Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 291 to bring awareness of a serious yet obscure disease from which many American women of childbearing age suffer. Endometriosis is a disease in which tissue similar to the tissue inside of the uterus grows outside of the uterus in the abdominal cavity. Because the tissue has no natural way to leave the body, the result is internal bleeding, inflation, scar tissue, and pain. I had never heard of endometriosis until a constituent, Mary Prenger, brought it to my attention. Since then I have come to learn that 10 to 20 percent of all women suffer from the disease, and infertility occurs in about 30 to 40 percent of all women who suffer from it. Endometriosis is a nondiscriminating disease. It affects women from all walks of life. Socioeconomic background and race have no bearing. Because such a large percentage of women who have the disease become infertile, endometriosis has the potential to be not only a great physical disability, but also the emotional and psychological burden is great. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that by passing this resolution, both the medical and the lay communities will become more aware of endometriosis. It is only through awareness of the disease that we will be able to grow closer to a cure.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5091) to increase the amount of student loan forgiveness available to qualified teachers, with an emphasis on special education teachers, as amended.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) regarding Mrs. Mink. The gentlewoman will be missed by all of us, but I will especially miss her because for the last 2 years she has been the ranking member on this subcommittee, and we have had the opportunity of getting to go know each other and working well together. I will miss her greatly. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 561) recognizing the contributions of Hispanic- serving institutions.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 561.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 561, in recognition of the contributions that Hispanic-serving institutions make in helping educate America's youngest and fastest-growing population. Hispanic-serving institutions are vital components of the higher education equation. Not only do they improve access to higher education for Hispanic Americans, they are committed to providing academic excellence to low-income and disadvantaged students. HSIs enroll and graduate thousands of impressive students each year, despite often-limited resources. Prior to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1998, HSIs were eligible for Federal funds under title III, part A, the strengthening institutions program. During reauthorization, we created a separate program and funding stream for Hispanic-serving institutions in an effort to expand educational opportunities for Hispanic students. The new program under title V allows institutions to use Federal money to build their endowments and provide scholarships and fellowships for needy students. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) is the one that brought that to our attention, and I thank the gentleman for his effort in that regard. Since the Higher Education Act of 1998, Federal support of HSIs has increased to $86 million, and President Bush's budget, passed by the House earlier this year, would increase support for HSIs by an additional 3.5 percent. It is important to also note that today's recognition of HSIs and last week's resolution recognizing the Historically Black Colleges and Universities are a continued commitment by this Congress to increase access to post-secondary education for not only minority students, but to all American students. For example, Congress has made the Pell Grant program their highest priority for post-secondary education. Since 1995, we have increased the maximum Pell Grant every year. For 2002, the maximum Pell Grant reached a record high of $4,000, up from just $2,340 in 1995. This is a 71 percent increase in the maximum Pell Grant award and helps over 4.4 million low-income students each year. Next year, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will begin the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, where our main focus will center on examining Federal policy that provides access to a high-quality and affordable college education. During the process, we will continue to promote the role of HSIs in higher education and celebrate contributions they make to better the lives of so many young Americans. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to highlight California State University Northridge, a Hispanic-serving institution located in my congressional district in California. According to the U.S. Department of Education, CSUN ranked among the top 100 universities nationwide in graduating Hispanic students at the bachelor's and master's level. The university also places highly in Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education and Black Issues in Higher Education rankings for degrees awarded. I am pleased to be able to recognize the impact that institutions like Cal State Northridge make on local and national communities. I urge the House to adopt this important resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the time I control be controlled by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a House resolution honoring the contributions made by this country's Hispanic-serving institutions (HSI). In my congressional district in California, California State University-Northridge has been designated as a HSI and it is my privilege to recognize the dedication and service that it provides to the Los Angeles community. Under Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) is an institution of postsecondary education with a student enrollment that is at least 25 percent Hispanic, with at least 50 percent of its Hispanic students coming from low-income families. These institutions play a vital role in providing a quality postsecondary education for all Americans, and are deserving of our recognition and continued support. I am proud of the role that this body has played in aiding these important institutions. The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 created a program designed to aid HSIs in strengthening their institutions under Title V of the Higher Education Act. These chances included allowing institutions to use Federal money to build their endowments, and to provide scholarships and fellowships for needy students. Since 1998, we have increased our support for HSIs to $86 million. President Bush's budget, passed by the House in March, would increase support for these institutions by an additional 3.5 percent. We have also taken other important steps to serve not only minority students, but all American students. For example, the Pell Grant program is, and has always been, our highest priority for postsecondary education. Since 1995, we have increased the maximum Pell Grant every year. For Fiscal Year 2002, the maximum Pell Grant reached a record high of $4,000; up from just $2,340 in FY 1995, and a 33 percent increase from FY 1998 level. We have also passed the Higher Education Amendments of 198 to make college more affordable, simplified the student aid system, and stressed academic quality. That legislation ensured that student loans would continue to be available for all qualified students, and resulted in the lowest student loan interest rate in the history of the program. It also provided increased aid to the neediest students, strengthened important financial aid programs such as College Work Study, SEOG, Perkins Loans, and TRIO, and created the government's first Performance Based Organization (PBO) to improve service to schools, students, and parents. This Nation's HSIs play a vital role in educating America's citizens. It is my goal and the goal of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to build on the record of academic excellence of students attending HSIs. This resolution honors the important work done at HSIs, and encourages all students to attend college and prepare for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 540. Nine months ago, in his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush called on Congress to enact important new safe guards to protect the pensions of millions of American workers. The President called on Congress to move quickly to enact these important reforms so that people who work hard and save for their retirement can have full confidence in our retirement system. In response to the President's call, the House immediately took action by holding several hearings on the Enron Collapse and its implications for worker retirement security. We heard from hard working Americans who loyally dedicated decades of their lives to Enron only to loose their life savings when the company collapsed due to corporate corruption. These employees were not millionaire corporate big wigs. They were regular blue collar Americans who had diligently saved their hard earned money for their family's future. We also heard from honest employers who voluntarily offer their employees retirement plans. But the House did more than just hold hearings. In April, this body took action and passed a comprehensive Pension Security Act, which would give workers unprecedented new retirement security protections and new freedoms to diversify their retirement savings. The Senate has yet to pass a Pension Security Act. In April, the House took action and passed a Pension Security Act that would have helped protect thousands of Enron and WorldCom employees who lost their savings during the collapses due to corporate corruption. The Senate has yet to pass a Pension Security Act. Mr. Speaker, more than 160 days ago, the House took action to help hard working Americans protect their retirement savings. The Senate has not yet acted on the Pension Security Act. The President is waiting for a bill to sign to protect worker retirement savings from corporate meltdowns. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution because I strongly support the Pension Security Act passed by the House several months ago.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of House Resolution 525. In May, the House of Representatives passed a welfare reform bill that builds on the success of the 1996 law which has been nothing short of remarkable and has hushed the naysayers who said requiring welfare recipients to work for benefits would further bind poor families to a life of poverty. But the Senate has not acted on welfare legislation. In May, the House passed a welfare reform bill that will continue to dismantle the shackles of welfare that chain millions of American families to a life of poverty. Yet, the Senate has not acted on welfare legislation. In May, the House passed a welfare reform bill that includes significant funding increases for child care, boosting discretionary funding for the Child Care Development and Block Grant to $1 billion over 5 years. Still, the Senate has not acted on welfare legislation. The simple truth is that welfare reform based on work helped to lift 3 million children out of poverty. Employment of single mothers is at an all-time high at more than 70 percent, and 700,000 fewer single mothers are living in poverty today than in the 1990s. The bill passed by the House in May provides for 16 hours per week of education, training, and other constructive activities as defined by the State. The education opportunities, balanced with the 24-hour per week work requirements, are more than sufficient to help welfare recipients find fulfilling work that will help lead them and keep them out of a life of poverty. In my district in southern California, over the course of 5 years, going to school part-time, 16 hours a week, a student can earn an associate's degree and, in some cases, a bachelor's degree. With an associate's degree, a student can begin a fulfilling career at a number of well-paying jobs. The average annual salary of a mechanic in my State is $31,250; a registered nurse, $56,140; computer specialist, $45,380. Associates' degrees are offered in each of these professions. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and I believe that the House welfare reform passed by the House achieves the balance between the work requirements and additional education and training which will help pull millions of families from poverty.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 4866, the FED UP Higher Education Technical Amendments Act. I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking members, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for their support and leadership. The success of FED UP, which is short for Upping the Effectiveness of Our Federal Student Aid Program, and openness of the entire process should serve as a model of collaboration and partnership at all levels. When we began this process last year, I stated early on that I had absolutely no agenda to push; that my only consideration was to promote an initiative that benefits students so that we could increase access to higher education. To this end, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and I solicited comments from across the country, from college officials, administrators, and other personnel who operate America's institutions of higher learning in order to determine which regulations or statutory provisions could be modified or eliminated in order to remove regulatory burdens. We have 800 pages of Federal regulations dealing with higher education, and we were trying to simplify this process. While participating in the process, Richard Atkinson, president of the University of California, states ``Our efforts to keep tuition reasonable and affordable for students are undermined by the enormous compliance costs associated with Federal regulations. While we must ensure and document that Federal funds are spent properly, the current regulatory morass only increases costs and diverts faculty and staff from more productive activities.'' Peggy Stock, president of Westminster College in Utah, said she could not ``remember the last time someone asked us what was wrong and what we could do to make it better.'' In just 3 months, we set up a Web page, and we asked for responses from all the schools around the country; and we received over 3,000 responses as to how the process could be improved. These responses came from individuals at every type of secondary institution and from every part of the country. Once the responses were compiled, the committee worked with the Department of Education to assess which regulatory issues could be addressed immediately and which would need to be considered in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. With Secretary Rod Paige pledging to be a true partner throughout the FED UP process, the Department of Education addressed proposals that were strictly regulatory in nature. As part of the third step in the process, we began working on legislation to address additional statutory provisions that placed an undue burden on colleges, universities, and ultimately our country's students. These proposed amendments were slated to be noncontroversial and technical in nature. And all of our staff were in there; we were in there working together. As previously agreed to, and has been discussed repeatedly over and over again, all controversial ideas were to be taken offer the table and dealt with during reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. In fact, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), in asking that one of the issues that we are talking about be removed, sent a letter to me, and I quote from her letter: ``Our understanding was that this technical correction bill would not include any item that was controversial or which would be objected to by a significant number of Members.'' This process will begin with the commencement of hearings later this fall, when we start on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. That is when we will address the controversial issues that my colleagues are talking about. Over the last year, in an effort to produce this noncontroversial and budget-neutral bill, Members and staff have met with those from both parties, various members of higher-education associations, and the Department of Education. The results of these tireless efforts of the FED UP Higher Education Technical Amendments Act has support from every major college education association in the country and is cosponsored by the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and actually the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and Members from both parties. The thousands of students, parents, financial aid professionals, and college presidents who logged on are a key part of that collaboration. They are the experts. They are the individuals who must navigate the Federal student aid programs each day. And by logging on to our Web site, they gave us practical, more effective alternatives that will improve service to our Nation's students and reduce red tape for our colleges and universities. Federal student aid programs provide a valuable service. Because of the efforts of this Congress to provide increased funding for grants, loans, and other aid each year, millions of students are able to follow their dreams. While these higher-education programs do a tremendous service to students by opening doors of opportunity that can only be opened by higher education, they are far from perfect. The confusing, convoluted, bureaucratic red tape students often face when trying to obtain financial aid must be cut. Even though this vital piece of legislation includes numerous technical changes to the Higher Education Act, most of the changes in FED UP will directly improve service to students. The bill will help students avoid defaulting on their student loans by removing barriers to students seeking forbearance from lenders on student loan payments. It will improve the flow of information to students by expanding the use of technology on campus. It clarifies parts of the ``return of title IV funds'' policy to better protect students' grant aid when he or she withdraws from a college or university. It corrects a drafting error in current law that mistakenly prevents students attending nonprofit foreign veterinary schools from completing their education by making them ineligible for the Federal Family Education Loan program. Students, parents, and administrators have spoken, and their voice is clear: the Federal student aid program must be reformed to make it easier to navigate. This should be an example for all parts of Federal Government to work on. I strongly urge Members to support H.R. 4866, the FED UP Higher Education Technical Amendments Act of 2002, to return the Federal student aid program to its original purpose of aiding students.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 460) recognizing and honoring Justin W. Dart, Jr., for his accomplishments on behalf of individuals with disabilities and expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to his family on his death.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 460.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 460, which recognizes and honors Justin W. Dart, Jr., a man who was a tireless advocate on behalf of individuals with disabilities. The resolution also expresses the condolences of the House of Representatives to Mr. Dart's family on his recent death. Mr. Dart was known as a pioneer and leader in the disability rights movement, and his accomplishments and advocacy in that arena have spanned over 4 decades. Mr. Dart became a civil rights activist for individuals with disabilities following contracting polio in 1948. Mr. Dart served in many leadership positions within the area of disability policy and was appointed to such positions by five Presidents, five Governors, and Congress, by Republican and Democrat alike. Along with participating in national policy development, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Mr. Dart also sponsored formal and informal programs of independent-living training for individuals with disabilities. Again, I am pleased to recognize and honor the accomplishments of Justin W. Dart, Jr., and I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for presenting this resolution. I did not personally know Mr. Justin Dart, Jr., but I feel, through the eloquence of my colleagues, and having had the opportunity to assist and listen to them this afternoon, that I have a regret that I did not have the opportunity of meeting him personally. He must have been a very great man. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution in his honor.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Paul Priesz, Principal of Valencia High School which is located in the Santa Clarita Valley. Recently, the Association of California School Administrators named him the top secondary principal in the state of California. As June comes to an end and the school year closes, it is a fitting time to reflect upon the capable leadership of Dr. Priesz. He was assigned the formidable responsibility of planning and opening a new high school and has been the guiding influence at Valencia High School since it opened in 1993. Today, the school is one of the premier high schools in Los Angeles County. High school administration requires many qualities--including vision, dedication, patience, strength, energy, creativity, the competence to balance an impossibly busy schedule, a willingness to allow people to experiment, the expertise to support a wide variety of school programs and reforms, and the ability to understand the complexity of teens for whom each day presents a new crisis. Possessing all of the traits, Dr. Priesz is an exemplary high school principal. A dynamic educator who is committed to educational quality and academic excellence, Dr. Priesz has developed programs to meet the scholastic and social needs of all students. He gives abundant support to the handicapped and underrepresented population and avidly endorses extra-curricular programs to foster student growth and achievement. ``What is best for kids'' is the guiding doctrine for all decisions made at Valencia High School. Dr. Priesz is a dedicated leader who believes in his staff and students. He manages school programs by focusing attention on the importance of building collaborative relationships yet at the same time allowing everyone the creative freedom needed to accomplish their job. Dr. Priesz asks nothing of his staff that he is not willing to do himself, and he continually displays a sincere, caring demeanor. He is highly supportive of professional development and school reform initiatives in order to perpetuate a vigorous learning environment. Mr. Speaker, Valencia High School is fortunate to have such an extraordinary principal. I want to thank Dr. Paul Priesz for his leadership, inspiration and high standards. He has made a positive impact on thousands of students. In turn, Dr. Priesz is making our great nation a better place to live.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a resolution to honor the remarkable life of David March, a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff killed in the line of duty. On May 1, 2002, during a seemingly routine traffic stop, Deputy March, a 33-year-old husband and stepfather was shot and killed. Deputy March's life is that of a true American Hero. Even as a high school football and baseball star, his life long dream was to serve his fellow man through a career in law enforcement. During his seven years of service, Deputy March garnered the admiration and respect of his superiors and subordinates. A week before he was shot, Deputy March wrote these words to a friend in the Department. I feel I give a full days work when I'm here. My contacts with the public are positive. Most of all, I have learned to enjoy what I am doing. My goals are simple. I will always be painfully honest, work as hard as I can, learn as much as I can and hopefully make a difference in people's lives. May the tragedy of David March's death never overshadow the glory of his life.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to join several of my colleagues in introducing the FED UP Higher Education Amendments Act of 2002. This legislation is the result of a year-long endeavor to improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of the Title IV student aid programs through the review of overly burdensome and outdated regulations. Last year, the House Education and the Workforce Committee launched the FED.UP project (short for ``Upping the Effectiveness of our Federal Student Aid Programs) to identify and simplify burdensome regulations in the Higher Education Act of 1965 that work against college students and personnel. The initiative, which was started to bring some sense to the regulations that students and the higher education community must deal with on a daily basis, received over 3,000 responses from college officials, administrators and other personnel who operate America's institutions of higher learning. After all of the responses were catalogued, the Department of Education initiated a negotiated rulemaking process to consider the regulatory changes included in the project. These proposed amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 continue this effort to identify and simplify burdensome regulations that work against college students and personnel, and are non- controversial and technical in nature. They provide for improvements that will reduce red tape for colleges and universities and will improve the financial aid process for students. Enacting these changes now will allow the House Education and Workforce Committee to address large, more intricate proposals during the reauthorization of the HEA without being bogged down with technical and clerical issues. This legislation provides for the streamlining and increased effectiveness of many provisions within the HEA. It extends two provisions beneficial to both students and institutions scheduled to expire on September 30, 2002. Currently, schools with default rates under 10 percent for three consecutive fiscal years may waive a 30-day delay requirement for first-year, first-time borrowers. Schools meeting the same low default rate standard may also request one term loans in a single disbursement, rather than the required multiple disbursements. These provisions act as an incentive to schools to keep their default rates low and assist students in getting access to their loan funds on a more timely basis. A drafting error during the 1998 reauthorization of the HEA inadvertently removed the eligibility of not-for-profit foreign veterinary schools from participation in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. This legislation will correct that error and keep hundreds of students from losing their loan eligibility. This legislation also provides clarification for financial aid officers in the return of Title IV funds. It clarifies how the return of Title IV funds should be implemented for schools utilizing clock hours, and what percentage of funds need to be included in any return. The language also makes clear that Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership funds may be removed from the return of Title IV funds formula due to the mix of State and Federal funds at the school level. It clarifies that students who have been home schooled, and are treated as such under State law, are eligible for admittance into an institution of higher education as defined in the HEA and are eligible to receive financial aid. It also allows aid professionals to use professional judgment in determining financial need for a student who is declared a ward of the court. This bill allows for the use of technology wherever possible to enhance and improve communication and the transfer of information. This includes reporting by States in providing information on teacher quality and providing students with voter registration materials. This legislation allows student loan borrowers to receive more timely assistance from their lenders when they are seeking forbearance of loan payments. It allows a lender to accept a request for assistance over the telephone as long as a confirmation notice of the agreement reached is provided to the borrower and the borrower's file is updated. This eliminates the need for borrowers to sign paper documents requesting help and agreeing in writing to what they already have agreed to verbally. This language also aligns a rehabilitation provision within the Perkins Loan Program with the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The FED UP Technical Amendments Act corrects an administrative issue in the payment of insurance to lenders and reinsurance to guaranty agencies on borrower default claims when the borrower failed to establish eligibility for that loan. This change reinstates long- standing policy of the Department of Education in the payment of these specific claims, which was altered by a new reporting process put in place via a forms change. This legislation allows Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) to apply for HSI grants without having to wait two years in between applications. It also clarifies allowable uses of grant funds within the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program. It also provides clarification within the Federal TRIO programs that institutions with more than one campus may apply for separate grants to serve different populations at different campuses. This legislation also provides clarification as to what items must be included within the annual report of the Department of Education's Performance Based Organization (PBO). Finally, the bill corrects the names of the authorizing committees throughout the HEA and corrects a citation to a section of the law that had been changed several years ago. The FED UP Higher Education Technical Amendments Act of 2002 will take us one step closer to reducing burdensome rules and allowing financial aid administrators and others in the higher education community to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively. Program integrity and service to students remain the priority and this legislation accomplishes both. FEDUP has accomplished its goal of streamlining the current regulatory system to the extent possible, while maintaining or improving program integrity and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. In order to coordinate those activities funded under the Workforce Investment Act that are administered by local boards with one or more other programs listed in this bill, local boards and the entity that administers the other programs would need to submit a joint application to the appropriate Federal departments. As a result, local boards effectively can veto demonstration projects that the board believes do not enhance workforce development and improved service delivery simply by choosing not to join in the request. A State cannot seek to waive provisions within the Workforce Investment Act that impact the local delivery system without approval of the local boards. I will submit for the Record a letter from the National Association of Workforce Boards supporting the protection language included in the bill. National Association of Workforce Boards, Washington, DC, May 9, 2002. Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative McKeon: We are writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) to express our support for your efforts to establish increased linkages between the Workforce Investment and TANF systems. We appreciate your leadership on this and other issues that will ensure the continuation of a business- led system for workforce development. NAWB's Board supports the inclusion of waivers for WIA and other related programs in the TANF reauthorization bill, provided these waivers meet a set of critical principles. First, the system of waivers needs to clearly and carefully balance the interests of local communities, where services are provided and accountability can best be brought to bear, with state and federal interests. In short, we strongly support your insistence that any waivers must be subject to a joint agreement between the state and the local workforce board where the waiver would apply. By requiring both state local board approval of a proposed waiver you can ensure that both sides will negotiate in good faith, with the local workforce board representing the interests of businesses, education and service providers. Second, we believe that a sound system of waivers must protect the local strategic planning and governance structure that was set up through painstaking negotiations during passage of the Workforce Investment Act. That is to say that any system of waivers should reference or incorporate the provisions in Section 189(i)(4)(i). In particular we are concerned that the waiver structure protect the authority vested in local boards, as well as the local allocation of funding for the workforce investment system. Finally, the waiver system needs to be as broad as politically possible. Congress needs to ensure that the waivers include all major federal legislation affecting education, workforce and social service programs as it promotes a workforce system that is focused on the needs of both employers and jobseekers. We believe that the so called ``super waivers'' can succeed if they work to create a level playing field between state and local interests as communities grapple with how best to balance their economic development, education and life-long learning strategies. If, on the other hand, waivers are merely a way to shuffle which bureaucracy operates which portion of the workforce development ``system'' they will lead to disillusionment among our business community about the ability of public programs to respond to the new economy. Because our members serve on local workforce boards, they know first hand how difficult it can be to drive quality and flexibility in the public system. At the same time, they realize that a system of voluntary waivers offers a reasonable option to the gridlock that has too often prevented program integration. In addition to the inclusion of WIA in the waiver authority of the TANF reauthorization legislation, we encourage you to retain the positive provision of the addition of TANF as a mandatory partner in the WIA system that was added to H.R. 4092 during Education and Workforce Committee consideration. We would like to take this opportunity to support this provision, and urge you to retain it as TANF reform legislation is considered by the full House in the coming weeks. Again, we appreciate your continued efforts on behalf of the workforce investment system, and particularly in support of local workforce investment boards. We would appreciate the opportunity to review any proposed language to see that it meets the needs of local business-led boards and would be happy to meet with you or otherwise comment as you move forward on this issue. Sincerely, Kay George Hoch, Chairman. Robert Knight, President.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act. I want to thank the leadership and in particular the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and other members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce who have devoted countless hours to putting together a package that every Member of this body should support. Six years ago, the Nation's welfare rolls bulged with more than 5.1 million individuals and families. Today, the rolls have decreased tremendously. Between 1996 and this very day, over 3 million people have left welfare for work. Over 3 million former welfare recipients know the satisfaction of earning a day's pay for a day's work. As the debate goes forward on this bill, it is important to remember that the true benefactors of welfare reform are young Americans. Because of welfare reform, young Americans are able to see their parents get up each morning and go to work. Without this very basic ethic, those young people are at a great disadvantage, and it becomes difficult for them to escape the cycle of poverty in which their families have lived for generations. H.R. 4737 helps these families and builds on the success of the 1996 welfare reform. The work requirements were the centerpiece to welfare reform. It is only through work that individuals can get out of poverty and lead productive lives. The bill before us increases the work requirements to 40 hours of work per week. That is the bare minimum that most Americans work every week. That is only 10 hours more than the current requirements. For 24 hours, TANF recipients are required to be involved in direct work. For 16 hours, they may take part in educational or job training programs that will lead to self-sufficiency and a better life. The structure of the 16 hours is defined by the State. Understanding that child care is most important to helping families leave welfare, H.R. 4737 increases the already extremely high levels of funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant. The high level of funding is increased even as the number of families being served has dropped by over 3 million. The bill also provides State flexibility while maintaining State accountability by permitting States or local entities to integrate a broad range of public assistance and workforce development programs. At the same time, it is important that local areas created under the Workforce Investment Act be heavily involved in the process. Therefore, I am pleased that the bill provides provisions ensuring that local administering entities join in the flexibility application submitted to the Secretaries. This will, in effect, give the locals veto authority over provisions that they believe will not improve the quality or effectiveness of the programs involved. The results of welfare reform are clear. The work requirement has led 3 million families to live independent of government handouts. While it is important to talk about the significant reduction in welfare caseloads, the goal is not simply to move families off of welfare; the goal is to help families become self-sufficient, to end generations and generations of welfare dependency. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill.