Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both the Republican and Democratic leadership for allowing this to take place here today. Sometimes there are issues of such critical social importance that it is only right that the Congress of the United States do this in the open, and they did that and for that we should all be very appreciative. I just want to leave my colleagues with some closing thoughts, perhaps some of the things I started with. There are 110 million people just in the United States of America out of 290 million who have some sort of illness that potentially could be helped by the use of embryonic stem cells. Most of those will never be helped by the use of adult stem cells. We know that anything other than just the use of adult stem cells in blood tissues has been experimental at best and probably will never work. I would encourage everyone to use their conscience as they vote today, to think about their constituents at home. We talk about life, and I do not necessarily want to get into that argument back and forth, but the bottom line is there are a lot of lives that are being foreshortened in the United States of America and across the world that perhaps could be lived out to their fullest if that opportunity was given to the individuals involved. Remember that this research is going on at the private sector level. It is also going on at the State level. It is even going on to a degree at the Federal level. There has been $60 million spent over 3 years on this research at the Federal level, and about $625 million has been spent on adult stem cells at the Federal level. So the research is going on at the time. Our ethic standards in this bill, and if you read it, it is only 3 pages long, exceed any ethical standards that have ever existed before including what the President had before. The National Institutes of Health said: ``Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent, that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent, restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.'' That is where the science is. You can argue all you want, but if you do any extensive reading on this, that is where the science is. These are the stem cells which can make a difference, the embryonic stem cells. There are discussions of dollars. There are no dollars used directly in the destruction of embryos at an in vitro fertilization clinic. There are dollars used in the research ultimately. But let us look at that. Let us consider what that is all about. At the end, when those who have created the embryo make the decision that they no longer need or want that particular embryo, the physician has to make a decision about what to do with it. There are some options there. Not a lot of options. One of them is to give that particular embryo up for adoption. Some people do not choose to do that. There have only been fewer than 100 so far. And I think that is wonderful. I think that option should be offered. Some people may make other decisions, but basically it will be one of two decisions if this legislation passes. One is to put it into hospital waste, warm it up to room temperature, thereby destroying it at that point and doing it that way, or to be giving it up for research. And my judgment is if that is a decision, why are we not helping the 110 million people out there who need help, as opposed to allowing this to go to hospital waste because it will happen anyhow. If you do not like that, you better go out and lobby against what they are doing in in vitro fertilization clinics, and I do not think that we want to do that. There are about 400,000 of these embryos. That is probably a low estimate today. That is an estimate of about 3 years ago. About 2 percent are given up a year. That is 8,000. The numbers that are more limited than that are just wrong. A lot of people now, if this passes, are going to be offered the opportunity to give up the embryo for research instead of hospital waste, and they are going to make that decision, and we will get the kind of work that we need. I would just close by saying that 14 out of the 15 diseases that are most likely to kill people in the world are not ever going to be helped by adult stem cells. We need to do this. With your vote today you can provide hope to tens of millions of Americans and many more around the world. Support H.R. 810.

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

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

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I just left a press conference; and four of the speakers there spoke about their diseases, none of which could be cured by adult stem cell research: a form of cancer, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, and a person who is a paraplegic. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that every single one of us has many constituents who have been to our offices over the years who have had these problems and have come to our offices for help. This is not the time to allow bad science or ideology to get in the way of doing what is right for the people of this country and of the world. There are 110 million people in the United States of America who potentially could be helped by embryonic stem cell research. I have just been going through what some of the experts have said. One said: ``Umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells are not in any way interchangeable,'' David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. The National Institutes of Health said: ``Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent, that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent.'' ``The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is we just don't know at this point what each can do, and we ought to be investigating both,'' Dr. Joanne Kutzberg at Duke University. One expert after another has said that there is tremendous potential there. Let us not let it go to waste. Vote ``yes'' on both of these bills.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) be removed from a piece of legislation I have authored, H.R. 810.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the Academy of Lifelong Learning on their 25th Anniversary. This continuing education program at the University of Delaware allows people over 50 to continue to pursue a wide variety of academic offerings. Recent classes have included Sports History, Yoga Philosophy, and Computer Management. For 25 years, the Academy's membership has been involved in every facet of the educational process. Members also plan, organize, and even teach many of these courses. To mark its 25th anniversary, the Academy has planned the Hi Ho Silver Jubilee at the University of Delaware. The event will be highlighted by a performance of the 50-piece Academy Band and the 75- member Academy Chorus. From its original 83 members and 18 courses, the Academy has grown to over 2,000 members who can choose from over 200 courses. This remarkable growth can be directly attributed to the dedication and hard work of the Academy's original membership. As stated in the 1998 mission statement of the council, the Academy of Lifelong Learning seeks to, ``be a premier educational program composed of a diverse membership of people 50 and older who come together and are intellectually, culturally, and socially stimulated in an academic atmosphere. Through its programs, the Academy enhances, enriches, and extends the quality of life of its members.'' After 25 years of outstanding work, the Academy of Lifelong Learning continues to achieve its goal. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Academy and look forward to celebrating their future accomplishments.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1544, which is identical to legislation I introduced, H.R. 1088, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act. This legislation overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Congress, 397-3, and was also included as an amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Unfortunately, it was not in the final conference report. My amendment removes a barrier which currently prevents some organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to fire departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment rather than donating it to volunteer rural and other financially strapped departments. We know that, every day across the United States, firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We may presume that our firefighters work in departments with the latest and best fire fighting and protective equipment when in reality there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack of basic personal protective equipment, PPE. In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. At the same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art innovation. Sometimes the surplus equipment has never been used to put out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to destroy rather than donate millions of dollars of quality fire equipment. Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save State and local governments $36.8 billion a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than 19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer. Thirteen States, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas, have passed similar legislation. In the 7 years of the Texas program, more than $12 million worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to needy departments. This includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles and more than 1,500 pieces of communications equipment as well. In total, more than 33,000 items have been donated. Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. Equipping our Nation's first responders is essential as we fight the war on terror. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his past support of this measure, and I am hopeful the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and my colleagues will again join me in supporting this measure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, like most of my colleagues here today, I support efforts to reform our current system to ensure that more funding for our first responders is determined on the basis of risk. The 9/11 Commission noted that one of our greatest challenges would be in how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. The gentleman from California's determination for taking on this challenge is commendable. As the gentleman knows, I have been concerned about the Department's ability to accurately determine national threats, vulnerabilities and consequences. In its report, the 9/11 Commission also notes that, due to the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might begin turning their attention to softer, less-protected targets. As a Member representing our Nation's sixth smallest State by population, second smallest by size, I am concerned that, in improving the current system, we might inadvertently overlook citizens in States considered less likely to be vulnerable. In Delaware, the State Emergency Management Agency has expressed some concern that our high- risk targets may be neglected. Such omissions force small States like mine to dip into other important programs, such as disaster prevention, in order to provide necessary resources and personnel to handle certain attacks. There needs to be some balance here and recognition that real homeland security needs exist outside of metropolitan areas. To the best of my knowledge, the Department of Homeland Security has not completed a comprehensive national risk assessment. It seems that this type of national risk assessment should serve as a basis for determining how to allocate first-responder grants, but apparently, a thorough study will not be available for several years. I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments. The gentleman is correct in that my home State, and every other State, deserves equitable consideration. I appreciate his willingness to protect adequate grant allotments for first responders in small States. I support the gentleman's goal of getting these important funds to communities where they can be used effectively and look forward to working with him throughout this process to ensure all States receive fair and realistic homeland security funding.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for a fair and effective system of distributing homeland security grants to our nation's courageous first-responders. As a former Governor, I have long been concerned about our government's ability to accurately assess national threats, risks, and vulnerabilities. For this reason, I have been an adamant proponent of improving and streamlining the application and distribution process for these important grant programs. The current grant allocation system is largely population-based. While population is an essential factor, the top priority for determining the needs of our first-responders must be based on the risk of terrorism and vulnerability of a community. The 9/11 Commission predicted in their report that one of our greatest challenges would be how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. With the tragic memories of that clear September day still fresh in our minds, it is obvious that first-responders in high-risk and high density areas, such as New York City and Washington, DC, deserve an increased per capita share of the homeland security funding. While it is essential that we update the distribution process to better reflect an assessment of risk, it is also important that we ensure the homeland security needs of small States and rural areas do not go unnoticed. In its report, the 9/11 Commission notes that due to the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might begin turning their attention to ``softer,'' less protected targets. As representative of our nation's sixth smallest State, I am concerned that in improving the current system, we might inadvertently overlook citizens in States considered less likely to be vulnerable. In Delaware, the State Emergency Management Agency has expressed some concern that our critical infrastructure may be neglected. Such omissions could force small States like Delaware to dip into other important programs, such as disaster prevention, in order to provide the resources and personnel necessary to handle certain attacks. While this legislation makes an important change in the distribution of homeland security funding by focusing resources on high-risk areas, the challenge to define these risks remains. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has never undertaken a comprehensive national risk assessment, and will not complete their current study until at least 2008. A national risk evaluation is imperative for determining how to allocate first-responder grants, but obviously a thorough study will not be available for several years. Without a detailed study of our Nation's vast critical infrastructure, the Department cannot truly know what level of funding should be dedicated to large States, small States, urban areas, or rural communities. To ensure first-responders across the country have access to effective homeland security funding, it is essential that we continue to provide each State with a fair and commonsense minimum-funding baseline. Currently, the Department's inconsistent methodology for extracting data about key critical infrastructure assets can potentially result in incomplete and frankly, inadequate vulnerability assessments. Minimum-funding baselines reinforce this evolving system and provide additional protection to the thousands of ``soft targets,'' by ensuring that all States receive sufficient funding to meet basic homeland security needs. While I support the purpose of this legislation, I intend to remain engaged throughout conference with the Senate to ensure we reach a compromise for a State formula that is fair and refrains from cutting into States' preparedness efforts. Homeland security funding can be both efficient and effective and we should settle for no less.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will close briefly. Let me just reiterate, this has been actually before us before. It is actually a popular amendment. People want it on their legislation for the most part. So we have had a little trouble getting it signed into law because it keeps passing and then getting dropped off for various things. But we voted on it back in September, and I do not know what has changed since then. The vote was 397 to 3. To the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) credit, he did vote ``no'' then. I do not know if a single thing has changed in that interim time. It is pretty simple. We have large corporations, for the most part, that have their own fire equipment. It is very modern. It is generally unused. They donate it. They are not going to donate it unless this liability provision is removed. Most big States, or at least a lot of big States, have looked at this and have made the decision to go ahead and do that. And it just seems to make sense all over this country, as we try to support our volunteer fire services, that we would give them the best equipment possible. And this simply would allow that to happen. I would hope that every single Member of the House of Representatives this time would look carefully, if it comes to a roll call, at what is a rather simple amendment and would be in full support of it. And I hope that, as much as I enjoy presenting this amendment, that this is the last time we have to present and it becomes law sooner rather than later so that we can proceed, because even in the last year, we have, unfortunately, lost some opportunities for donation of equipment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here. I am pleased to follow the 30-Somethings, although I am a little bit old for them. I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) might be a little bit old for that as well, but I want to talk about a different subject matter, as interesting as Social Security is, and I will share time with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my distinguished friend, on this subject which is essentially dealing with education in the United States of America and the Federal role in education which is frankly largely not understood by everybody who deals in education in this country. Perhaps we can bring a little bit of light to that. The starting point here is really the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is right now 40 years of age. It was 40 years ago last month that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed what we know as ESEA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, into law, and the core mission of that Act when he signed it into law 40 years ago and was really one of the times the Federal Government has really got involved in education was to help disadvantaged students improve academically, certainly a laudatory goal I think as far as any of us are concerned. We have now enacted No Child Left Behind, and many people refer to that as if it is something separate and different and new. What it really is, a lot of the elements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with an overlay of some additional requirements as far as standards and assessments are concerned. President Johnson, when announcing his plans for the Great Society touted the goal of an end to poverty and racial injustice. When addressing education specifically he said, The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talent. The ESEA arguably triggered the most significant Federal role in elementary and secondary education. When he did sign that Act into law, President Johnson explained that, ``By passing this bill, we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived children.'' So where are we now some 40 years later as we look at No Child Left Behind? Well, progress has been made since the enactment of the ESEA, and sometimes, it is hard to measure that, but I think by any standards, if you look at the various aspects of that Act, we can certainly claim that there has been progress. Nearly 4 decades later, however, poor and minority children still lag well behind the education curve. It obviously has been through a lot of cycles, kids going first through 12th grade in that 40 years. In fact, a huge gap still remains when it comes to ensuring that all kids are actually learning. No Child Left Behind built upon numerous reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was driven to eradicate this problem and to ensure that every student will not only have access but will also receive a quality education. The Federal Government has spent more than $300 billion on K-through- 12 education since 1965, which was the date of enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Yet that significant academic achievement gap that I referred to between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers still exists in key subjects, such as reading and math. According to the recent national data on this subject, by the time African-American students reach eighth grade, only 12 percent can read proficiently, and only 7 percent are proficient in math. Nationally the achievement gap between Hispanic and Caucasian fourth graders is 29 percentage points. We have allowed ourselves to believe that some children are simply beyond our reach. No Child Left Behind is rooted in the belief, a different belief, that all students, regardless of race, background, income, geography or disability, can learn and must be given the chance to do so. In the true spirit of President Johnson's vision, and like many other laws that passed during the Great Society, we are helping all students. As Brent Staples recently wrote in the New York Times, No Child Left Behind happens to be the best hope of guaranteeing black and Latino children a chance at equal education. Its core requirements that States educate minority children to the same standards as white children breaks a century old tradition of educational unfairness. I think that captures that as well as it can be captured in a short sentence or two. For the past 3 years, the Federal Government, States, school districts, parents and especially students have been dedicated to reforms that ensure no child is limited. We are engaged as a Nation in a continuing dialogue about our public education system. Despite the often unfavorable tone, the fact remains that people outside the education community are focused on reforms established by No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind has its skeptics, and change is never easy. Many have complained that the Department of Education has been inflexible with implementation. This has not, however, been the case. The U.S. Department of Education continues to not only be an important voice in helping to implement the law but an ear to some of these negative accounts. Some of that flexibility I have put on this chart, which I have to my left, that they have undertaken, particularly in the last 2 years. The first of these is flexibility on testing students with disabilities. It has been shown that some of these students simply are unable to stay up at a class level with other students, and some flexibility was introduced in order to address that, mainly in the percentage of children who would be exempted from the testing. Flexibility on testing students with language barriers: Again, there are demands that the kids be able to master the English language and be able to test in that language eventually, but we are seeing the need for some slowdown there. Flexibility for rural schools on high-quality teachers: High-quality teachers mean basically teachers who are proficient in the subject matter which they are teaching, and obviously, if you are a math teacher, you are proficient in math. You studied math or history or English or whatever it may be; you studied that particular subject. But obviously it is not always that easy, particularly in rural areas, particularly for teachers who are teaching more than one subject, that they be highly qualified in that area. So some latitude has been issued as far as that is concerned. Flexibility of student attendance issues: Some of the attendance numbers were high, demanding some flexibility, although not much, was introduced in that particular category. Flexibility toward raising student achievement, a new path for No Child Left Behind, and again, that is an important subject in terms of where we are going to advance as far as No Child Left Behind is concerned. So the Department, I think, has been a lot more flexible than anyone has really given it credit for in terms of what they have done. They continue to review this, and some say, Well, what is happening in the Congress of the United States? We, in the Congress, will look at this again, not this year or next year but the year after that in what we call reauthorization. So, in the meantime, the Department of Education is doing its job, and we are preparing to do our job as far as the reauthorization is concerned to make sure that this program works. The bottom line is that students realize that there are standards in place now in all 50 of our States. There are assessments in the form of testing in place in all of our States, and probably, this will eventually go on as a matter of fact to high school, as well as the grades which it is in now, in a more formal sense than it does at this point. Mr. Speaker, most recently, Secretary Spellings, who is now our Secretary of Education, by the way, and, I think, doing a splendid job, announced a set of guiding principles to help States implement No Child Left Behind while taking their unique situations into consideration. I know my State, which is the State of Delaware, is that we have had a couple of submittals of different plans that have been accepted, and there has been a great deal of flexibility as far as the States are concerned, but these principles include ensuring students are learning, making the school system accountable, ensuring information is accessible and parental options are available and improving the quality of teachers. To me, it is pretty hard to fight these things. To me, that makes a heck of lot of sense in terms of educating the young people of America. If a State is meeting all of these principles, the Department will take that into account when discussing amendments to State accountability plans. This approach, if carried out fairly and in the true intent of the law, could help some issues that have been raised throughout the implementation process. So this is being looked at. These demands are being made. In a moment, I am going to return to this and talk about the funding and talk about some of the student test scores and how they are doing better now than they were before as we understand the difficulty of the greater demands which are there but of making absolutely sure that that is translated into help for our children across the United States of America. Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I must just say this: my colleague has a scientific background. He is, I hate to use the word fanatic, but I can almost use it in this case, because when it comes to math and science, there is no person probably in the history of this Congress that has been more of an advocate for this than he has. And by an advocate, he goes out to see if there are laws he can change, speeches he can make, writings he can pursue in order to shift policies. And he has made a difference as far as that is concerned. He has been a stalwart friend of mine and a stalwart friend of, I think, everybody in education. He has been on the Committee on Education and the Workforce with me for a number of years now, and so it is always a pleasure to work with him. So at this time I will yield to him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for all his help in this area. He touched on something that I want to turn to now with these charts because some of the strongest criticism that we have heard concerning No Child Left Behind has been with respect to the funding, specifically the Federal Government's role in funding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If we look carefully at these charts, we begin to get the true picture of what is happening in the funding. Let me go through it word by word. Education Funding, Discretionary Appropriation Increases, Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal Year 2005. This is what the Federal Government has done for the funding of education. Although it says the Department of Education here, this money basically flows through to our States and school districts throughout this country. Federal funding for education has more than doubled over the past 9 years. Under the final fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, discretionary funding for the Department of Education climbed from $23 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $57 billion for fiscal year 2005. That is an increase of 148 percent. That is a tremendous increase. We are talking about 15 percent, and maybe the math comes in handy here, 15 percent or more on an annualized basis. Most costs of living, when you measure it in government programs, is just that; it is cost of living. Usually it is 2 or 3 percent. So the Federal Government has stepped forward and said, We are going to make a larger commitment to education, and we have done that in the course of the last 9 years. I do not have the chart here to show this, but I would be willing to put a lot of money on the fact that the States and the local school districts have not been able to keep up with this particular pace of funding that has gone into education. Just one more chart while we are looking at these charts, and that is funding for programs under the No Child Left Behind Act, a 40 percent increase in 5 years, showing that, in the last 5 years since No Child Left Behind, we have also had very significant increases as far as No Child Left Behind is concerned to help with those programs. These are programs, by the way, which were being put into place by most of the States and most of the school districts in this country even before No Child Left Behind came along. I am very dubious of any argument saying the Federal Government has not done its share as far as that is concerned. I am discouraged, frankly, by States and organizations that focus more on the funding levels than on what the law is supposed to ultimately be providing to students, which is a quality education and the opportunity for future success. Many even argue that it is an unfunded mandate, that it is impossible for schools to implement the law at the funding levels provided by Washington, D.C.; This is a disingenuous argument at the very best. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which you may know as GAO, released a report in May 2004 which discredits comments that No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate. The GAO reviewed more than 500 different statutes and regulations enacted in 2001 and 2002 and officially concluded No Child Left Behind is not an unfunded mandate. Even more clear are the significant increases in Federal funding of Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs since the enactment of No Child Left Behind as was shown by those charts. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Federal funding for programs encompassed by No Child Left Behind has increased $17.4 billion, as I indicated, representing a 40 percent increase in just 3 years. Included in this number is title I funding for disadvantaged students and schools, which is funded at $12.7 billion in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 45 percent since No Child Left Behind was signed into law. That is significant, because that is the money that is going to the schools that have the most low-income children in their schools. It should also be noted that, in 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act, a reauthorization of the ESEA, that required States to develop standards and aligned assessments for all students. Districts were required to identify schools not making adequate yearly progress and take steps to improve them. Bill Clinton, 1994. This makes two important points. First, States across the country should already have been implementing accountability systems similar to what is required under No Child Left Behind. The previous reauthorization included many of the same provisions, just without the necessary teeth to ensure compliance. Second, during that time, Congress did not appropriate the same levels as were authorized in the act. Democrats funded education in the same manner when they controlled Congress and the White House. Yes, raising the student achievement levels are difficult and expensive. The fact remains that the Congress has been funding the program. States and organizations should not be avoiding their responsibilities to students on the back of a failed funding argument. The hard work and dedication of those implementing No Child Left Behind is clear, and we can all agree with the law's goals. We are beginning to see results. Many educators across the country have stepped up to the plate. New test results for the 2003-2004 school year show students are posting high math and reading scores on States' tests. For example, in my home State of Delaware, scores have improved in three out of four grade levels in all three subjects tested, reading, writing and math. Fifth grade reading performance in Delaware climbed to 85 percent, a seven percentage point increase from last year. In Ohio, fourth grade math scores improved from 58 percent last year to 66 percent this year. Additionally, according to the Chicago Tribune, students in every grade level posted increased scores on statewide reading and math tests in the 2003-2004 school year. Finally, according to a 2004 study by the Council of Great City Schools, the achievement gap is narrowing in both reading and math between African- American and Caucasian and Hispanic and Caucasian students in our Nation's inner city schools, and they attribute the positive change in part to No Child Left Behind. We must also recognize that the job is not done. We must see to it that all children are receiving a quality education. No Child Left Behind is a step in this direction, and we must stay the course. Any attempts to change the system would play into the hands of those who support the status quo, effectively preserving a failed system that does not ask if children are learning.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his continuing and abiding interest in this subject. I am afraid sometimes the rest of us do not take as much note of it as he does. Perhaps we had a little trouble with the math and science ourselves, I guess. But I understand how important that is. Every time I talk to companies, to people who come into Delaware looking to locate in Delaware, they make a big fuss about that. We happen to have more Ph.D.'s per capita than any other county in the country in New Castle County. As a result of that, there is a great deal of interest in research in our area. I understand the importance of this. We need to sell the message to a lot of people out there. The gentleman from Michigan is the one who really helps sell it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before discussing the amendment, I, too, would like to thank all the staff who worked on this. We sit here and we say nice things about these bills, and I think that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and I and others in the room who have worked on these bills know that without our staffs they simply would not be done in the same detail, the same execution. But all those on the committee who the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) referred to I particularly thank. They do a great job on our Committee on Education and the Workforce. I am very grateful to them and to my staff who helped with this as well. It is the reason we get legislation, I think, that we can all pretty much agree to on the floor of the House of Representatives. My amendment before us, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. It would make an important clarification to the underlying bill. As we have heard, H.R. 366 consolidates the funding streams of Tech-Prep and the basic State grant, but still requires States to fund Tech-Prep activities. I have worked with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft this amendment that will clarify our intent. This amendment simply explains that Tech-Prep activities are held harmless to the amount that was appropriated to the Tech-Prep program in fiscal year 2005. Evidence suggests that under current law, the Tech-Prep program has not worked as anticipated and designed. The intent of the program is for high schools and postsecondary institutions to draft agreements that allow for a nonduplicative, seamless transition for students. The rationale behind consolidating the programs was to streamline the funding stream. We can all agree that Tech-Prep is an important component of technical and vocational education, which is what this amendment is intended to clarify by ensuring Tech-Prep activities are still funded. In order to prohibit the inadequacies of the past, H.R. 366 incorporates program improvements to ensure that Tech-Prep activities will include credit transfer agreements, ensuring that secondary vocational and technical education students can move easily into postsecondary education, a necessary exercise for those students who decide to go on to some form of postsecondary education or training. I urge my colleagues to support my simple and technical amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the amendment by everybody. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.