Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Higher Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I again think that this has been an interesting debate today. I thank the chairman for giving us the opportunity to offer our substitute. I know he didn't have to do that, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of the differences and to present an alternative. For years I served as subcommittee chairman on the Higher Education Subcommittee. And during that time, I talked about accessibility, accountability and affordability for higher education. The only opportunity that people have to better their lot in life here in this country is through education. And I have seen studies that show that 40 percent of our young people from lower-income families are not able to go to college. And that is just not acceptable. And I think that with our substitute, where we put an additional almost $10 billion into Pell Grants, I think that is a tremendous opportunity to help the affordability aspect of college. Again, through this bill, there is nothing done to lower the cost of tuition, to make the higher education experience more affordable. As I said, the cost of a higher education during the last 20 years has gone up four times faster than the rate of inflation. Mrs. McMorris Rogers mentioned earlier, in her State, the cost of tuition has gone up in the last few years 80 percent while the cost of inflation has gone up 20 percent. Again, that is still four times faster. It has gone up faster than the cost of health care. And I think that that is a crisis that in some way we need to come together on. State governments, the Federal Government, students, parents, we all need to come together, come to grips with this issue because to prepare a workforce that is going to carry us through this 21st Century and be competitive throughout the world, we are going to have to do something to make it possible for our young people to get a higher education. I don't think adding new entitlements is the way to do it. I think increasing Pell Grants is very important. And for that reason, I encourage our colleagues to support the amendment, the substitute amendment. If that passes, then support the bill. If it doesn't pass, I encourage them to vote against the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for his work on this budget. I rise in opposition to the second largest tax hike in American history. This agreement before us includes a tax hike of at least $217 billion by fiscal year 2012. Worse yet, the budget includes a troubling tax hike trigger that would automatically raise taxes even higher if surpluses do not materialize due to unrestrained Federal spending, a habit I don't expect Congressional Democrats will break any time soon. This agreement also includes a reconciliation instruction for the Education and Labor Committee. I have supported reconciliation as a means to reduce the deficit in the past, in just the last Congress in fact. But clearly deficit reduction is not a priority in this budget. The fact that our committee is the only panel with this instruction reflects this. Instead, I am afraid this instruction might leave the door open for the majority to abuse the process in order to give Washington bureaucrats a greater stranglehold on student loans than ever before through a greater emphasis on the government-run direct loan program. Let me be clear: I stand ready to strengthen Federal student aid programs by promoting competition among and within the loan programs while providing additional funds for low income students to attend college. This is just what we did through reconciliation in the last Congress. However, Mr. Speaker, I won't stand idly by while the majority attempts to drive a stake through the heart of the market-based loan program. This would be terrible news for students and taxpayers alike, and I will do all I can to fight against it.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act. First, let me extend my thanks to Armed Services Committee Chairman Skelton and Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter for bringing this partisan legislation to the Floor today. The bill before us authorizes funding for our national defense programs in the coming year, including our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It enjoys the support of both Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, and in fact was reported out of committee by a unanimous vote. I am very pleased to note that while some circumstances have changed in this Congress, the Armed Services Committee remains one in which Members on both sides of the aisle remain committed to comity, bipartisanship, and the best interests of our Nation's defense and our brave men and women in uniform. I congratulate both Chairman Skelton and Mr. Hunter on their successful efforts, and intend to vote in support of this bill later today. I would take this opportunity to raise concern with one of the amendments made in order under the rule, specifically, the Altmire/ Udall Amendment, which would expand employer mandates under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Let me state at the outset that I will not oppose this amendment, nor will I urge my Republican colleagues to do so. I do, however, for the record and for the good of this legislation going forward, want to note my strong concerns with this amendment. First, let me say that as a matter of procedure and responsible legislative process, I am deeply troubled that this amendment comes to the Floor today without so much as a cursory examination by the only committee of jurisdiction in the House, the Committee on Education and Labor, on which I serve as Senior Republican Member. The Altmire/Udall Amendment represents a significant expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and would be the first such expansion in the 14-year history of the Act. Yet it has not been the subject of a single hearing in the Committee on Education and Labor, nor has any Member of the House or my Committee had the opportunity to examine the impact of this amendment in even the broadest sense. Where, as under this amendment, we are talking about expanding a federal mandate that potentially impacts large and small employers in every industry and every state in the union, I think we owe more to our constituents. I do not want my concern and my remarks to be construed as simply procedural, or solely a function of marking jurisdictional turf. While I do believe that respect for the committee legislative process is important, I want to make clear that I have substantive concerns as a matter of policy with the Altmire/Udall Amendment. The Amendment would appear to broadly expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, allowing any covered employee to make use of leave for ``any exigency'' that arises out of the fact that a family member is called to active duty. Now I am certain that Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that the question of whether and how we ensure that workers whose families have been impacted by a call-up to active duty are able to address legitimate needs is a valid question. I am concerned, however, that the language of the Altmire/Udall Amendment may go much further than intended, and potentially create an overly broad use of leave. Similarly, under the Amendment, an employee could use this leave intermittently, in very small increments, and in many instances, with potentially little or no advance notice to an employer. Earlier this year, the Department of Labor set forth a Request for Information seeking detailed evidence and recommendations for both regulatory and legislative changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act. That process is ongoing as we speak. Members on both sides of the aisle and various stakeholders have made clear that the Act deserves serious examination--particularly with respect to questions as to when and how leave can be taken, and what sorts of leave and notice are appropriate. In light of these facts, to embark on piecemeal expansion of one of the most significant federal labor laws adopted in the last 20 years, strikes me as irresponsible, and setting a very bad precedent. As I indicated, I think I understand the concerns of the sponsor that this amendment is intended to address, and I think those are concerns that many might share. For that reason, I will not oppose the amendment. I've made my concerns with both the substance and procedure of this amendment clear. I would hope that as this bill moves forward, and if we find ourselves in conference with the other body, we will take the necessary time to examine this amendment in detail, and work towards ensuring that it accomplishes its goals in a reasonable, responsible, and targeted way.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now 4 minutes to the ranking member Republican on the Higher Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close the debate. Mr. Speaker, what our job is here in Washington as legislators is to represent the people from our districts, the people from around the country. Specifically on the Committee on Education, we have the responsibility to protect and encourage those young people who are trying to receive an education, both K-12 level and those who want to continue their education throughout their lifetime at the higher education level. We have passed many laws that try to make it easier for people to achieve the American Dream through education. Sometimes we have people that skirt those laws or take them up to the edge. When we find problems, it is our responsibility to address those problems. We have about 6,000 schools across the country that participate in the Federal financial aid programs. They have financial aid officers that work with the students that come into the schools to help them get a Pell Grant or get other financial aid that is available, or they help them find a loan company that will help them get a loan that is needed to achieve their education. We have about 3,500 lenders that participate in these loans. Again, some of the lenders have crossed the line or gotten too close to the line, as with some of the financial aid officers, but we definitely don't want to paint all lenders, all schools, all financial aid officers, with a broad brush, saying they are all corrupt. Most of them, the vast percentage of them, are doing a great job of trying to carry out their mission and helping students achieve their goals. This piece of legislation will help make that law stronger, to verify that those students will get the most help in getting the loans and getting the financial aid they need to achieve the American Dream, and I am happy to be a part of this, to make it come to pass. I am hopeful that the other body will pick up this legislation and move forward with it. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this law. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, Chairman Miller for being expeditious on this and getting this bill to the floor quickly. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both sides be allocated an additional 1\1/2\ minutes in order to allow Mr. Castle, the ranking member, who has just arrived, to speak on the bill.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Keller, and their staffs and my staff for striking a bipartisan accord to advance this bill. I have often said that in order to begin reaffirming trust in our student aid system all stakeholders must step up. That means lenders, colleges, the Education Department, States and Congress all have a role to play. Within the past few weeks, Secretary of Education Spellings established an internal task force to review her Department's oversight of Federal student loan programs; and, today, the U.S. House is stepping up as well. It is an important step, to be sure. We are stepping up today for a single, fundamental reason, to ensure our Nation's financial aid system continues to serve the need of the students who depend on it for the opportunity to get an education. This isn't about us versus the lenders or us versus the financial aid officers, and this isn't about direct loans versus the market-based FFEL program. And, for the record, I continue to strongly support FFEL and a healthy competition between the two Federal programs. This is about protecting the interests of millions of young men and women who expect our student aid system to be there for them when they need it. Several weeks ago, my Education and Labor Committee colleague, Mr. Keller, and I introduced comprehensive legislation to begin the process of reaffirming our trust in the financial aid system. I am proud that our bill served as an impetus for bringing the measure before us to the House floor. Our legislation built on many of the financial aid reform recommendations Chairman Miller made earlier this year, and I am pleased that what we are poised to advance today reflects a broad agreement to set these important reforms into motion. Like my bill and Chairman Miller's bill, the bipartisan agreement we will vote on today does not explicitly outlaw the practice of preferred lender lists. Rather, it reforms this practice to ensure that it continues to serve the interests of our students. Like my bill and Chairman Miller's bill, the bipartisan agreement we will vote on today aims to protect against conflicts of interest between lenders and financial aid officers. And like my bill and Chairman Miller's bill, the bipartisan agreement we will vote on today allows lenders to seek advice from institutions in order to improve products and services for students. However, the measure Mr. Keller and I introduced went even further than past recommendations, and I am pleased the agreement we will vote on today incorporates our important modifications. For example, just as in the bill I authored with Mr. Keller, the measure before us asks colleges to develop their own unique codes of conduct that must include restrictions on anything else that may give the appearance of a conflict of interest between financial aid officers and lenders. And just as in the bill I authored with Mr. Keller, the measure before us bans revenue sharing between lenders of private loans and colleges or universities. Mr. Speaker, the FFEL and other financial aid programs successfully serve millions of students and their families every year, and this bill makes our system even better. As we move forward from here, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Federal financial aid system must work for students and colleges alike. We must be careful not to overreach, as Congress does all too often, but we do need to reaffirm our trust in the system. I believe this bill does just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I have seen the work that he has done over the years in protecting children. I think that children are our most vital asset. And because of the risk out there of the kind of lawbreakers that he mentioned that we could eliminate by having a good, solid background check, I think this is a tremendous amendment. I think it really strengthens the bill. I thank the gentleman for his work on behalf of children, and I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment that Mr. Putnam has put forth. I don't think we should fear competition. I think the idea that once a program is granted, it should have lifelong tenure, I think, is something we should avoid. I think competition and accountability is good. Once every 5 years, programs that are good should not fear competing to keep the program for another 5 years. I think it is always good to have somebody coming up behind you that is going to make you do a little bit better.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe that this is an improvement to the bill and will assist Head Start programs which are required to spend 10 percent of their funds on services to disabled students in improving the quality of their programs to serve young children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read an excerpt from the Family Research Council. ``This bill should help ensure that faith- based organizations with proven records of serving the neediest among us will be allowed the freedom to hire the best staff they see fit, free of burdensome regulation.'' Unfortunately, it does not. If we had been able to discuss the Fortuno amendment today, we would have been able to vote on ensuring what they are asking for here. Later on in the discussion, I will add these letters, along with several others I have in support of the Fortuno amendment and in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, with that, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. McKeon. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the Record: The Center for Public Justice. April 30, 2007, Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, House Minority Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner: The Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom, a multi-faith a1liance of education, social-service, and religious freedom organizations, asks for your support to make federal social programs fully open to the participation of qualified faith- based organizations. We are concerned that some federal legislation does not adequately invite faith-based participation, while ensuring the religious liberty of beneficiaries. We are also concerned that other federal legislation, such as the Workforce Investment Act and the Head Start Act, has language excluding faith-based organizations that desire to retain their freedom when hiring to take account of the religious convictions of potential employees. We ask in particular for your support to make the Head Start program hospitable to faith-based organizations when H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act, comes up for floor action. In the Education and Labor Committee's recent markup of the bill, Resident Commissioner Fortuno's amendment to clarify the eligibility of faith-based organizations to participate in Head Start unfortunately was defeated. The amendment would have added language making it explicit that faith-based organizations are eligible to take part on the same basis as secular organizations, without being required to minimize their religious character. Such language reflects the U.S. Supreme Court's turn in First Amendment interpretation to the equal treatment or neutrality standard. As part of the confirmation of the equal eligibility of faith-based providers, the amendment provided that religious organizations participating in Head Start would no longer be required to waive their freedom under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to take account of religion when making employment decisions. We understand that some members regard such an affirmation of the Civil Rights Act's standard as introducing pernicious religious job discrimination into the federal early childhood education program. Yet the Civil Rights Act expressly provides that it is not to be regarded as discrimination when a religious organization considers religion when evaluating potential employees. We believe that the Civil Rights Act got it right on this, just as we believe that political and environmental organizations must be free to assess job candidates on the basis of ideological conviction. We see no reason why religion (or political views or environmental convictions) would suddenly become irrelevant to an organization's internal life and commitments when it agrees to serve its community in a partnership with government. Nor is it unconstitutional for a religious organization that receives government funds to continue to staff on a religious basis. The federal judge in the major 2005 religious staffing case, Lown v. Salvation Army, resoundingly affirmed the contrary. We respectfully request that you disavow the characterization made by some members of Congress that religious staffing by faith-based organizations is invidious ``Job discrimination.'' ``We request that you support the continuing effort in Congress to remove from federal programs language contradicting the Civil Rights Act's affirmation of the religious staffing freedom. We believe that programs such as Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act should be brought into line with the large majority of federal programs that do not restrict religious staffing by faith-based organizations that desire to collaborate with the government to provide assistance. Thank you. Sincerely, Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, The Center for Public Justice. On behalf of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom and the undersigned organizations: Organizations are listed for identification purposes only. Dr. Robert C. Andringa, President Emeritus, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Anne R. Apodaca, Executive Director, New Mexico Community FaithLinks. Dr. Art Ayris, President, The Florida Bridge. Greg Baylor, Director, Center for Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society. Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals. Rabbi Abba Cohen, Director and Counsel, Washington Office, Agudath Israel of America. Paul Corts, President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Lisa Cummins, Center for New Communities. Rimmer DeVries, Camano Island, Washington. Nathan Diament, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public Policy and Research, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Mark L. Earley, President, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Rev. Bill Emery, Director, Virginia Roundtable. Dr. Bernard Fryshman, President, Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, New York, New York. Mr. Israel Gaither, National Commander, The Salvation Army, United States. Walter Gilbert, CEO, Open Door Adoption Agency, Inc., Thomasville, GA. Dennis Griffith, Executive Director, Teen Challenge of Southern California. Rev. John Hughes, Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries, San Diego, CA. Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director, Traditional Values Coalition. Donna Long, President, The National Bridge Alliance. John Long, President, The Georgia Bridge. Rev. Paul Lundberg, Atwater Baptist Church, Atwater, CA. Dr. Larry Martin, President, Kentucky Compassion Bridge. Freddie John Martin, Teltech Development Consulting Corporation, Silver Spring, Maryland. Tom McClusky, Vice-President for Government Affairs, Family Research Council. Ellen McKinley, Child Development Education Alliance, Orange Park, FL. Stephen Monsma, The Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI. Rev. James Ortiz, Senior Pastor, President, My Friend's House, Assembly of God, Inc., Metro Impact Ministries. Inc., Whittier Area Evangelical Ministerial Alliance, Whittier, California. Rev. Carl Rehling, Diocesan Liaison for Justice and Peace, Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. Shari Rendall, Director of Legislation and Policy, Concerned Women for America. Amy L. Sherman, Director, Sagamore Institute Center on Faith in Communities, Charlottesville, VA. Dr. Ronald J. Sider, Evangelicals for Social Action, Wynnewood, PA. Dr. James W. Skillen, Center for Public Justice. Taylor Smith, Jr., Vice President of Executive Support, Association of Christian Schools International. Dr. Robert Vickers, President, Artful Askers, The Missouri Bridge. David Winter, Chancellor, Westmont College, Santa Barbara,

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let's be very clear at the outset about why this amendment is being considered today: It's all about political cover. It has nothing to do with protecting the civil rights of faith-based providers. If that is what we are out to do today, we would be considering Mr. Fortuno's amendment right now. Instead, the majority has brought up a hollow, politically motivated attempt to have it both ways. On one hand, this amendment cheers the work of faith-based providers and recognizes their contributions to our Nation; but on the other hand, it leaves them completely unprotected when it comes to their right to preserve their identity while serving children in Head Start. Frankly, this is insulting to faith-based organizations as it is transparent. Let me elaborate. With respect to hiring authority, section 702(a) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972, states, ``This subchapter shall not apply to a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution or society of its activities.'' Mr. Chairman, does this amendment reaffirm the language from this statute? No, it does not. Consistent with this language from the Civil Rights Act, former President Clinton signed four laws that explicitly allow religious organizations to retain their right to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds. The 1996 welfare reform law, the Children's Health Act of 2000, the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1998, and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 each contain language that reflects the language offered to the Rules Committee yesterday by Mr. Fortuno. Mr. Chairman, does this amendment reaffirm the language signed into law on four separate occasions by former President Clinton? No, it does not. The Fortuno amendment would codify a 2002 executive order protecting the right of a participating faith-based organization to display a cross or other religious symbols on its grounds. Mr. Chairman, does this amendment do the same? No, it does not. This amendment may have been written in such a way that may run counter to that executive order, potentially endangering rights faith- based providers already enjoy. In short, Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to play politics, this amendment is, at best, an attempt to provide political cover for Members who do not want to take a real vote on the issue; and at worst, a poorly drafted measure that may end up turning back the clock on the rights of faith-based providers to display religious symbols. Because of that, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it makes the bill stronger. Examining the number of children who are limited in English proficiency and monitoring the progress of these children is important to their mastery of the English language and will help determine future successes for these students in meeting the same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards that all children are expected to meet. I support the amendment, and I encourage our colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, even though I support the gentleman's amendment.