Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, a member of the conference committee, and thank him for his work on this bill, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to a subcommittee chairman of the Education Committee, a member of the conference committee, a good friend of mine from Texas, a hero of this country, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee, for purposes of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. May I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the committee, Mr. Ehlers from Michigan.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield the balance of my time to our majority leader, who started this project as a subcommittee chairman and then full committee chairman of the Education Committee, Mr. Boehner from Ohio.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr McKEON

Mr McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report and ask my colleagues to join me in doing the same. The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act will strengthen and improve career and technical education to help ensure academic success for students, whether they are pursuing postsecondary education or other venues. Let me begin by recognizing Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman Castle and thanking him for his hard work and commitment to improving educational opportunities for students participating in career and technical education. In January of 2005, he and our committee's former chairman, Majority Leader Boehner, introduced a bipartisan bill that was overwhelmingly backed by the House. I commend him for his leadership in crafting that reform legislation and for reaching across the aisle in the process. It is because of his work then that we are presenting such a strong conference report to the House today. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my committee's senior Democrat, Mr. George Miller, for his work and to recognize and thank our additional House conferees, Mr. Souder, Mr. Osborne, Mrs. Musgrave, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Kind. Their efforts over the past year have made this conference report a reality. Career and technical education is fundamental to our efforts to improve academic achievement at all levels so our Nation remains competitive in the face of a rapidly changing global economy. Each year, millions of students enrich their secondary and postsecondary educational opportunities through participation in career and technical education. Nearly all students, about 97 percent in fact, leave public high school having taken some career and technical education. Furthermore, nearly half of all high school students and one-third of college students are involved in career and technical programs as a major part of their studies. In short, it is a priority for millions and this conference report honors our commitment to them. The conference report before us will help States better utilize Federal funds for secondary and postsecondary career education programs, increase accountability, and emphasize student achievement and strengthen opportunities for coordination between secondary and postsecondary career and technical education. In 1998, reforms made to the Perkins Act were aimed at increasing the focus on both technical skills and rigorous academic knowledge and helped us move further away from the school-to-work model. Our goal in this Congress was to build on that success. Our principles at the outset of this reauthorization effort were straightforward, and I am proud to say that more than a year later, they are unchanged. The pillars of this conference report are: we're maintaining a focus on rigorous student academic and technical achievement; we're protecting the role of States and local communities and asking for results in exchange for the money we are already spending at the Federal level; and we are seeking more opportunities for coordination between secondary and postsecondary career and technical education. There are growing concerns across the country about the performance level of our high schools. The fundamental question remains, Are we preparing our young people to succeed in a globally competitive world? The legislation before us today helps us address that question, and speaks to the new realities of a changing economy and workplace. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a solid piece of reform legislation that is worthy of our support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany S. 250.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 946, I call up the conference report to accompany the Senate bill (S. 250) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe we are nearing the end of the pension reform conference. It has been quite a roller coaster ride, indicating the delicate balance that we have established to get to the point where we are today. I know many of our colleagues are anxious to see work completed on this conference report so that improvements to our pension system can actually be put in place. As vice chair of this conference committee, I share that view. The fact is that in recent days a tremendous amount of progress has been made towards completing this conference, and I am optimistic that we will produce a finished product that the vast majority of our colleagues can and will support. That is what we should be spending our time on--completing the work and protecting and improving workers' retirement security--not engaging in the partisan charade that this motion at its core represents. Our goal is and always has been to ensure our defined benefit system remains viable for generations to come. This will serve the interests of workers, retirees, and taxpayers alike. This motion to instruct does not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this politically motivated motion to instruct. I believe we are nearing the end of the pension reform conference, and this motion is nothing more than a last minute, desperate attempt to slow the most substantial retirement security reforms in a generation. Like the famous Yogi Berra saying, this is deja vu all over again. Throughout this pension conference, opponents of pension reform have attempted to distract from the process through these obstructionist tactics, and here we are again ready to deal with yet another. The latest motion to instruct, or motion to obstruct as is truly the case, is little more than a random jumble of unrelated issues being discussed in the ongoing pension conference. From purely a policy perspective, it is irresponsible to mix and confuse these complicated issues in this fashion. Members with opinions on one or more of these issues should not be forced into contradicting positions on other issues. But let's be very clear up front. This has nothing do with policy. It is all about politics. This pension legislation we are crafting is complicated, and those who support passing legislation to fix our pension system are working hard to bring a final bill before the full House and Senate for consideration. What the opponents of reform are doing today is putting their good names on a bull-in-a-china-shop exercise. They have cherry- picked a handful of Senate positions that have evolved over time. It is reckless and, in the end, it will do nothing to advance the process. Here are just a handful of its flaws. Number 1, this motion to instruct would tie the hands of those who voluntarily offer hybrid plans, which are the sole bright spot in the defined benefit system. To place restrictions on a system that actually provides more generous benefits for the majority of workers than do traditional plans sets a very bad precedent. Number 2, this motion to instruct also would increase the deficit of the PBGC, which is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do. If this provision were applied, taxpayers could count on an additional cost of $2.5 billion to the PBGC over the next 10 years. Number 3, this motion to instruct would assign the PBGC which, in some respects, is like an insurance company, with developing industrial policy for the troubled plans via a ``workout program.'' This would pit companies against one another. And this process would be steered by a quasi-governmental agency, often dependent upon the whims of the administration in power. And finally, this motion to instruct attempts to score partisan points on the issue of executive compensation. But this is an issue the House bill already responsibly addresses, and any final conference will do the same. The House-passed pension reform restricts golden parachute agreements when the rank and file plan is considered at-risk. Mr. Speaker, this last ditch attempt to distract from our reform efforts is as transparent as it is desperate. Fortunately, the end of this conference is in sight, and the reforms needed to ensure the defined benefits system remains viable for generations to come are nearly in place. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct, and reject this attempt to obscure our progress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. But I hadn't been called a criminal.

Mr. McKEON. I would like to know for sure if he was calling us criminals.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for running this debate for us. It is interesting. You know, I don't know what thrill there is in coming to the floor and trying to scare people that the Federal Government is trying to take away their pensions and trying to destroy their lives. We have been working hard to try to finish up this pension conference. It is a very complicated, very complex issue. It hasn't been done at this level by the Congress for decades. And we are working hard on this. And this week we have made tremendous progress. The fact is that what we have done this week, we are very, very close, and we should be able to wrap this up next week. And that is what we should be spending our time on, trying to finalize this bill, trying to get the help that is needed for these people and their pensions. A few years ago, we had over 100,000 defined benefit plans. We are down now to about 30,000. And the whole purpose of this bill is to protect the American people, to protect the worker. Promises have been made. Promises should be kept. And so the fine line that we have been working on throughout this conference is to be able to strengthen the law that is currently in place, keep companies from going bankrupt, and keep companies from dropping their defined benefit plans. That is the goal; that is where we are. We are, you know, if this were a marathon, we are down to the last few yards; and hopefully we will bring this to the floor next week for a final vote. And that is what we should be spending our time on, instead of this political charade. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cheri Fleming, a lovely lady from Santa Clarita, CA. On May 22, Newsweek presented her with the prestigious 2006 Dealer of the Year Award from the American International Automobile Dealers Association, AIADA. Founded in 1970, AIADA represents 11,000 American automobile dealerships. The members of the association provide nearly 500,000 American jobs and have a positive economic impact both nationally and in their communities. Every May, in recognition of exceptional community contributions and staunch commitment to the advancement of the industry, the Dealer of the Year program acknowledges 10 finalists from across the Nation. Winning the first time she was nominated, Cheri was the only woman proposed this year for the prestigious award. Partners in business, philanthropy and in life, Cheri and her husband, Don, purchased Valencia Acura in 1997. Although soon to change, at the time the dealership's national ranking was dead last for sales and also in customer satisfaction. Cheri and Don adopted the philosophy of ``friendship'' instead of ``dealership'' and began treating their customers just as they would like to be treated. Today, Valencia Acura is one of the top Acura dealerships in the country and also ranks amongst the highest in customer satisfaction with repeat and referral customers comprising over 75 percent of the business. In a relatively short amount of time, Valencia Acura has won many accolades from Acura and Customer Satisfaction Index awards, including: Acura's Precision Team--2002-2004, Honda's Council of Excellence--2004-2005, ``Best New Car Dealership in Santa Clarita''--2003-2005, ``Most Community Minded Owners in Santa Clarita''--2003-2005 and Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce ``2001 Business of the Year'' for the medium-sized category. With the success of Valencia Acura, Cheri and Don rapidly became vital forces in the Santa Clarita Valley and have donated nearly $3 million to community organizations in the past 7 years. Their community involvement transcends financial support as they can often be found participating in community organizations and generously giving their time, energy and efforts for a variety of causes. For their hard work and dedication, Don and Cheri were selected as Santa Clarita's Man and Woman of the Year for 2004. Never before in the history of the program has a husband and wife received the award in the same year. Although at the helm of a thriving business, Cheri finds time for her extensive volunteer endeavors. Currently, she is the vice president at- large and a director for the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Health Foundation, governor-elect for the Soroptimist International Camino Real Region, member and past-president of the Soroptimist International of Santa Clarita Valley, vice president of Special Events and a director for the Child and Family Center Foundation, a director for the Roar Foundation Advisory Board, chair-elect and a director for the American Cancer Society Unit Council and the Los Angeles Regional Unit Council, vice president of the Sheila R. Veloz Breast Imaging Center Advisory Board, chair of the Arthritis Foundation Walk and with Don as her cochair, has headed the Boys & Girls Club Auction for the past 3 years. In addition, Cheri just fulfilled her $100,000 pledge to help with a cardiac-catheter lab and new emergency room for our local hospital. Recently, Cheri chaired the Santa Clarita Valley Arthritis Walk raising over $60,000 and Don's efforts for the Fleming-Crawford Golf Invitational raised over $113,000 for the Sheila R. Veloz Breast Imaging Center. The AIADA acknowledged Cheri Fleming's exceptional community contributions and business acumen with the 2006 Dealer of the Year Award and I would like to commend Cheri for her success as well. Sir Winston Churchill once said, ``We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.'' Supported by Don, there is no one who embodies that statement better than Cheri Fleming. Together, their efforts have made the Santa Clarita Valley a much better place to live and I salute them for their efforts.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her great talk on minimum wage, and remind people that that is not what we are talking about today. We are working on going to conference on passing the vocational education bill. The emphasis on academics in this bill will be assessed through an alignment with No Child Left Behind and through enhanced accountability, which strengthens the bill, which makes it better for us to be able to help people train for good, high paying jobs. The House-passed bill strengthens accountability by requiring that locals establish adjusted levels of performance to complement the State- adjusted levels of performance already in current law. In turn, the State agency will evaluate annually whether the local recipient is making substantial progress toward achieving these goals. This, along with many other things, strengthens the Vocational Education Act and helps us to train young people for good, high paying, high wage jobs. 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 compliment the gentleman on his eloquent speech on the minimum wage. However, this bill before us is not a minimum-wage bill. As I said earlier, what it does is change high-skill, high-wage to $7.25 an hour. That is what I read from their motion to instruct. One of the things I would like to say is that I appreciate Mr. Castle, chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, for his leadership in producing a good House bill in support of educators and supported by nearly every Member of this Chamber. I would also like to thank the committee and the subcommittee ranking members, Mr. Miller and Ms. Woolsey, for working with us in a bipartisan manner both on the House bill and in our preliminary discussions with the Senate to get us to this point. Their willingness to work with us toward our mutual goal of improving and modernizing our career and technical education programs has allowed us to get to this point today. I am confident that our negotiations with the Senate will produce a measure that will be widely supported by Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. I would like to see us move forward quickly to get to conference to finalize this bill so we can have a vote on it before we adjourn for the summer recess. Again, I thank all those who have worked so hard to bring us here today, and reemphasize again, aside from all of the rhetoric about the minimum wage, this is not a vote on the minimum wage bill, it is a vote on reauthorizing the Vocational Education Act.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess it is no secret we are in an election year. As we just saw in the debate just before this debate, a lot of talk about the minimum wage. The motion before the House today is nothing but a political ploy. Nothing in the Vocational Education bill before us has anything to do with the minimum wage, nor has there been any discussion of the minimum wage among the conferees, because this is neither the time nor the place to consider an increase. Let me just talk a little about what we have done. A little over a year ago, the House passed the vocational education reauthorization bill, a bill that has been a law for 30 or 40 years. And the process is that a bill is introduced, it is brought before the subcommittee, the full committee, and finally passed by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill. We have been meeting with the Senate for almost a year trying to work out, resolve the differences between the bills so we can get a bill finally passed and to the President's desk. Today, we are naming conferees so we can get this bill finalized and finished up. And about 15 minutes ago the Democrats gave us this motion to instruct conferees that says: ``In section 3(2) of the bill, after the phrase `high wage' insert `(in no case less than $7.25 an hour)'.'' Let me read what we have agreed on. ``Building on the efforts of the States and localities to develop challenging academic and technical standards, and to assist students in meeting such standards, including preparation for high-skill, high-wage or high-demand occupations in current or emerging professions.'' Now that is a good thing that we should be working on. That is what we should be trying to do, educate our young people and prepare them for high-skill, high-wage and high-demand occupations. If we took this motion to instruct that they are giving us, we would change that to say, in meeting such standards, ``including preparation for high-skill, high-wage, $7.25-an-hour, or high-demand occupations in current or emerging professions.'' So it sounds like they are talking about minimum wage, but what they are doing is defining a high wage as $7.25 an hour. I have a little disagreement with that. I don't think that $7.25 an hour is a high wage, but that is what they are wanting us to do. The Democratic leadership is trying to play politics with what, to this point, has been a bipartisan effort to craft a strong bill that benefits millions of Americans. The vocational education reforms that we include in our bill will help students and workers build their academic and technical skills and equip them with the knowledge to proceed with postsecondary education or pursue other opportunities that will pay them much more than $7.25 an hour. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would, at the 11th hour, actually 11th hour and 45 minutes, or 11th hour and 55 minutes, just before we walk onto the floor, give us something that changes the definition of high wage to $7.25 an hour and ends up tainting good work with bad politics. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 250) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to strike all after the enacting clause of S. 250 and insert in lieu thereof the text of H.R. 366 as passed by the House.