to the three of you and the others involved in bringing this bill together. Like the House-passed education reform bill that preceded it, the bipartisan bill that we have on the floor today by our appropriations colleagues represents a reasonable and necessary compromise between Republicans and Democrats on education spending levels. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) deserve great credit for their work, which follows H.R. 1 closely and paves the way for reforms that will improve public education for millions of American children. Like H.R. 1, it calls for more funding to implement long overdue education reforms. Like H.R. 1, it targets funding toward key programs, such as title I, to reflect the Federal Government's original mission in education, and that is helping those students who need the help the most. It increases title I from the current $8.6 billion per year to $10.5 billion, a down payment on our shared goal of closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. It triples funding for reading programs to $900 million to implement the President's Reading First initiative and helps schools implement programs based on scientific research. It increases funding for teachers program by $1 billion a year to implement and make sure that States and schools can put the best- qualified teachers in each of our classrooms. It increases bilingual education from $460 million a year to $700 million a year. It increases funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (Part B) by $1.4 billion over last year's number. We should all recognize that the increases that we have given to IDEA over the last 6 years have more than doubled funding for students with disabilities; and this increase that we have in this bill, I think, is a giant step forward in meeting our long-term obligation. The bill also increases Pell Grants by $1.7 billion over last year's level and increases the maximum award granted to $4,000 per student. In a time of a slow economy, this $4,000 in Pell Grants will help the neediest of our high school graduates get the kind of education and training they need. These funding increases should be complemented by the enactment of historic reforms that are at the core of the President's education plan. The new accountability that we see in the President's package will help us stem what has been going on in this town for a long time. New increases without accountability will simply amount to business as usual in Federal education policy, prolonging the status quo that Republicans and Democrats have pledged to jointly bring to an end. Thirty-five years of mediocrity have taught us that money alone will not close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. The House-Senate Education conference will continue working to ensure that these significant funding increases are targeted toward children who need the most help, instead of toward new bureaucracy. They must be used to strengthen existing programs, such as title I, so that disadvantaged students are served, rather than to create new unproven programs that really do not address the primary goal. So I think we have a bill on the floor that mirrors H.R. 1. We expect our conference to be completed in the next several weeks. That and the completion of this bill, I think, will start us on a path where we can make sure that no child in America is left behind.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure 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. Madam Speaker, can the Chair notify each side how much time we have remaining.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for introducing this timely and important legislation, H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. As a co-chair of the Web- based Education Commission, the gentleman took the lead in discovering regulatory and statutory impediments to expanding accesses to higher education programs through the Internet, especially more nontraditional students. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his efforts in moving the bill through the committee and getting it here on the floor for a vote. The legislation we are considering today makes minor but meaningful changes to the Higher Education Act to expand access to higher education while maintaining the integrity of our financial assistance programs. This legislation does three things. It will remove the burden of the so-called 12-hour rule. Under this rule, institutions are required to keep literally hundreds of thousands of additional attendance records each year just to show that their students attended certain types of study or learning sessions. Second, H.R. 1992 changes current law to allow a limited number of institutions to offer more than 50 percent of their courses by telecommunications or to serve more than 50 percent of their students through telecommunication courses. Thirdly, H.R. 1992 helps to address some of the confusion regarding the incentive compensation provisions enacted in 1998. It is important that we move forward with this legislation to ensure that students have access to the best educational opportunities. If changes are not made now, we are going to have to wait until the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2003, and most likely until after the rulemaking process that follows a reauthorization. This could easily mean an additional 4 or 5 years. By passing this legislation now, Congress will have 2 years to monitor the impact that these amendments will make and could easily make the necessary mid- course corrections as part of the coming reauthorization. Distance education provides a tremendous opportunity to expand access to postsecondary education to those who may otherwise be unable to participate. We recognize there are concerns associated with new technologies and new methods of providing education. However, there are also tremendous possibilities for students who otherwise may not be able to get an education. We are indeed mindful of those concerns, and I believe that this legislation contains the necessary safeguards to ensure that title IV student assistance funds are spent the way they are intended, to benefit students, and to serve the public interest. This legislation contains a thoughtful balance between prudence and innovation. H.R. 1992 is a needed first step to ensure that a postsecondary education is available to all who want to pursue it. At the same time, it does not diminish nor undo needed integrity provisions in the law. All of my colleagues should vote today to expand educational opportunities for all of our citizens. It is the right thing to do, and it is the right time to do it. I would urge all my colleagues today to support our bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the subcommittee for his fine work in moving this bill, this bipartisan bill, through the committee, and thank our sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), not only for his work in bringing the bill to the floor today but for his service on the Web-based Education Commission, the recommendations from which are the basis of the bill we have before us. As I said, this is a bipartisan bill. We have worked on it through the committee process. Members on both sides of the aisle supported it coming through the committee, and today, I believe, we will have broad bipartisan support in defeat of the amendment that we have before us and in passage of this bill. Now, we have heard an awful lot today about the 12-hour rule, the 50- percent requirement, and the issue of incentive pay for those who are involved in offering these programs. But for a moment, let us step back and consider what it is we are trying to accomplish. We all in this Chamber know the need today for every American to receive some type of postsecondary education. To take a high school diploma into the current job market today is not a ticket for success. Frankly, it is a ticket to go almost nowhere. If every American really wants a shot at the American dream that we have all hoped for, and we hope all our kids and all our constituents will shoot for, some type of postsecondary education and training is absolutely required. Whether it is an apprentice program, whether it is a training program somewhere, a university, or maybe a distance-learning opportunity, we ought to do all we can to encourage students to get postsecondary training or education, and we ought to do everything we can to assist them in getting that type of training or education. One of the two biggest barriers to getting training or education are simply the cost and the time to do it. Both of those issues are addressed here. We all know of the tremendous cost of a university education. Most of us, and most of our constituents, worked our way through college trying to find a way to afford the cost of a college education. We know today that all types of training programs out there are very expensive. We also know that distance-learning opportunities, in fact, bring down the cost of this education and/or training. So if there is a more reasonable way to provide this education or training, why would we not want to look at it? The second biggest issue is time. We all know how busy we are. We all know the need for a continuing education, and we all know the demands on our schedule, from our professions to our families to our needs in our own communities. Again, distance-learning opportunities will, in fact, make it easier for people to get their education or their training or, in fact, to continue the opportunity for lifelong learning. The bill that we have before us today meets all of the things that we are trying to do to help our constituents get the kind of training and education that they want, deserve, and, more importantly, that they need, because the bill before us will make it easier for distance- learning programs to go out and recruit students. The bill will make it easier for them to do this training or education at home or from some separate site via the Internet. And, frankly, the programs they will get and the training they will get will be of much better quality than what we have seen in correspondence classes or programs from in the past, because many universities today are engaging themselves in very serious outreach efforts to make sure that quality programs are out there. Now, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii mentions, there are risks associated with this. There are. There is no question about it. These programs have been abused in the past. These issues were addressed in 1992 and again in 1996. But I think what has happened is we went too far. Secondly, the technology has far out-paced our ability to legislate. What we have done in this bill is try to balance those risks, to make sure that we are opening these programs up for our students without taking undo risk. I think there is a bipartisan consensus on both sides of the aisle that we have struck the right balance in this bill. I think there was one more safeguard that we ought to note, and that other safeguard is this: in 2 years, we will be reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. When we get there in 2 years, we will have an opportunity to step back and look at what happened during this 2-year period. If, in fact, things are on the right track or slightly off the right track, we will have an opportunity to adjust it at that time. So for all of those reasons I think that the bill we have before us is a good bill. I appreciate the work of the gentlewoman from Hawaii, but I ask my colleagues to reject the substitute that we have before us and to support the bipartisan bill that we have on the floor in final passage. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) to control the time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). (Mr. ISAKSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 256, I call up the bill (H.R. 1992) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand the opportunities for higher education via telecommunications, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 information on H.R. 1992.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the author of the bill before us.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of our committee.

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, today we consider legislation to prevent juvenile crime, while at the same time holding juvenile criminal offenders accountable for their actions. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was created by Congress in 1974 to help communities and States prevent and control delinquency and to improve their juvenile justice systems. The nature and extent of delinquency and abuse have changed considerably since OJJDP was created, and this reauthorization has taken that into account. I want to especially thank my colleagues Jim Greenwood and Bobby Scott for this bipartisan bill. They have worked tirelessly for several years to craft a bipartisan bill that I believe will provide flexibility and assistance to States and local communities in preventing and controlling juvenile crime. And I also want to thank Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member Tim Roemer for the good work they did in steering this bill through Committee. My thanks to Ranking Member George Miller who has worked closely with me in bringing this bill through full Committee and to the Floor for consideration today. These programs have not been authorized since 1994, although a similar bill has passed the Congress by overwhelming margins at least twice since then. This year, I believe we have an opportunity to send this bill to the President for his signature. There have been a number of issues that we have included in this bill that are worthy of note. The collection of data on the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of drug use by youth and information on the relationship between victims and perpetrators of violence; the determination of the type of weapon used in violent incidents as reported in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report; the prohibition of the development of any national data base of personally identifiable information; a prevention block grant that will give states added flexibility in how they use grant funds to prevent and control juvenile delinquency; an emphasis on making sure that juvenile justice programs under this act are proven effective based on scientifically based research; participation by the State advisory groups in helping States determine those areas most in need of juvenile justice system improvements; mentoring and positive youth development programs; attention to the mental health needs of juvenile offenders; the development and implementation of character education programs; and a school violence hotline for students and parents to report suspicious, violent, or threatening student behavior. Although violent juvenile crime peaked in 1994 and has declined almost 36 percent since then, we must not become complacent. The juvenile justice system, including the courts, face new challenges, including ways to deal with illegal drug dependence, underage drinking, youth gangs, violent juvenile offenders, and an increasing number of female juvenile offenders, just to name a few. We must find solutions to these new challenges, and the best way to do this is offering flexibility to those most directly responsible for preventing and controlling juvenile crime. The reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention programs is an important step in providing this assistance. I urge a favorable vote on this bill today.