Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 492, which recognizes Catholic Schools Week and honors Catholic schools for the important role that they play in educating America's children. Catholic schools will provide a high quality and innovative education for over 2.5 million students this year, serving a diverse group of students from many social and economic backgrounds. Catholic schools educate racially and ethnically diverse students, children who live in inner cities, urban and rural communities, children who are not Catholic, and even students with disabilities. These schools excel not only in bringing students with different needs and backgrounds, but they also graduate 99 percent of their student population and send 97 percent of their student body to post- secondary institutions of higher education. This academic excellence is coupled with very low per-pupil expenditures which stems from the Catholic's Church's willingness and commitment to invest in students and in local communities. Over 84 percent of Catholic schools provide tuition assistance to their students to enable low income parents to send their children to these high-achieving schools. Catholic schools have demonstrated a commitment to teaching every child believing that each child can and will learn. When school choice initiatives have become the law in States and communities across the country, Catholic schools have opened their arms and their doors to parents and children seeking alternative educational options. My home State of Michigan has the ninth largest Catholic school enrollment in the country, with 320 Catholic schools educating more than 88,000 students through preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and after-school programs. In my Congressional district, I have many large and small Catholic schools in urban and rural communities, some schools that specialize in elementary educations and others that educate students during their middle school and high school years. Catholic schools are widely recognized for their academic distinction. However, I am proud to praise their achievement in meeting the needs of the entire student. Catholic schools build character in our young people and seek to educate the spiritual, intellectual, social, and cultural components of each person while developing an attitude of servant leadership among their students. Through their insistence on teaching children values, Catholic schools challenge students to live moral and compassionate lives. By insisting on high academic standards and innovative teaching methods, Catholic schools are models of academic excellence for all teachers and schools in this Nation. I join my colleagues in recognizing Catholic schools week and in congratulating the schools, students, parents and teachers in West Michigan and throughout the Nation for their ongoing commitment to a high-quality education for all of our children. I would also like to thank the Catholic educational system for the fine work that they did in shaping our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Congressional Record an essay written by Alyn Kiel, an 11th grade student at Montague High School in Montague, MI. The essay is titled ``Purple Loosestrife: A Beautiful Killer,'' and it is an excellent discussion of a very serious but commonly overlooked environmental problem around the Great Lakes and throughout the Nation. Purple Loosestrife is one of the most common invasive non-native species in the United States and Canada. Imported from Europe in the early 1800s, this plant is virtually impossible to eradicate, and its vegetative dominance often crowds out native plants and animals. Ms. Kiel's essay is the winner of a recent essay contest for Michigan high school students sponsored by the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network and The Muskegon Chronicle. Students were asked to propose a creative, realistic and environmentally sound plan for managing an aquatic non- native invasive species in the Great Lakes. As a Member of Congress whose district borders roughly 200 miles of beautiful Lake Michigan shoreline, I have observed firsthand the devastation invasive species can cause to the ecosystem and the economy. I am pleased to insert this essay into the Congressional Record, and I hope that its presentation will continue to raise awareness of this serious environmental problem. Purple Loosestrife: A Beautiful Killer (By Alyn Kiel) Imagine a quiet walk along the lakeshore after a long absence. As you stroll along, you notice clusters of lavender flowers, and remark at their beautiful appearance. But as your journey continues, you see that most of the usual flora and fauna you would have observed a decade ago have completely disappeared. The culprit? The supposedly innocent plant you remarked upon earlier: purple loosestrife. Purple loosestrife, or Lythrum salicaria, was brought to the eastern United States in the early 1800s by settlers as a medicinal herb and in the ballast holds of European ships. The spread of purple loosestrife increased with the construction of waterways, railways and canals. By the 1930s, it had moved inland [and could be found in most states and provinces] in the United States and Canada. One of the most recognizable features of this marsh monster is a ridged, square stem. One plant can produce up to 30 stems from one central root mass. Leaves are smooth and attached directly to the stem. Flowers appear between late June and late September, and are purple in color. Over 3 million seeds can be produced by one mature plant. Seeds are small, light and easily dispersed by wind. Each seed has high viability (nearly 100 percent germination rate) and remain so after years of being buried under soil or submersion under water. Seeds can be transported by animals, clothing, vehicles and rainfall, which carries them into river systems and wetlands. Nicknames for purple loosestrife--beautiful killer, marsh monster and exotic invader among them--are extremely illustrative. Purple loosestrife easily establishes itself within urban and rural wetland areas. Once it's present, it's nearly impossible to destroy. It has a tendency to dominate native vegetation. This change in species composition has drastic effects on the wildlife population. Loosestrife [frequently] blocks water flow in ditches and irrigation canals. No herbicides are currently approved to control loosestrife,** but small outbreaks can be removed by hand digging, as long as all pieces of root tissue are removed. However, for large scale infestations, this is costly and time consuming, and therefore is not a practical solution. One innovative option being used in many wetlands across Canada and some areas of North America is Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Through this form of biological control, purple loosestrife is reunited with its natural enemies. Four insects are currently being used--two leaf eating beetles, a root mining weevil, and a seed weevil. These plant eating insects do not harm any other native plants or the natural environment. In certain areas of North America, IPM is providing total control of loosestrife. Through this method, purple loosestrife is effectively destroyed and herbicides and chemicals do not have to be used in sensitive areas.*** A second method of biological control is the removal of garden varieties of purple loosestrife. Although it was originally believed that garden varieties of loosestrife were sterile, recent scientific studies have shown that they are indeed capable of seed and pollen production. These varieties of loosestrife can exchange pollen with other cultivars and the wild population. The majority of wild infestations of purple loosestrife are the result of garden escapes. The best way to remove loosestrife from a garden is through hand digging. All pieces of root tissue should be removed and plant material should be dried out thoroughly before disposal. Root masses can be treated with an herbicide, such as Round-Up. All plant material should be placed in a dark colored garbage bag and secured tightly to prevent infestation of the landfill. In Canada, an exchange program has been created to exchange purple loosestrife for an environmentally safe native plant. Experts dispose of the loosestrife correctly, and residents are given native plants similar to loosestrife to replace in their gardens. A program such as this would be beneficial for Western Michigan. In this way, the purple loosestrife population is controlled, and the rebuilding of native habitats is promoted. In order to prevent infestation of native habitats, it is necessary for informational programs to be created and promoted further within this area. As community members are informed of the danger of loosestrife, the greater amount of supporters will be gained for its control. If the entire community works together to exterminate this problem, [we will come] closer to rebuilding our wetlands. * A healthy, mature plant can produce up to 2.7 million seeds per year. ** Currently, glyphosphate, sold under the trade name RODEO, is the only effective purple loosestrife herbicide that is registered for aquatic use. However, it is non- selective and will affect the vegetation surrounding the target plant. *** Based on studies, three insects have been approved for release in the U.S., including one root boring weevil and two leaf eating beetles. The use of a pest's natural enemies to regulate its population and reduce damage is referred to as biological control. Biological control is only one method of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which is a strategy to control a pest using a combination of methods. Source; Purple Loosestrife in Michigan: Biology, Ecology, and Management, 1997, produced by Michigan Sea Grant and Michigan State University Extension.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2417 and the conference report to accompany the 2004 intelligence authorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my pleasure to commend the leadership and direction of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), on this nonpartisan bill at a time in this country's history when it is needed most. This bill addresses the critical need to review the Nation's imagery capabilities and the intelligence community's strategic plan for an imagery architecture. It is imperative that the community sees into the future with a utility of a cohesive imagery structure that focuses on each technical collection system and how it fits uniquely or with intentional redundancy into this broader framework we call an imagery architecture strategy. I think we have a fair spending plan here that provides the support that is needed, yet challenges the community to see more clearly a comprehensive vision of a much-needed cohesive architecture. Just like an architect, we must have a blueprint. Mr. Speaker, on that note I would also like to express my disappointment that the choices presented to us in this conference report require us to fund a particular classified collection system within this bill. This system does not fit into what we hope will be our Nation's well-conceived architecture. In fact, it is a transgression. It may perpetuate a series of problems. I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), for his efforts in spearheading a committee campaign to educate all members of the committee on the pros and cons of this program and to praise him for the impact that he had on the authorization for the program in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community is building a number of tools. I believe we need to use them and use them jointly and across services and agencies. I am glad to say that this bill addresses the need for greater emphasis on tasking, processes, exploitation, and dissemination practices within the intelligence community. These intelligence systems are becoming so proprietary and so complex and so autonomous that neatly networking them is becoming equally as difficult. It is very important that we observe collectively how these systems are used and by whom for greatest benefit. I believe this bill enforces that concern. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2417 supports our intelligence community as it supports our country's defense. Most visibly our intelligence community is fully supporting our military and other personnel in Operation Iraqi Freedom, in Operation Enduring Freedom, at Guantanamo Bay and here in homeland security operations. Mr. Speaker, intelligence is our Nation's first line of defense. We needs to support it and our intelligence professionals who continue to do heroic, but unheralded, work around the globe. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill properly supports the intelligence community as it proves our best and first line of defense for America. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2417.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Great. I thank the chairman for this clarification of the recognition of the unique problem of the ozone transport into southwest Michigan.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress whose congressional district is adjacent to the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Upton) and is also part of southwest Michigan, I am assuming that this also includes Ottawa, Muskegon, Oceana, Newaygo, Mason, Manistee, and also Kent counties; is that correct?

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment again addresses the issue that we have been working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and others on to ensure that workers are engaged in productive and constructive work activities. What this amendment does is it further expands the inmate work opportunities in conjunction with not-for-profit organizations. As I explained earlier today, the bill allows for some partnering, but what this does now is it expands the partnership capabilities and also provides funding for those activities to take place.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This bill, I am sometimes a little surprised by how it is described. Sunsetting the bill after 3 years, it is a 5-year phase-out of mandatory sourcing, so, as we are implementing the bill, midway through the process the Attorney General arbitrarily could declare the bill null and void and go back to the legislation that we have today. The bill allows for the Attorney General under certain circumstances, if there are concerns about prison safety or the performance of the prisons, to take action in regard to mandatory sourcing and sole-source suppliers to make sure that we do not have unsafe conditions in the prisons. It is interesting that the Attorney General is offering awards for ``small business companies of the year'' and identifying Federal Prison Industries as one of those. If you go to government procurement managers, government procurement managers are in favor of H.R. 1829 because they have clearly through their experience not had that kind of outstanding service by Federal Prison Industries. What they want is the ability to get the best product. We ask them to do more for less. Business and labor support this. It is not a crisis to us perhaps, and it is perhaps not a crisis to the AFL-CIO in its entirety, or to the Chamber of Commerce or to NFIB or to the Teamsters. But what each of these organizations has experienced is that certain of their members, certain of the companies that they represent, have experienced the crisis, because the crisis has been their businesses have closed and their employees have lost jobs because they have been unable to compete for Federal contracts. We have the protections in place. This amendment is not necessary. Give H.R. 1829 the opportunity to be implemented, to be monitored; and if there are changes that need to be made after it is implemented and after it is working, it is the responsibility of Congress to make those changes, to fine-tune it, not the responsibility of the Attorney General to deep-six the whole program.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the chairman for that endorsement.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I thank my colleagues for working on this amendment and allowing me to be a cosponsor. They did all the work. They worked out the differences to put their two amendments together in a single amendment; and, again, I think it is an amendment that improves the overall quality of the final bill. So I rise in support of the amendment. I thank my colleagues for the spirit in which we have worked together to put this amendment together and to put the whole bill together.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Reluctantly I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is something that my colleagues and I have been working on for a long period of time. The chairman and I were talking as the debate was going on. We do believe that there is some way to work through this process. The amendment as it is structured right now we are not comfortable with, but we want to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and we want to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on fully exploring this. We believe that there is a reasonable expectation that as this bill moves through the Senate, whatever, we are going to be able to reach some kind of an accommodation that we can all feel good about. Because, again, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have talked, I really appreciate the tone and the tenor of the debate today, because we do share the same vision, we do share a lot of the same strategies for where we want to go. We do have a lot of things in common in this bill. You can see that by the different people that have been working together and have been participating in the debate. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said, reaching an agreement on this really would make a world of difference if we can reach an accommodation. We would not have some of the disagreements we are having today. I am committed to working with these gentlemen on getting a resolution to this.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us talking about another study, I would like to just hold up the studies that have been done on Federal Prison Industries. These are the studies that have been done over the last number of years. These are the hearings that have taken place: Committee on Small Business, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Education and the Workforce. There are plenty of studies that have been completed on this issue. The time now is to move forward. If the gentleman proposing the amendment is against the bill, he should vote against the bill, but not delay it for another 6 months. We have seen the impact, we have seen the circumstances of what Federal Prison Industries has done. We have a modest proposal for reform. We are not putting prisoners out of work. What we are doing is providing a 5-year phaseout of the concept called mandatory sourcing. We are putting significant amounts of money into vocational training. We are going to continue to work with our colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), on the issue of repatriation. On one part of that, I think we are going to have an amendment that we are going to offer together that will expand work opportunities for prisoners to do work for not-for-profit organizations and these types of things. So I think we have much of the framework in place to move forward. We share the same vision. We want folks who are in prison to gather the skills and the capabilities that they need so that when they leave, they will be successful in society. So we share the same vision. We share much of the same vision for how we are going to implement that, the strategies and the tactics. We have got one major issue there, and that is, is there enough work in this bill or is there not, and we are committed to working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on other work opportunities to make sure that there is not idleness in the prisons, that the people learn the skills and have the work; and we are committed to working together. But the one thing we do not need, we do not need another study. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, vote ``yes'' on the bill, and enable us to go forward.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the time. I really want to thank my colleagues who have worked with me I think over the last 8 years, the chairman 7 years; my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), on the other side of the aisle; the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney); the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). It was 7 years ago that common interest brought us together, and since that time we have been able to expand this coalition to bring about real reform, bringing about real reform that the business community endorses, that the labor unions endorse and I think really moves us into the right step. I want to just address some of the concerns that my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), brought up; and I think we do share the same vision, the same objective in the legislation, because it is part of a test of civilized people as to how we are in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals. That is why we have put a number of different factors into H.R. 1829. The first thing is we do not take a meat axe to this. What we do is we say over a period of 5 years we phase out mandatory sourcing. We still allow Federal Prison Industries to compete for the business, but we put it on a level playing field for manufacturing organizations in America so that taxpayers at least have the opportunity to compete for this business. So it is a phase-out of mandatory sourcing over a period of 5 years. We open up the opportunity, too, for nonprofits. In the State of Michigan, our prisoners, they work with organizations like Habitat for Humanity. They build the frames of homes. The National Guard delivers these frames to the building sites. The prisoners learn the trade skills. The National Guard is involved and families receive homes. We are going to be working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) today to expand the opportunity for prisoners to work for not- for-profit organizations. So we are looking to fill that void, if there is a void. For years, we have heard that Federal Prison Industries produces a quality product at a competitive price, at a good delivery schedule. If that is true, there will be no change in the amount of prison work that is performed because all we do is we eliminate the mandatory sourcing. We force them to compete. Then, finally, we have put in a significant amount of money for vocational training. We recognize that when these folks leave prison that they need skills to make them competitive and to make them employable in the workplace. The one thing we know that does not work is to have Federal Prison Industries growing by 20 to 30 percent per year and industries that are declining by 20 to 30 percent per year. That just does not work. How can we say we are preparing people for work in factories and in industries when those industries are declining? That is exactly what is happening. The two largest elements of prison work, textiles and office furniture, both industries in decline in America during the last number of years. Support H.R. 1829. It is a balanced and a reasonable approach to this problem.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is worried about China and as the gentleman is also worried about FPI, I think it is fair to note that a number of us have been with him on the issue of China. I voted against PNTR, both again for the jobs and because of the persecution that is going on there and because of their military intervention. I believe that we need to protect American jobs here, both from the Chinese; and we need to allow those folks at least to have the opportunity to try to keep their jobs if they are competing against Federal Prison Industries. We are going to make sure that there is plenty of work and rehabilitative services for those in our prisons.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. What this amendment does is it seeks to reverse an action that was taken by the committee during its markup of the bill in the 107th Congress, and that was on a Roll Call vote this amendment was defeated 18 to 9. The bill already requires the Attorney General to closely monitor the effects of the 5-year transition period in which FPI adapts to selling Federal agencies on a competitive basis rather than the noncompetitive process that it currently has under mandatory source. Annually, during the 5-year transition period, the Attorney General is required to determine whether there has been a reduction in inmate industrial employment; and if such reduction presents ``a significant risk of adverse effects on safe prison operation or public safety,'' report to the committee any ``adverse effects on either safe prison management or public safety,'' and to make recommendations for corrective action. Under the bill the committee and the Congress would determine the appropriate remedial actions to be taken, if any. Remember, this is a 5-year gradual phaseout. Under the Green amendment, the Attorney General would be unilaterally empowered to suspend FPI's statutorily specified transition to competition simply on the basis of his own findings. As was reflected in the debate during the 107th Congress, the committee is fully capable of evaluating the Attorney General's findings and recommendations and of taking appropriate remedial action as needed. Modification of statutorily specified timetables lies with the legislative branch and should not be subject to unilateral change by an individual officer of the executive branch. In keeping with the provision's intent for the Attorney General to make and report to the Congress findings that are very broadly drafted, ``has resulted or is likely to result, substantial reduction in inmate industrial employment and significant risk of adverse effects.'' They are insufficiently clear bases on which to authorize the Attorney General to unilaterally suspend the implementation of this statute. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for working with us in structuring this amendment in a way that, again, improves the bill. I just want to take a moment to thank a number of my colleagues, as we are coming to the conclusion of this debate. We have been down a long road to get here, but the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) have been great partners on the other side of the aisle. We have been working at this effort for almost 7 years. On this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), and I have worked with these and other Members to craft this legislation. As we found out today, we still have some disagreements, but we are intent on continuing to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and a few others to take this bill and, hopefully, put the final pieces together. But it has been a very constructive process to get where we are today. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said, we had a great debate and great discussion. Part of it is because we have had different folks coming together from different ways, but also we worked together for 7 years in bringing this bill together. As we have gone through that process, we recognized the need for compromise, we recognized that in certain areas we have not reached there; but at all times, we have never let our disagreements impact the personal relationships and the trust we have built over the last 7 years. So I would like to thank my colleagues for the work that we have had, for the tone and the tenor of the debate today, which has really, I think, brought credit to the House.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1829, the Hoekstra-Frank-Collins-Maloney- Sensenbrenner-Conyers Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003 will bring fundamental and necessary comprehensive reform to Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated. This is a Depression-era authorizing statute that permits it to operate in a manner that is detrimental to all participants in the Federal procurement process except Federal Prison Industries. Change is needed. Because of FPI's status as a mandatory source, noninmate workers and the firms that employ them are completely precluded from having the opportunity to even bid, to even bid, on almost $700 million in Federal contracting opportunities, contracting opportunities that are funded by the tax dollars of those workers and those firms. Workers are denied the job opportunities funded by these Federal contracts. That is why the bill is supported by a broad coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and NFIB. That is why the bill is concurrently supported by organized labor led by the AFL-CIO with the vocal support of its affiliated unions whose members are most impacted. They included the IAM, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; UNITE!, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees; the UAW, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; AFSCME; the IBT, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and CJA, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Because of FPI's mandatory-source status, FPI's captive Federal agency customers cannot get the best value for the taxpayer dollars entrusted to their care. They are required, required, to purchase from FPI. FPI, rather than the Federal agency, determines whether FPI's offered product and promised delivery schedule meets the mission needs of the buying agency. FPI, rather than the buying agency, determines whether FPI's price represents even an approximation of a fair and reasonable price. That is why H.R. 1829 enjoys the support of Federal managers represented by Federal Managers Association. The justification for FPI's mandatory-source status is that inmate work opportunities help combat idleness and better prepare inmates for a successful return to society. Neither of these cited benefits are linked to the corrosive manner in which FPI is currently permitted to operate in the Federal market. Frequently cited is the statistic that inmates participating in prison industry programs are 24 percent less likely to return to prison. That finding is drawn from the report of a multiyear study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the ``Post-Release Employment Project.'' What the proponents of the status quo forget to mention is that the same PREP study demonstrated that inmates participating in remedial and vocational education programs were 33 percent less likely to return to prison. Such programs better prepare inmates for a successful return to society; but FPI does not use one dime, not one dime of its gross profits, which were $72 million in fiscal year 2002, to fund such educational programs. No. Those gross profits are devoted exclusively to FPI's expansion. H.R. 1829 provides additional funding to expand the opportunities for Federal inmates to participate in remedial and modern hands-on vocational training programs, those that are most likely to reduce recidivism. H.R. 1829 will require FPI to help fund the broad array of alternative rehabilitative programs authorized by the bill. Similarly, H.R. 1829 provides alternative work opportunities for inmates by authorizing them to do work for nonprofit entities. No one is against prisoners working. No one is against prisoners acquiring the skills to be successful once they leave. So we offer them additional work opportunity; plus we enable them to continue to compete for Federal Government business. All 1829 does is say they have to compete for the business, and they have to compete successfully if they are going to get it. I also intend to offer an amendment that will broaden the bill in this regard, allowing Federal inmates to perform services in support of units of local governments and special-purpose districts like school districts. A public service inmate program run by the Ohio Department of Corrections now provides more inmate jobs than the Department's traditional industries program. Such a program provides no unfair competition to the private sector and costs less to operate than the traditional prison industry program. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and look forward to what I expect will be a spirited debate on the bill tomorrow. This is an important issue. My colleague on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence indicated that there is not a need for change. There is a phenomenal need for change around the country. Members have joined in this effort to reform Federal Prison Industries because their constituents have been negatively impacted. They have lost the opportunity to provide goods and services to the Federal Government. Even though they can provide them at a better price and a better quality and a better delivery schedule, they cannot even compete for the business. That is why we have got a broad coalition of business, labor, and Federal Government procurement managers who are saying this is the way to go. They sense the need for change.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 300.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 300, which honors the outstanding contributions of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian colleges and universities. I am pleased that 28 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have joined as cosponsors of this resolution which also recognizes October as Christian Higher Education Month, in honor of the 367-year history of Christian higher education in our Nation. Unfortunately, due to the full legislative schedule and the debate surrounding the supplemental appropriations bill, we were unable to schedule this resolution during the month of October, when many faith- based institutions celebrated their religious heritage. The United States has a rich tradition of Christian higher education. Many of our Nation's oldest and most highly esteemed colleges and universities have their roots in Christian religious traditions, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Rutgers and Dartmouth. Today, the array of opportunities in higher education are at an all- time high. According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are 6,250 different institutions eligible for Federal assistance under the Higher Education Act. Of these, 4,200 are degree-granting institutions of higher education in the United States. Approximately 1,600 of these are private, nonprofit campuses; and about 900 of these identify themselves as having some religious heritage or affiliation. This adds to the rich diversity of higher education in the United States. Among these hundreds of campuses are Members who are affiliates of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, CCCU, an association founded in 1976 to support Christian higher education and to help its institutions transform lives by integrating faith, scholarship, and service. These 127 campuses are located in 32 States, enroll over 200,000 students, and have more than 15,000 faculty on staff. Council member institutions also represent more than 30 different denominational traditions. It was this association that took the initiative to focus on a specific month to honor all institutions of higher education whose faith tradition is an important element in their history and ongoing mission. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, during the last decade, there was an overall increase in enrollment across the country among public and private institutions of higher education. Interestingly, while enrollment at public colleges and universities increased at a rate of 4 percent and at private institutions they increased by 17 percent, at CCCU member institutions, student enrollment grew by 47 percent during the 1990s. Enrollment at these faith-based institutions of higher education is not just growing; it is thriving. Council institutions generally have a smaller student body than their private and public counterparts, which produces several benefits for the students who choose to attend these institutions, including smaller student-faculty ratios, which gives students the opportunity for more personal interaction with their professors, a greater participation in extracurricular activities, and a greater sense of community with their fellow classmates. Nearly all students at council institutions participate in some form of service and learning through extracurricular activities during their college tenure. A study of council alumni reported that their college education helped them develop moral principles and a sense of purpose. They place a high priority on community service, helping the disadvantaged and promoting civic engagement. The Nation benefits from the rich diversity of all the different colleges and universities which make up higher education in our Nation. I am an ardent supporter of our system of higher education because it allows individuals to make choices based upon their own unique needs, personal goals, and interests. I strongly believe that ours is one of the best education models that exists due to its embracement of diversity, its rigorous standards and the manner in which it empowers students to make the choices that complement their individuality. This resolution that we are considering today specifically recognizes those campuses whose faith traditions add to the mosaic of opportunities in post-secondary education. I am pleased that we are able to recognize them in this way and urge my colleagues to support this expression of appreciation. Again, we are recognizing many of our Nation's oldest and most highly esteemed colleges and universities that have their roots in Christian education, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Rutgers, Dartmouth, and Hope College. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).