Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I support this amendment, I encourage our colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of the time. You know, as I listen to some of this debate, it's like by the Federal Government providing money for the local government, it's free to the local people. The Federal Government only gets the money from two places, taxing and borrowing, and it all comes eventually from the same people across the country. I think that the Federal Government has been steadily consuming more taxpayer dollars and slowly taking control--actually not slowly, it's been quite rapidly in the last few months--over what used to be State or local decisions. Adding an advisory council for green schools does not help. In fact, it makes the problems worse. Once again, I urge a no vote to help keep Federal growth under control. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Although I oppose the underlying bill because it spends too much, borrows too much, and takes too much control for the Federal Government, in fairness, if it's going to be done, this is a good amendment. From brush fires in California to flooding in Iowa to tornados in Kansas, natural disasters like this take place all over the country, and this would be a good thing to help those local districts if, in fact, the money is going to be spent. For that purpose, I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I ask that our colleagues support this amendment. While I do not support the underlying bill, I think this amendment makes the bill stronger. I appreciate the gentleman offering it, and I urge all our colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I rise in support of H.R. 1388, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is largely the same as the GIVE Act, a bipartisan bill that this Chamber passed overwhelmingly 2 weeks ago. The other Chamber took up our version of the bill and made a few minor changes, including some that significantly improved the bill. I would like to address a few of the key Republican provisions that were in the House bill and still remain in this bill. Additionally, I will discuss those improvements made by the Senate. First, this bill still encourages the spirit of volunteerism--that great American trait--by updating decades-old national service programs for the 21st century. We know that national service programs can work. In fact, in the last 3 years, more than 4 million service hours have been spent helping gulf coast communities recover and rebuild after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That's 4 million hours of service made possible by the organizations and the individuals who choose to participate in national service. But we also know these programs can be made stronger. The House bill started us down the road by ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used effectively and efficiently. This is important, because national service programs are an investment in America's future. By design, the service and giving by individuals and organizations over time will be worth much more than the cost of the bill today. However, despite the great returns on this investment, the system must be held accountable, and it will be through regular evaluations and audits. Another Republican priority reflected in this legislation is the creation of a new Veterans' Corps. This new corps gives former soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines a chance to serve this Nation once again, and it gives us a chance to serve them. Of course, Republicans are directly responsible for many of the most critical parts of this legislation before us today. Last week, we offered a motion to recommit to amend this bill. We did it in such a way that would ensure taxpayer dollars would not be used for activities that we and many Americans find objectionable. We won that vote, and as we negotiated with the other chamber we insisted that the heart of these safeguards remain in place. Because of those negotiations, I can say that no Federal money will be used to perform or promote abortions; no money will go to for-profit companies, campaigns, or lobbyists; no money will be used to support voter registration drives; and, no national service participants will replace employed workers or private volunteers working on a particular project. The Senate also strengthened the motion to recommit from the 110th Congress through an amendment offered by Senator Richard Burr. That motion required criminal background checks for participants in the national service programs. Senator Burr's proposal strengthened this provision by requiring mandatory FBI fingerprinting for certain national service participants. The MTR approved by the House also prohibited recipients of funding under this act from co-locating with organizations that engage in prohibited activities. This was a thoughtful and well-intentioned provision intended to ensure that organizations that would otherwise be ineligible for funding would not be able to set up dummy nonprofits in order to apply for funding. Unfortunately, that provision would have had harmful, unintended consequences on small charities and faith-based organizations that rely on larger, unaffiliated entities for office space. Our intent was not to discriminate against small nonprofits, faith-based organizations, or charities. That is why we have revised the language to ensure that funding will never be used for the objectionable activities we have identified; but, at the same time, smaller and faith-based organizations will not be cut out of these programs simply because of where their offices are located. Finally, the other chamber included one more change. It added a sense of Congress that calls on us to preserve the income tax deduction for charitable contributions. The national service programs depend upon substantial support from the private sector in order to work. On top of that, if we are trying to inspire a spirit of volunteerism beyond this bill, we must provide incentives for corporations to keep up their charitable giving in these tough economic times. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because Americans who step forward and say ``I want to help'' should be given the opportunity to do so. This bill is largely the same as the bill this chamber overwhelmingly supported a few weeks ago. Republican ideas have been adopted in this legislation in both the House and the Senate, and the bill, H.R. 1388, is stronger because of it. I thank Chairman Miller for working together on this and making this a good bill we can all be proud of. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the subcommittee ranking member on the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), such time as he may consume.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Dedicating one's time to helping others is an American trait, and a great one at that. As we said the last time this bill was before us, H.R. 1388 helps people who would like to contribute their time to help others. When these individuals see a problem or injustice, they don't look away, they step forward and say, ``I want to help.'' As their representatives, we should help these people participate in the national service programs as well, and that is why I am voting for this bill. Once again, I want to thank Chairman Miller and Chairwoman McCarthy for ensuring such an open, bipartisan process in crafting this legislation. I would also like to recognize senior Republican Platts of the subcommittee and Representative Hoekstra for their leadership. Finally, I want to recognize the hardworking staff on both sides of the aisle. In particular I would like to thank Amy Jones, Mandy Schaumburg and Susan Ross on my staff for their efforts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I thank Ranking Member Guthrie for yielding the time. Last August, President Bush signed into law the first comprehensive renewal in a decade of the Federal higher education programs. That legislation was a product of years of effort by both Republicans and Democrats. It was and is a good product, but as the implementation of the law has gone forward, it has become clear that minor technical changes are needed to ensure a smooth transition process. We are making those changes today. As we address these minor changes, we also need to act quickly to correct two major challenges in the Federal student loan programs. The first challenge is a byproduct of the global credit crisis. Student loan borrowers, like many Americans in this struggling economy, can sometimes fall behind on their bills. Before they fall behind, the Higher Education Act helps borrowers through loan deferments, forbearances and income-contingent or income-based repayment. For those borrowers who have defaulted, it provides a process for loan rehabilitation. Student loan borrowers who have defaulted can rebuild their credit and can get their loans back in good standing by making nine on-time payments. At the end of the process, the loan is sold to a lender, and a borrower's credit is wiped clean. Unfortunately, the global credit crunch has prevented many student loan lenders from being able to repurchase these rehabilitated loans, and when these loans are not purchased, the borrower's credit is not restored. With this legislation, we are incorporating rehabilitated loans into the emergency student loan liquidity measures enacted last year. It is a simple fix that will get credit flowing and that will help borrowers who are doing their best to get their credit back in good standing and make good on the loans they owe. These borrowers have done the right thing by getting themselves back on track. They should not be denied an opportunity to clean up their credit simply because of the current economic situation. The second change we are making is just as urgent, and truth be told, it is one that could have been avoided. I am speaking not of a byproduct of a short-circuited credit market but, rather, of the inevitable product of shortsighted policy. Two-and-half years ago, the majority wrung billions from the Federal student loan program in order to make good on a campaign promise of higher Pell Grant funding and of lower student loan interest rates. These were laudable goals, to be sure, but those of us who have been here for a long time know that a good sound bite does not always make for good policy. Such is the case here. In order to pay for these particular campaign promises, at least temporarily, for parents of college students, the majority replaced a functioning lending system with an untested, highly controversial auction scheme. At the time, we warned that an auction would undercut loan accessibility for parents. We warned that the U.S. Department of Education was ill-equipped to implement such a complex and convoluted system. We warned that lenders were unlikely to participate in such a system and that, if they did, only a few were likely to bid, giving them near-monopoly control of the market. I wish it were not the case, but unfortunately, our worst predictions are coming true. Several large lenders are choosing not to participate in this troubled initiative. The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators has weighed in with serious concerns. Financial aid administrators will soon be assembling financial aid packages for the coming academic year, and NASFAA warns that current economic conditions could cause the pilot program to harm parent borrowers. If the Department were to move forward, the few willing participants would be a virtual monopoly, and with so few participants, they may not be able to handle all of the loan volume necessary to ensure that all parents who are eligible for loans actually receive them. We cannot allow this to happen, so we are postponing the auction for 1 year in order to ensure that parents will not fall victim to the shortsighted policy that was enacted just 2\1/2\ years ago. I support this legislation because the changes are necessary, but I hope this will serve as a lesson in going forward. Undercutting a successful, longstanding student loan program in order to achieve political goals was not a good idea in 2006, and it is not a good idea today.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time and for his leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor. I rise in strong support of the omnibus lands bill, which includes my legislation, the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains Wild Heritage Act, about which I'm going to speak. I have the great privilege of representing one of the most rugged and beautiful areas of the country, including the vast Eastern Sierras of California represented in a few of the pictures that I have here. My district is also one of the largest in the country, with over 95 percent of the land in Mono and Inyo Counties owned and managed by the Federal Government. We need land for recreation, hunting and fishing. We need land for mining. We need some land protected as wilderness. But, most importantly, we need commonsense, locally driven solutions to land use. This legislation is a product of countless hours of community involvement between Senator Boxer and I working together with virtually every local stakeholder, county official, local sportsman and recreational advocate, BLM and Forest Service. We also presented the legislation directly to the public through county hearings. Specifically, this legislation would designate over 470,000 acres of wilderness in the Eastern Sierras of Mono and Inyo Counties and the San Gabriel Mountains north of Los Angeles. While many of these areas are already successfully protected from many destructive human activities by the management plans of the Forest Service and BLM, I feel strongly that these areas should have a higher level of protection. In addition, my legislation strikes that important land use balance and releases over 50,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas from further consideration as wilderness. Finally, my legislation creates the first ever dedicated winter recreation area, 11,000 acres for snowmobile use which will bring much-needed tourism to the community of Bridgeport in northern Mono County. This is a locally driven, practical solution to the many land uses in my district. This isn't Congress telling my district how to manage our land. This is my community, my constituents asking Congress to approve a land use compromise developed and vetted back home in California. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and welcome him to the committee, a new member of our committee and a great addition to the committee. The gentleman that just spoke is correct. We do have the appropriators who spend the money, but that does not mean that the authorizers should give up their responsibilities, and they have the responsibility of putting in the bills what they think should be spent. None of us needs reminding about the grave economic and fiscal challenges we face at this time. In fact, a child born today carries a debt of at least $175,000. That's the equivalent of having a mortgage and no house. The Roe amendment is a small step but a very important one. It underscores our commitment to fiscal responsibility. And I think, as authorizers, we can step up and do that, and I commend him for offering the amendment. The GIVE Act, as currently drafted, offers no clear guidance on funding levels for AmeriCorps and its supporting programs. Rather, this section of the bill is merely authorized to spend ``such sums as may be required,'' and we would be giving up the opportunity to advise the appropriators. As we implement major structural changes in the bill, such as the new fixed-price grant structure, it would be prudent to take our time before deploying on a larger scale. Therefore, although we have encouraged the corporation to actually expand these programs, I support this amendment to authorize funding for the coming year at the fiscal year 2008 level and allow flexibility in future years to help reach the goal we have articulated. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to strike a balance on this legislation. We have produced a major reorganization and renewal of national service programs, and we've done so without layering on unnecessary new programs. The purpose of this amendment is to generate volunteers, which is the purpose of the whole bill. It's a worthy goal, and that's why we've taken steps to ensure that all national service programs, in one way or another, encourage volunteerism. The approach included in the bill, agreed to in a bipartisan manner, is the right one. Rather than creating a new program, which this amendment does, we should work to achieve the goal of generating volunteers under the existing programs authorized in this legislation. Therefore, I oppose this redundant amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the Hunter amendment. The gentleman that is the sponsor of this amendment speaks with great expertise when he talks of military and veterans affairs, having joined the Marine Corps the day after 9/11 and having served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. In fact, when he signed up to run for Congress, he was recalled up, sent back to Afghanistan, and couldn't even campaign. So I thank him for offering this amendment. Since passage of the original GI Bill, we have provided educational benefits to soldiers returning from battle. Helping these brave men and women pursue a college education is a small price to pay for their valiant service to our Nation. These benefits are not a government handout; rather, they're a small token of our appreciation for their willingness to serve. Unfortunately, the education awards under the GI Bill may actually be held against veterans participating in national service by sometimes decreasing their ability to receive other educational awards. I support the Hunter amendment because it restores fairness in how veterans' educational awards are treated. This amendment is consistent with bipartisan reforms enacted last year to the Higher Education Act, and it is consistent with our commitment to the veterans who have already given so much to our Nation.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1388. Neighbors helping neighbors. This happens countless times every day across America. A college student teaching English to immigrants, a Boy Scout troop collecting canned food for the hungry, families taking in neighbors who have lost their homes in floods or tornado or fire. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today, aptly named the GIVE Act, encourages the selfless actions I just described by updating decades- old national service programs to make them even more effective in the 21st century. H.R. 1388 allows for year-round service learning opportunities. It also offers a new emphasis on emergency and disaster relief and recovery. Finally, it offers increased opportunities for baby boomers, a generation known for its social activism. But I would like to inform my colleagues of one fact that has not been given much attention. This bill includes powerful new safeguards to protect taxpayers by making the service programs more accountable and performance based. The bill also makes the programs it funds more competitive to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. In addition to H.R. 1388, individuals can receive Federal funding to serve at organizations of their choosing. Of course, to prevent fraud, these organizations will be closely examined. But after such screening, part of the funds the bill provides will be dedicated to those people who believe they can make the greatest difference at small organizations. And yet this bill also addresses national needs. For example, this proposal adds a new Veterans Corps, giving people who served in our military a chance to serve their Nation once more and a chance for our Nation to serve them. Through the Veterans Corps, veterans and others can help the families of servicemembers through their hardships and aid fellow veterans as they readjust to civilian life. Finally, this bill makes disaster assistance a priority. It allows the Corporation for National and Community Service to develop a system to quickly mobilize former participants, if they are needed. It also allows people to extend their service if their term has run out in the middle of a disaster. I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairman McCarthy, Ranking Member Platts and our staff for such an excellent job to work together to craft this bill. This is the way legislation should be passed, and I think it has been an example, and I wish all bills were passed in this manner. You know, we have been hearing a lot in the last couple of days about AIG and about the bonuses that were made to leaders of that company, a company that would not even be in existence if it were not for the Federal Government and the taxpayers that bailed them out. The stimulus package that was passed was the last attempt that would have been able to stop those bonuses. There was an amendment in there, and I know the Senator that's credited for that amendment, he says he didn't know about it, or didn't have part in it. That could have been taken care of if we had what was promised to us, 48 hours at least, to review that bill, or if we had worked together in a bipartisan way to craft that bill. I'm sorry that that did not happen. Because of that, we have found now a terrible tragedy has taken place, and I hope that we will be able to correct it. But it could have been avoided if we had just simply worked, as we did on this bill, in a bipartisan way to see that that never happened. Mr. Chair, I support this bill because Americans who give their time, talent, and compassion to others clearly can help our Nation. And we, as their representatives, should help them. Thank you. I ask all of our colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. Inclusion of the Davis-Bacon mandate in H.R. 1262 represents both bad policy and bad process, and I support this effort to correct it. First on process. The Education and Labor Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over Davis-Bacon, never considered the bill's Davis- Bacon provision, not in a hearing, not in a markup, not in any procedure whatsoever. If we had, we would have weighed the impact of this provision on the projects themselves, on local economies, and indeed, on the American taxpayers. That brings me to my second objection, the policy. By inflating labor rates, Davis-Bacon typically increases the cost of Federal projects by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent. Furthermore, the costs of Davis-Bacon are particularly burdensome for small businesses. This mandate can saddle private companies with literally millions of dollars in excess administrative work every year. Small, locally owned businesses can't afford this type of bureaucracy. They rarely have the resources to comply. As a result, large companies are more often rewarded government contracts, even for small projects. At a time when the economy is hurting as it is and small businesses are the ones creating jobs, give them the opportunity to do it. Federal law should not have a built-in bias against small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove the costly and burdensome Davis-Bacon requirement.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 153, commending the University of Southern California Trojan football team for its victory in the 2009 Rose Bowl. The USC Trojan football team achieved many historic accomplishments during the 2008 regular season but few as meaningful as its victory in the 2009 Rose Bowl. With this victory the USC Trojans have now won more Rose Bowls than any other team in the Nation. Known as ``The Granddaddy of Them All,'' the Rose Bowl game kicked off a myriad of college football legacies in 1902. Since then the game has showcased 18 Heisman Trophy winners, produced 28 national champions, featured 197 consensus All-Americans, and honored 95 college football legends by inducting them into the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame. At the conclusion of the 2008 season, USC's football team has won seven straight conference championships and played in seven consecutive BCS bowls, both NCAA records. They are 6-1 in those big games, 5-0 against Big Ten teams such as Penn State, and 82-9 since the beginning of the 2002 season. They have also won 11 or more games in seven straight seasons, another record, and have played in four straight Rose Bowls, winning three. The success of this team can be directly attributed to the vision of its head coach, Pete Carroll. Coach Carroll brought big doses of experience, enthusiasm, and leadership in his quest to revive the USC football program when he was named the Trojans' head football coach on December 15, 2000. The 56-year-old Carroll has 33 years of NFL and college experience, including 15 on the college level. Under Carroll USC is the first school to have three Heisman Trophy winners in a 4- year span. In addition, Coach Carroll has produced 30 All-American first teamers and 42 NFL draft picks, and his last six recruiting classes have been ranked in the top 10 nationally. While the tradition of excellence certainly presents itself on the gridiron, the University of Southern California's commitment to academic excellence is equally abundant. Located in Los Angeles, Ms. Watson's district, a global center for arts, technology, and international trade, the University of Southern California is one of the world's leading private research universities. USC enrolls more international students than any other U.S. university and offers extensive opportunities for internships and study abroad. With a strong tradition of integrating liberal and professional education, USC fosters a vibrant culture of public service and encourages students to cross academic and geographic boundaries in their pursuit of knowledge. I extend my congratulations to Head Coach Pete Carroll, all of the hardworking players, the fans, and to the University of Southern California. I'm happy to join my good friend and colleague Representative Diane Watson in honoring this exceptional team for all its accomplishments and wish all involved continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 77, congratulating the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia, for more than 100 years of service and leadership to the United States. The University of Mary Washington was founded in 1908 and has become an institution of higher education that links traditions of the republic to innovations at the leading edge of pedagogy and research. Mary Washington has one of the leading public liberal arts colleges in the country, as well as a graduate and professional school. The University of Mary Washington was originally founded as a women's college and was designated as the women's college for the University of Virginia in 1944. In 1970, Mary Washington College transitioned to a co-educational college and was designated ``University of Mary Washington'' in 2004 to reflect the inclusion of its growing graduate programs. Located in Fredericksburg, Virginia, approximately 4,000 undergraduate students are enrolled at Mary Washington's main campus, located on Marye's Heights, which played an important role in the 1862 Battle of Fredericksburg. In addition, approximately 1,000 students and adults attend the graduate and professional school located in nearby Stafford County. Students from 43 different countries are enrolled in 40 different majors and programs of study at Mary Washington. The University of Mary Washington is ranked in every major selective guide publication. It was ranked fourth in its class by U.S. News and World Report, in the top ten nationally in Peace Corps alumni, and has a Pulitzer Prize-winning poet on the faculty. It was listed among Kiplinger's magazine ``100 Best Values in Public Colleges in 2009.'' Mary Washington was also named as one of the Nation's best colleges and universities by the ``Fiske Guide to Colleges'' and is said to have ``gained a reputation as one of the premium public liberal arts colleges in the country.'' Last year, the University of Mary Washington celebrated their centennial anniversary. For over 100 years, the university has provided America's students with a quality education and opportunity. The institution's link to both history and innovation has provided students with the unique and irreplaceable learning environment. I am happy to join my good friend and colleague, Representative Wittman, in congratulating the University of Mary Washington and ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 146 designating March 2, 2009, as Read Across America Day. This celebration is held each year on the birthday of author Dr. Seuss. This year, Read Across America celebrates its 10th anniversary, and is also the 50th anniversary of Dr. Seuss' most recognizable work, ``The Cat in the Hat.'' Theodor Geisel, more famously known as Dr. Seuss, is the most beloved children's book author of all time. His use of rhyme makes his books an effective tool for teaching young children the basic skills they need to be successful and develop a life-long love of reading. Celebrating Dr. Seuss and reading sends a clear message to our children that reading is both fun and important. In 2001, Congress and President Bush highlighted the importance of reading by passing the No Child Left Behind Act. Through programs authorized under the act, the Federal Government demonstrated the importance of reading intervention in providing additional resources for reading assistance; most notable was its commitment to the Reading First Program. Once the program was implemented, the data quickly showed that Reading First works. On average, the 26 States with early baseline data on reading achievement increased the percentage of students meeting or exceeding proficiency on fluency outcome measures. Among Wisconsin first graders, reading fluency proficiency increased by nearly 28 percent for economically disadvantaged students, more than 30 percent for limited English proficient students, nearly 22 percent for students with disabilities, more than 22 percent for African American students, and nearly 23 percent for Hispanic students. States saw this improvement and made Reading First an integral opponent of their reform efforts. Reports by the Government Accountability Office, the Inspector General and the Center on Education Policy have all found widespread support for the program among the States. In one Center on Education Policy report, 97 percent of Reading First school districts said that the program was an important or very important cause for increases in students' reading scores. Despite these positive results, the new majority has, over the course of 2 years, decreased funding levels by $600 million in 2008 and completely eliminated funding for 2009. Individual States are beginning to voice their concern over the impact of lost Reading First funding. In fact, these cuts have led to such efforts as the Colorado State Board of Education passing a resolution expressing its support for Reading First model and its concern over the appropriations cut. As we rightfully recognize another Read Across America Day, this Congress should begin the work of immediately restoring funding for this program that provides this Nation's most disadvantaged students the reading intervention and additional resources for reading assistance they so desperately need. I thank my colleague from Colorado (Ms. Markey) for sponsoring this resolution. And I ask that all of my colleagues support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am in strong support of Resolution 146. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. It's saddening to me, though, that at this time, when we are talking about reading and the importance of reading, how an administration that is spending so freely will continue to cut funds from a program that works very well for our young people to give them the reading first opportunity that they so deserve. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.