Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I will be glad to yield further in a moment, it typically has not worked that way. Typically, the way you do it is, somebody comes to you with the idea, maybe it is a Thomas Edison or somebody of that ilk, of that nature, and you generally will then go to your leadership or to the leadership on the other side or to the chairman of the committee and say, Look, I am interested in getting this done. If I am going to go out and get the 290 signatures, I want some idea that it is going to be considered. I would be dumbfounded if you had five on one side and five on the other. In fact, I would be dumbfounded if you had two on one side and two on the other. You generally sort of pre-clear it; and, generally speaking, politics has just not entered into it. Before you go through all that effort and work, you want to get a pretty good idea that the bill is going to be able to get at least through the House. Then, by the way, getting it through the Senate is another whole other issue that you have to deal with as well. So, typically, we have not had a surplus of these. Generally speaking, when we have gotten to the 290, it has already been pretty well agreed upon by leadership. As the gentleman knows, on commemorative coins, they can be done in out years. We are doing coins already for 2007 and years beyond that, I believe, at this point. But almost always you work it out in advance. As the gentleman knows from our committee work, I do not know of any time where we have actually had to pick and choose at the committee on these coins. It is almost always worked out in advance and agreed upon. Mr. Chairman, I truly do not worry about this from a political point of view. I really do not think this is a necessary amendment to deal with that, based on what I have seen. I do not think limiting it to two is going to change that at all. I certainly would support the best people, which is what we are trying to do. Frankly, most of these bills, while there may be a Democrat sponsor or a Republican sponsor, almost always has a cosponsor from the other side. You cannot really do it without sponsors from both sides. So there is much more bipartisanship in this process than almost anything I know about in this Congress.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, technically, as the gentleman and I both know, we have seen a lot, the majority is always going to control ultimately what is going to happen on the floor. It will go through the committee and go to the floor. I still go back to a whole history. I have been here for 12 years. I have watched these medals. I have never seen a bit of politics in these medals. I just have not seen it. I do not think the limiting of the numbers is really going to alter that. I think a large part now is because you need all those signatures, you just cannot do it in a partisan sense. So I do not think this amendment is necessary. I think it brings in an element of politics that frankly we just do not have in the legislation. So I will oppose it. I understand the gentleman's arguments, but I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I made a couple of these points before, and again I will not repeat too much here, but first and foremost is the 290 signatures. I do not know if one party is ever going to have 290 Members or not, I sort of doubt it, at least in the time most of us are around here, and you need both parties in order do this. I learned with the coin that I did, which was Benjamin Franklin. I cannot tell you, and hardly anyone can tell you, whether Benjamin Franklin was or would have been a Republican or a Democrat in his history. We do not know the politics of people like George Washington, and certainly the people who have been from other countries, a number of individuals who received medals here in the Congress of the United States. In the history of the gold medals, as I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) pointed out, it has been as much Democrats, even more so than Republicans. Even on the business of the commemorative coins, a number of the sponsors in the Senate have been Democrats as well. I just have never noticed a lot of politics in this, I guess is my point. It seems to me I have been asked to sign these, and I generally sign them, unless it is something I think is spurious, by Democrats and Republicans. I do not think about it. Certainly, if a party feels it is being slighted, they can say we are just not going to sign on to something. I do not think this needs a political balance. What it really needs, I think, is to find out, if we are going to do two, who the two most distinguished individuals are who should be recognized and go ahead and recognize them, apart from whatever the politics may be. I do not think it is going to fall down along political lines. So I do rise in opposition to this. I just think it is sort of a necessary strain on having a political balance on something which is not essential.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. First of all, this is not a killer amendment. This is not an unreasonable amendment, and the sponsor has certainly always been a very reasonable Member of Congress, and we are arguing at the margins here in terms of what we are doing, and I recognize that. And I recognize these arguments because they are compelling to a degree. Having said all those things, I still oppose it. And let me explain why. It is not a lot different from what I have already said, Mr. Chairman, and that is essentially we are trying to make this a medal of true distinction for true heroes of the United States of America. I also believe, by the way, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) said something I thought was interesting, and that is it is difficult to get the names on the legislation. So the first year becomes a little more difficult, and that is true. We sort of learn techniques in this when we have done it. One is we take it to conferences or big gatherings of people and pass it out that way. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) will always be a hero in my mind because he took it amongst the Democrats and got a lot of signatures when I was struggling with it on a bill that I did last year, and I appreciate that a great deal. But I have learned when one really applies oneself, they can do it reasonably rapidly; and hopefully the committees will be able to be responsive to it and will be able to do two a year if that is what we decide to do. But my judgment is four in total in the course of 2 years is sufficient. And I am worried about the influx that is going on. The chairman cited the numbers. I do not remember the exact numbers. It was something like 45 medals in the first 120 years and now 10 times that many in the last 10 years. That means that this has increased, I think, at a rate that is too rapid, and again I do not in any way belittle anyone who has received this because they are all very distinguished people. But having said that, we want this to be the highest honor possible. So my judgment is we should defeat the amendment. If at some point it proves we need to expand this, we would certainly consider that. But I think we should try to restore this program to where it was before.

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, not to prolong the discussion, because I think the gentleman from New York is making some very valid points that should be debated, one of them which is an amendment which is not included here today, and that is the issue of the groups. We have checked the history of this. To the best of my knowledge, and the gentleman may have some different evidence, I do not think it is different because it is fairly clear who has received these medals, it has always been individuals historically. It was never couples. That is only something that has happened in the more recent couple of decades, perhaps a couple of times. As far as the groups are concerned, there have only been three altogether. Certainly I am not suggesting any of them are not deserving, for goodness sake. They all are. The Navajo Code Talkers clearly are deserving. That obviously created some problems because of the volume of the medals, and it was done in sort of an unusual procedure. The Red Cross is another very deserving, and so are the veterans of the Civil War, which is the other group we found, although that was done much after the Civil War. There are all kinds of groups out there. The Congressional Gold Medal of Honor has always been bestowed upon an individual in a very special ceremony to honor that individual. It is not easy to get done. I do not know if the gentleman has done it. As I said before, I did it. It is difficult to get 290 signatures on anything around here. So it is difficult to get done. So obviously it is going to be somebody who is deserving. It is going to be as bipartisan as could be. You cannot do it with one party or the other. You have got to get everybody. That is what the history of it is. We tried to develop this legislation to have a great recognition of what we consider to be the greatest honor this Congress can give to a limited number of individuals, which was always what the intent of it was. There are a whole lot of ways of recognizing groups. You and I could sit here and name groups for hours at a time that could be honored. But the Congressional Gold Medal was never really created for that purpose. That is the intent of what we are trying to do in the legislation. I just wanted to make that point in the history of it.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I do not mean to reiterate or repeat too much. Looking at the history of these Congressional Gold Medals, though, I think is very telling in terms of what we are doing because the history has always been to individuals for outstanding achievement. So in terms of the groups, I really think we should honor that. That is not disrespectful of any group that has gotten it or all the other groups who are potentially eligible out there if you use them in that criteria of measurement. But the other issue is interesting, and that is how many of these should we be able to have? First of all, the history of the gold medal has been very bipartisan. I think, as we all know, when we are dealing with that many signatures, it is going to be bipartisan. There is no question about that. But my sense is that the two a year is not as limiting as one might think when you really again look at the history of this. In fact, if anything, it would be an expansion over what the total history of it has been. By the time you go through a legislative session and you gather 290 signatures and you go through committee and you go to the floor, and I have handled these bills, they often happen the last day, by the way, so it is always very confusing in terms of what we are doing, I think you are going to find this is not as limiting as one might think. Again, I recognize the fact that it is a bigger country, that there is much more going on in the country and that kind of thing, but we are really trying to make sure that this is truly an honor for somebody who does something extraordinary in science or the arts, or an elected official or somebody of that nature, usually a President, I think the only elected official who has ever been honored; people in religion, people who have just absolutely stood out in their circumstances. My sense is while we can argue here on the floor that it is limiting, I think the bottom line is it is not going to end up being as limiting as one might think. Hopefully it would not be. Obviously if that happened to be the case, it is something that could always be revisited, but I just do not think it is going to be the case. I believe that straightening this out is actually going to make these gold medals much more of a distinction than perhaps they would be if we allowed this to continue, particularly with the commemorative coin changes, increasing the pressure to try to do so many of these.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his support of the legislation as well as his managing of it here today, and his general goodwill for all people in this country. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005, and I do urge its immediate adoption after consideration of the amendments today. Congress created the Congress Gold Medal honor in 1776 to recognize military leaders, and awarded the first medal to George Washington for his heroic service in the Revolutionary War, as the chairman indicated earlier. Since then, the gold medal has evolved to become the highest civilian honor Congress confers to express gratitude for distinguished service, to dramatize the virtues of patriotism, and to perpetuate the remembrance of a great event. The legislation we consider today seeks to maintain the prestige of the medal by limiting the number that may be awarded in any given year. To understand the need for such legislation, a little history of the medal is in order. As I mentioned, the first Congressional Gold Medal was struck in 1776, in Paris, for America had no appropriate facilities at that point, at the behest of the Continental Congress, which had not yet declared independence from Great Britain. The recipient was General George Washington, and the act that inspired the medal was his leadership of the Continental Army in driving the British from Boston. In the next dozen years, Congress awarded six more gold medals to individuals for heroic action in the Revolutionary War. That is an average of one medal every Congress. By comparison, in the 108th Congress we authorized five medal programs honoring seven individuals and one couple. In the 106th Congress we authorized seven medal programs, but because of multiple recipients, the number of medals totaled more than 300. Mr. Chairman, all of those medals were deserved, and I supported their authorization. My concern, and a concern shared by many Members, is that the luster and the importance and the meaning of a Congressional Gold Medal will be tarnished if we do not limit the number we award. Reversing this trend will protect the medal's prestige. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple piece of legislation with great meaning. It will ensure the future integrity and true honor of the award. It is my goal that each recipient, President, civil rights leader, military hero, inventor, or noted healer, who receives the Congressional Gold Medal will remain part of a unique honor bestowed by the United States Congress. As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, we had a similar problem a decade ago with commemorative coins. While commemorative coins are not as prestigious as Congressional Gold Medals, both are used to recognize moments in history. These coins have also helped raise money through surcharges for a worthy cause. A decade ago, the commemorative coin program had gotten out of control, with many coin programs approved each year, and many of the programs costing taxpayers money. One blatant example is the 1996 Olympics coin program that the GAO estimates cost taxpayers $26 million. In response, Mr. Chairman, I authored and Congress approved the Commemorative Reform Coin Act. Now coin programs are limited to two a year and demand full cost recovery for taxpayers before any surcharges are paid. Additionally, before Congress can consider a coin or medal program, two-thirds of the House, 290 Members, must cosponsor the legislation to demonstrate broad bipartisan support. And having done that, I can tell you it takes broad bipartisan support to get the 290 Members. I believe that the reforms to the commemorative coin program have been extraordinarily successful. Since these reforms were enacted in the 104th Congress, commemorative coins have not cost the taxpayers a dime. Instead, the programs have raised millions for worthy causes, provided valuable collections, and, importantly, restored prestige to commemorative coins. But something disturbing happened when we reformed the commemorative coin program. The number of Congressional Gold Medals saw a dramatic increase. From 1776, when Congress created the medal, to 1904, Congress approved 47 medals. In the last 100 years, Congress awarded 86 medals, including 20 in the past decade, since the commemorative coin reforms. And this number jumped even higher, over 300, when including multiple recipients for each medal. Mr. Chairman, over the years, Congressional Gold Medals have gone to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, Mother Teresa, Elie Wiesel, Pope John Paul II, British Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and Tony Blair, Jonas Salk, John Wayne, and Robert F. Kennedy, among others. Reading the list of all the medal recipients and the deeds that earned the medal is quite inspiring. To maintain these medals as the highest of honors, the legislation before us would limit the number of medals that may be awarded to two a year, and clarify that recipients are individuals and not groups. I understand there is concern by the minority that one bill per year should be designated for each party. I feel it is important to note that proposals in the past have been sponsored in about equal numbers by Republicans and Democrats, and I do not really recall any discussion of the recipients' or the sponsors' party affiliations. In my view, any such discussion would be inappropriate, as these awards should be awarded in true bipartisan fashion. In practice, however, not through statute, the Committee on Financial Services requires a two-thirds cosponsorship before considering proposals to award medals, a practice that the Senate has now adopted. I believe by the adoption of these simple changes, we can preserve the prestige and the integrity of the Congressional Gold Medal Program, something I believe all Members support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in maintaining the integrity of the Congressional Gold Medal by supporting this measure. I urge immediate and unanimous passage of H.R. 54 with no amendments but the manager's amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which I am offering to ensure the continued success of vocational and technical education programs into the future. The bill, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, includes a number of positive reforms that will help strengthen vocational and technical education programs and improve opportunities for students. Vocational and technical education, authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and known as the Perkins program, aims to prepare youth and adults for the future by building their academic and technical skills and ensuring they are equipped to proceed with postsecondary education or pursue other avenues. This program represents one of the largest federal investments in our nation's high schools and is a key component of our secondary and postsecondary education systems. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 66 percent of all public secondary schools have one or more vocational and technical education programs with approximately 96 percent of high school students taking at least one vocational and technical course during their secondary studies. Vocational and technical education is an important postsecondary option as well. Over 2,600 postsecondary sub-baccalaureate institutions, such as community colleges, technical institutes, skill centers, and other public and private colleges, also offer vocational and technical education. Reforms made to the Perkins Act in 1998 increased the focus on ensuring that participating students at both the secondary and postsecondary levels acquired academic and technical skills, as well as completed their respective programs and transitioned into successful employment or further education. Some progress has been made as states have created an initial performance accountability system and the focus on academic performance among students participating in vocational and technical education courses has been strengthened. Today, I am offering the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act to build on the 1998 reforms, and ensure vocational and technical education continues to prepare students for whatever they choose to pursue upon graduation. Should a student choose to proceed with postsecondary education, enter the military, or pursue other opportunities, the goal of the Perkins program must be to prepare students with the right combination of academic and technical skills so that they may succeed in whatever path they choose. The bill I am offering includes a number of reforms designed to enhance achievement and accountability, streamline programs so that states may better utilize federal dollars, and provide model sequence of courses that will enhance vocational and technical education programs and partnerships. The bill includes important steps to increase accountability, and emphasize continued improvement in student achievement. The bill establishes separate performance indicators for secondary and postsecondary students, improving on current law by recognizing the need for distinct measures to be applied to differing students. The bill also requires states to make continued and substantial improvement in the academic and vocational and technical achievement of students, and establishes incentive grants for states exceeding their own high standards. To increase accountability and achievement at the local level, the bill requires local programs to establish local adjusted levels of performance similar to current statewide performance level expectations. The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act also establishes local improvement plans and permits states to apply sanctions for local recipients that, after receiving technical assistance, fail to show improvement or continually do not meet local adjusted levels of performance. To better streamline and target federal funding, the bill combines funding for the Tech-Prep and Perkins state grant programs into one program funding stream, and incorporates the activities of Tech-Prep into the basic grant program. This consolidation will increase flexibility for states, streamline funding, and ensure current activities continue to exist while the program as a whole is updated to meet the challenges of the future. The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act includes an important new element that will build upon efforts to coordinate secondary and postsecondary vocational and technical education. The bill requires states to develop model sequences of courses for vocational and technical programs to be used as an option at the local level. These model sequences of courses will incorporate both secondary and postsecondary elements, include rigorous and challenging academic and vocational and technical content in a coordinated, non-duplicative progression of courses, and lead to a degree or credential. Technology and economic competition are combining in ways that are changing the nature of work and are redefining the American workplace. The need for higher literacy, numeracy, communication, and interpersonal skills in the workplace has grown over the past decade and will continue to be an important factor in the workplace in the future. The skills needed to be successful in postsecondary education are similar to the skills that are required by employers. The need for a strong academic and technical background makes it imperative that the current vocational and technical education system adapt in order to provide the knowledge and skills needed to succeed. The bill I am offering today seeks to meet the challenges of a changing economy and workplace by building upon the current successes of vocational and technical education. Our challenge is to ensure that all vocational and technical education students have access to programs that are sufficiently rigorous in both their academic and technical content, as well as provide clear connections with the education and training beyond high school that most Americans need for continued workplace success. I believe this bill fulfills those high standards, and I am pleased to be offering it today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the Rotary Club of Brandywine as they celebrate their 50th anniversary in the State of Delaware. While serving as the Vice President of the Phoenix Steel Corporation, Otis Zwissler chartered the Rotary Club of Brandywine on March 8, 1955. Over its 50-year history, the Rotary Club has raised more than $500,000 dollars to benefit numerous service projects, both locally and internationally. During this time, the Rotary Club has engaged in efforts to eradicate polio, and has been involved in numerous community food drives. The Rotary Club of Brandywine recently aided in the construction of the Can-Do Playground, which will enable disabled children to join with the rest of their friends in a common play area. In addition, the Rotary Club has hosted many well-known guest speakers over the years, including the former United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and first Cuban-American ever elected to the United States Senate, Senator Mel Martinez; all of the current and several previous members of the Delaware federal delegation; the current Governor of Delaware, as well as many previous Governors; and the President of Rotary International. The 46 members of the Rotary Club of Brandywine are part of the Delaware Eastern Shore of Maryland Rotary District. This district contains 2,000 Rotarians, and is one of over 31,000 worldwide clubs in 160 countries. Globally, over 1.2 million people take part in Rotary Club activities. The Rotary Club of Brandywine's accomplishments and service to the State of Delaware deserve to be recognized and I commend the club on their great efforts to support others in our community. I look forward to the Rotary Club of Brandywine's continued success. Its contribution in Delaware should serve as an example to us all.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2845, the House- Senate agreement on the ``National Intelligence Reform Act.'' As a former Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have long believed that making basic changes to the leadership and communications ability of our intelligence community could reap huge benefits. This bill represents our first real attempt to eliminate some of the weaknesses that exist within the intelligence community. As we celebrate the passage of this landmark reform, many deserve our enormous appreciation. Only by the determination of the 9/11 Commission Members, House and Senate Conferees, and the Family Steering Committee do we have a bill before us today. Many Members, including myself, believed fully in what they were trying to do. Their resolve, combined with the President's willingness to find common ground, are the reasons we are able to take these steps to make America, and Americans, safer. I strongly supported the document on which most of the reform is based, the 41 recommendations of the independent and bipartisan 9/11 Commission. In its final report, the Commission cited the absence of strong, centralized leadership for the intelligence community as one of the major factors contributing to the structural barriers that undermined the functioning of our joint intelligence. In response, this bill will link intelligence and operational planning in a new National Counter-terrorism Center, unite the intelligence community under a Director of National Intelligence with significant budget authority, and allow increased information sharing among decentralized government networks. Although these reforms are long overdue, I know the conferees were determined to close every loophole and address any and all ``what- ifs.'' We all share the priority of ensuring that these reforms will not jeopardize our brave men and women serving in the armed forces. Now, the Director will have the authority to improve the structure and methods of our intelligence system, while protecting the vital chain-of-command between troops in the field and the Department of Defense. However, while questions surrounding military intelligence have been resolved, significant concerns regarding immigration reform and border security remain. Although this bill adds border security agents, increases funding for illegal immigration detention facilities, and improves visa requirements and aviation security, we must not become complacent in our efforts to protect our homeland from terrorist infiltrators. For this reason, we must implement an entry and exit system that uses biometric identifiers, improve cooperation with foreign governments, and monitor foreign visitors by enhancing passport and visa requirements. It is also important that we continue to strengthen federal standards for driver's licenses, identification cards, and birth certificates to prevent terrorists from deceiving security with false information. With three million illegal aliens slipping across our borders every year, and no reliable system of prevention or tracking in place, I firmly believe reforming our nation's immigration policies is a key priority for the 109th Congress. The threats our country faces will surely continue to evolve. For this reason, I hope the intelligence structure, purpose, and strength will be subject to continuous scrutiny. We start that process today with the reforms contained in the ``National Intelligence Reform Act.'' Since Congress first passed the ``National Security Act of 1947,'' at least 19 commissions, committees, and panels, created by either the executive or legislative branches, have tried and failed to create an effective leader with the clout to set common goals for our intelligence system. Today, the status quo was exchanged for meaningful and effective reform. We must now stay true to this course and honor those who were lost on September 11, 2001, by continuing to pass legislation that increases our security and protects our citizens from those who seek to harm our way of life. Although we have made progress today, we must not waiver in our commitment to make our nation safe for future generations of Americans.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the life of Mrs. Susan P. Gorman, who passed away on Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at the Veterans Hospital in Elsmere, Delaware. Sue Gorman was born in Bally James Duff, County Cavan, Ireland. After her family moved to Delaware, she attended Wilmington High School, and was a 1944 graduate of the Wilmington General Hospital School of Nursing. She also attended St. John's University and the University of Pennsylvania. Sue was a dedicated and hard-working registered nurse for the Wilmington Hospital for nearly four decades. Sue Gorman also heard the call of her adopted country and joined the nascent Army Nursing Corps in 1944, serving in the Asian and Pacific Theaters at the 108th General Hospital in Tinian during World War II. The battle against the Japanese Empire in the Pacific saw some of the most brutal fighting of the entire war and, but for the skill and dedication of nurses like Sue Gorman, the mortality rate for American servicemen would have been much higher. We now recount the names of the Pacific battles--Guam, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Leyte Gulf--as if the American victory was simple and assured. At the time, of course, victory was not assured and the men and women who served know that it was anything but simple. Sue Gorman was one of those women and, like the other brave nurses in the Army Nurse Corps, her contributions to the war effort and our enduring freedom will never be forgotten. Sue Gorman was a member of the Wilmington High School Alumni Association, the Cathedral of St. Peter, the Wilmington Republicans Women's Club and a charter member of the Irish Culture Club. She enjoyed Irish music and dance and spending time with her grandchildren and great grandchildren. We are a better nation, a better people because of brave and strong women like Sue Gorman. She deserves our utmost respect, and appreciation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), sponsor of this legislation in the House of Representatives, himself one who cares deeply about history.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the House will consider H.R. 5360, the American History and Civics Education Act of 2004. This bill, which was introduced by my colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), is intended to support programs that will help raise student academic achievement by improving the knowledge, understanding and appreciation of American history and civics education for our Nation's teachers and students. According to the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress assessment in United States history, 33 percent of students in grades 4 scored below basic, 36 percent of students in grade 8 scored below basic, and 57 percent of students in grade 12 scored below basic. In addition, the data from the assessment revealed that 92 percent of students in grade 12 could not explain the most important cause of the Great Depression, 91 percent of students in grade 8 could not list two issues that were important in causing the Civil War, and 73 percent of the students in grade 4 could not identify the Constitution from among four choices as the document that contains the basic rules used to run the United States Government. Accordingly, H.R. 5360 is designed to improve student academic achievement in American history and civics education by authorizing the Secretary of Education to use existing funds to award grants to entities to establish Presidential Academies for Teaching of American History and Civics to help strengthen the teaching skills and knowledge of teachers in American history and civics. H.R. 5360 also authorizes the use of existing funds at the Department of Education for Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics to help broaden secondary students' knowledge of American history and civics. Finally, this legislation authorizes the Secretary to use existing funds to award grants to the National History Day program to promote the study of history and improve instruction. The purpose of H.R. 5360 is to help our Nation's students and teachers develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of American history and civics education. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5360) to authorize grants to establish academies for teachers and students of American history and civics, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CASTLE. 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 H.R. 5360.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I think without the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner's) patience and will to continue to deal with what was a tough issue and tough politics perhaps in the beginning, we probably would not be here today. I would just like to thank him for that. I think he has just done an incredible job. I stood at a press conference after we did the conference a couple days ago, and I looked at the cast of people who were there, including the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who just spoke, and Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and I realized that it was an unlikely group to come together in terms of being very liberal, very strong, and very conservative and very strong. But I also realized that every single one of those individuals had the interests of children at heart, which is hopefully what we have done in this legislation and hopefully what we have captured in this legislation. I would just like to thank everybody that had anything to do with that: Members of Congress, a lot of whom were personally involved with this; all of the staff people who worked on this on both sides and in both Chambers who did a wonderful job, particularly in my case Sarah Rittling on my staff did an extraordinary job. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) was opposed to this initially, and we were able to resolve those differences. She and I have had some good fortune this year, the nutrition bill and this, and some other things, and I think we are both proud of our achievements, even though we have our differences from time to time. I cannot thank everybody enough. Obviously, I rise in support of this legislation. We have been waiting a long time to get to this point, and today marks an important day for the millions of children with disabilities. As a sponsor of H.R. 1350, I have been deeply involved over the past 3 years in working to find a balanced approach to ensure children with disabilities receive the services they deserve to help them reach their potential and succeed in school. All of us have listened to thousands of parents and educators about what we can do to make the system better for the children. The resulting bill represents delicately crafted, bipartisan language that will ensure children with special needs receive the high- quality education they deserve. For too many years, children with disabilities were simply denied access to public education. However, with the passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, the doors of educational opportunity were opened. Today, more than ever, students with disabilities have an opportunity to accomplish their goals. According to the Department of Education, about 6.6 million students currently participate in these programs in schools across the Nation. Of those, almost 50 percent of students with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in regular education classrooms. Tremendous strides have been made, and today we will be giving students, parents, and educators the tools to do even more, as I always believe we can do better. Now, more than ever, in the spirit of No Child Left Behind, we must make sure that children with disabilities are given access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities and gives them the tools to be successful, productive members of our communities. The Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act aims to improve current law by focusing on improved education results, reducing the paperwork burden for special education teachers, reducing litigation, and restoring trust between parents and school districts, and focusing on monitoring and enforcement of the law. I know my colleagues in the Senate share many of these goals, and our final conference agreement surely reflects our shared desire to strengthen special education through these common sense approaches. Today I would like to pay particular attention to reforms in H.R. 1350 that will focus on academic progress and efforts to reduce over- identification. One of the great benefits of the No Child Left Behind Act is that we have raised expectations that will hold school districts accountable for the annual progress of all of their students, including students with disabilities. Although we have made great progress in including students with disabilities in the regular classroom, we now must make equally great progress in ensuring that they receive a quality education in the regular classroom. We have therefore carefully aligned IDEA with No Child Left Behind to ensure students with disabilities are included in the accountability system of States and school districts. Furthermore, H.R. 1350 includes reforms that would reduce the number of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special education programs. Minorities are often significantly overrepresented in special education programs. In fact, African Americans are nearly three times more likely to be labeled as mentally retarded and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validity or reliability. As a result, thousands of children are inappropriately identified every year, while many others are not identified early enough or at all. We have, therefore, reformed the manner in which children are identified. As recommended by the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, H.R. 1350 provides local school districts flexibility to use funds for early intervention services for students before they are identified as needing special education. Currently, too many children with reading problems are identified as learning disabled and placed in special education classes. Today is an exciting day for the special needs of our children, and I would urge all of us to support H.R. 1350.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for not just managing this rule today but for his own personal interest in this legislation. He and I have had several discussions about this. His input was extremely helpful. For that, I am certainly personally appreciative. The gentleman's interest is typical of a number of Members who spoke to me and others about their concerns about this particular legislation. The gentleman is correct. This legislation, as much as anything we deal with in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, really embraces a wide scope of all of America in terms of the interest which is there. Virtually all school districts, many parents, and many interest groups deal with the issues of children with disabilities. I am delighted that we were able to work this legislation out in conference with the Senate. Obviously I do rise in support of H. Res. 858; and as the sponsor of the underlying bill, H.R. 1350, I also support all aspects of the bill which is before us. I think it is important maybe to understand how all this came about, because it was not easy. It took a long time to do it. In preparation for this, our committee had seven different hearings. We launched a Web-based project a couple of years ago called Great IDEAs which was designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education across the Nation. We received literally thousands of responses from teachers, school administrators, parents of children with special needs, and others familiar with the unique needs of children with disabilities. Many of those are incorporated in H.R. 1350. The process in terms of the bill itself began 19 months ago in the House of Representatives; and that bill, which was called the Improving Education Results For Children With Disabilities Act, aimed to improve current law by focusing on improved education results, reducing the paperwork burden for special education teachers, and addressing the problem of overidentification of minority students as disabled. In addition, the bill sought to reduce litigation and reform special education finance and funding. I am pleased to say the conference report includes all these important reforms. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to sit here and say all that in a couple of sentences when in reality each of those different policies took many, many hours and even days and months of negotiation in order to work out all the differences that existed amongst the groups and blend it together into something that is supported by everybody today. Obviously, we have worked with the Senate. I say ``we.'' I give tremendous credit to the staff on both sides of the aisle here and in the Senate staff as well for their great work in the past 6 weeks in very, very serious negotiations to get all of this worked out. And so the resulting conference report which we have before us today will make tremendous strides in helping to achieve a quality education and services for children with special needs. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge swift approval of the rule and hopefully, following that, swift approval of the underlying bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to David W. Holmes for his twenty years of service as a SCORE Counselor in Delaware. Dr. Holmes, born and raised in Fremont, Ohio, earned a Bachelor's degree from Amherst College and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Michigan. After completing his education, Dr. Holmes began what would become a thirty-seven year career with the Dupont Company. During the course of his career with the Dupont Company, Dr. Holmes took on assignments in research, sales, and manufacturing. In addition, he spent his final twenty years with the company handling senior management responsibilities in manufacturing and worldwide sales. Upon his retirement from Dupont, Dr. Holmes spent three years working in the small business world. It was during these three years that he was able to gain valuable experience in various different business environments, from the small to the very large. In 1983, Dr. Holmes joined SCORE (Service Corp of Retired Executives). SCORE, an organization that counsels the small business community, is staffed entirely by volunteers. These volunteers give their time and energy to assist others in both starting up and effectively operating small businesses. Specifically, Dr. Holmes' service to SCORE and the small business community has centered around counseling, training and information sessions for small businesses throughout the State of Delaware. He has assisted with entrepreneurial educational projects and presented a plethora of business training workshops. Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate Dr. Holmes on reaching the tremendous milestone of twenty years of volunteer service with SCORE in Delaware. Also, I would like to point out that as he celebrates twenty years of volunteer service, Dr. Holmes is also celebrating his ninetieth birthday. The time and effort that Dr. Holmes has given to his fellow Delawareans is both commendable and much appreciated. He is certainly an inspiration to those around him. I am truly proud that he is a Delawarean.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Jim Wolfe upon his becoming President and CEO of the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce. This past February, Jim left his position of eleven years as the plant manager at DaimlerChrysler's Newark Assembly Plant to take the helm of the 2,800- member Delaware State Chamber of Commerce. Jim, a native of Michigan, joined the Chrysler Corporation in 1964 as a Quality Control Inspector at the Warren Truck Assembly Plant in Michigan. Prior to taking a position at the Newark Assembly Plant in Delaware, Jim had held a variety of positions within the manufacturing operations of DaimlerChrysler, including production manager at the Warren Truck Assembly Plant. As the plant manager of the Newark Assembly Plant, Jim orchestrated several changes to the facility to make it compatible for the new car models. Jim also oversaw the re-training process of the plant's thousands of workers to give them the skills necessary to do their jobs as effectively and efficiently as possible. Jim capped off his career as plant manager for the Delaware facility by overseeing the October 2003 launch of the new Dodge Durango. Jim Wolfe is certainly no stranger to the Delaware Chamber of Commerce. In 2002 and 2003, he served as the chairman of the State Chamber's Board of Directors, and has been a long-time member of this board. In addition, Jim has served as the Chairman of the Delaware Manufacturing Association. Jim has also been very active in the community through the years. He is a board member and past chairman of the United Way of Delaware, as well as a board member and member of the Education Committee of the Delaware Business Roundtable. In 2003, he had the honor of being awarded the Lifetime Achievement Quality Award by the State of Delaware. Jim Wolfe is truly a well-respected individual within the business community. His experience in, and knowledge of, the business world will certainly be an asset to the people of Delaware as he continues his work as the President and CEO of the Delaware Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Jim for his hard work and dedication to the Delaware community. I wish him all the best as he works to benefit the citizens of Delaware through his position as President and CEO of the Delaware Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the life of Mrs. Jane Evelyn Mitchell, who passed away on Saturday, November 13, 2004, at her home in Wilmington, Delaware. Jane Mitchell led an exemplary life, which she devoted to her husband, her family, and our community. Jane was a trailblazer in the health care industry in Delaware, breaking through the racial barriers that permeated many industries throughout her lifetime. Earning her nursing degree from the University of Delaware, Jane became the first African-American registered nurse in our State. In 1969, Jane also became the first African-American to be named Delaware's nursing director. She served as president of the state Board of Nursing and as vice president of the Delaware Nurses Association. Jane's dedication to providing her patients with compassionate service and her refusal to be stifled by the day's racial prejudices, enabled her to forge a new path for minority women. Jane opened the door for thousands of young African American women, many of whom provide an immeasurable benefit to our State through their service in the health care industry today. Jane's service to her fellow citizens knew no limitations. She was a dedicated partner to her husband of 61 years, Littleton ``Lit'' Mitchell, in the fight to provide equality for every individual. She was the recipient of numerous honors and awards, but if you were to ask her, I am sure she would say that the true measure of her success can not be found on plaques, certificates, or even building facades, but on the face of the people whose lives she has touched in some way. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have the opportunity to honor the life of a true humanitarian and force for social change. Jane Evelyn Mitchell's devotion to her fellow citizens was truly amazing, and she deserves our utmost respect, and appreciation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 3204, the Clerk be authorized to make the following correction: In section 4(a)(4)(B), strike ``2010'' and insert ``2006''.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.