Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3629, as amended, which makes technical improvements to sections 316 and 317 of title III of the Higher Education Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for introducing H.R. 3629 and bringing this matter to our attention. The bill we are considering today takes two technical improvements to title III that relate to tribal colleges and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. These institutions are located primarily in remote areas not served by other postsecondary education institutions. They offer a broad range of degree and vocational certificate programs to students for whom these educational opportunities would otherwise be geographically and culturally inaccessible. Under title III, grant funds are provided to postsecondary institutions for improving academic programs, for improving their management and fiscal operations, and to help institutions make effective use of technology. Funding is targeted to institutions that enroll large proportions of financially disadvantaged students and have low per-student expenditures. Mr. Speaker, last year, 17 institutions received grant awards under this program. One used its funds to add computer hardware and software to improve the college's physical management, academic programming, and student services. These improvements will include Internet access for instructors. Another institution is using its grant award to acquire new technology and provide staff development related to distance education programs. Another institution is using its grant to acquire computers and Internet access for its students in order to improve academic achievement and increase student retention. Others are using their grant funds for many similar purposes. The first technical improvement that we are making in this bill directs the Secretary of Education to simplify the application process for the limited number of institutions eligible for funds under this section 316 and 317. Currently, institutions spend a great deal of time and money preparing applications for funds under the highly competitive title III grant program. For poorer institutions, these costs are often prohibitive. However, if the process is simplified, it is possible that more of the poorer institutions will apply for assistance. The second improvement will allow these institutions to apply for a new grant without waiting until 2 years lapse after the expiration of a prior grant. Under current law, an institution receives a grant for a 5-year period and then must wait 2 years after the expiration of the grant before applying for another grant. This 2-year wait-out rule was part of the original title III legislation, and its purpose was to ensure that title III funding reached the maximum number of institutions. However, in the case of section 316 and 317 institutions, the 2-year wait-out rule is unnecessary. Based on the current funding available and the limited number of institutions eligible for this program, there is no need for a wait-out period. By removing this restriction, funds for institutional development can go to the maximum number of institutions that submit a qualified application during next year's competition. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education has included the elimination of the wait-out period in its lists of technical amendments to the higher educational amendments of 1998 and agrees that the wait-out is unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these technical amendments to title III of the Higher Education Act. I want to express my thanks again to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for introducing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Jo Anne Darcy on the occasion of her retirement as Senior Field Deputy for Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, in the county's Fifth Supervisorial District. Mrs. Darcy has served as Senior Field Deputy for Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, serving the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley, ever since Supervisor Antonovich was elected in 1980. She has diligently served the citizens of the Santa Clarita Valley in a wide variety of roles, from case work to law enforcement to parks, as well as representing the Supervisor at events in the district. She has performed her job with great dedication, energy, skill and obvious love for the people of Santa Clarita Valley. Mrs. Darcy is also the Mayor of Santa Clarita. I had the honor of serving with Mrs. Darcy on Santa Clarita's first elected City Council when the city was incorporated in 1987. She has served continuously on the City Council since then, having been re-elected to another four- year term in April 1998. She served as Mayor in 1990, 1994, 1999 and 2000. Mrs. Darcy has been a tireless and dedicated public servant, both in her elected and appointed positions, and in the many volunteer activities in which she has been engaged. These activities are too numerous to mention fully. However, some of them include serving on the California State Film Commission, chairing the film committee of the Newhall-Saugus-Valencia Chamber of Commerce; serving as Founding Officer of the Friends of the Libraries of SCV; co-chairing and serving as Executive Director of the Western Walk of Fame and Newhall Walk of Western Stars; Founding the Zonta Club of SCV; serving as Founding Member of the SCV Historical Society; Founding Officer to the Association to Aid Victims of Domestic Violence; President of the Santa Clarita Valley American Heart Association; Chairing an annual wine auction that Benefits the SCV Senior Center's Meals on Wheels Program. Mrs. Darcy has been named the Woman of the Year by the SCV Chamber of Commerce; the Outstanding Woman from the Soroptomists, the Citizen of the Year from the Santa Clarita Elks Lodge, and many, many other honors from community groups. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with Mrs. Darcy in her role as Mayor and City Council member of Santa Clarita. I wish her all the best in her retirement from Supervisor Antonovich's office.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I salute my constituent, a resident of North Hills, who truly embodies the spirit of national service. Erica DeSmith, who is assigned to the LAPD Devonshire Area, was selected as the Los Angeles Police Department's Reserve Officer of the Year for 1999 at the annual Reserve Award's Banquet on March 25th. As a Specialist Reserve Police Officer, Erica DeSmith volunteers her time to the Devonshire Area community-policing program four days a week, seven hours a day, and has amassed over 13,000 hours over the past 6 years. Officer DeSmith is the mainstay of the community-policing program who takes calls from community members who have problems ranging from graffiti to noisy neighbors to speeding on their streets. She handles the inquiries that do not need direct police response, thus saving countless valuable hours for police officers to focus on other duties and responsibilities. Officer DeSmith has established a solid reputation with the sworn officers, civilian employees of Devonshire Area, and the community; and is a person who can be relied on to get the job done. Her commitment to the self-excellence, her leadership qualities, and her ability to motivate her fellow officers and all add up to making her an outstanding public servant. Her tireless efforts and personal interest have contributed significantly toward ensuring the success of community based policing in the Devonshire Area. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the unbridled commitment and dedication of Los Angeles Police Specialist Reserve Officer Erica DeSmith. I also recognize thousands of her fellow officers, both sworn and reserve, who give so much of themselves to ensure the safety of our citizens and community, many times at the expense of their own families. Thank you for a job well done.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am a recent cosponsor of H.R. 3308, the Small Business Franchise Act introduced by Representative Howard Coble. Today, I include for the Record testimony from a recent Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee hearing on this legislation. During this hearing a constituent of mine, Patrick Leddy, testified about his dealings as a franchise owner. Because of his very moving testimony, I became a cosponsor of this legislation. I wish to thank him for his words and include them in the Record today. Statement of Patrick James Leddy, Jr. My name is Patrick James Leddy Jr. I have owned and operated a Baskin-Robbins 31 Flavors franchise in Newhall, California since August 1, 1986, a total of 13 years. I am also a 26 year veteran firefighter with the Los Angeles City Fire Department. I purchased my franchised business to supplement my income, and to prepare my wife and I for our retirement. In 1996 my wife and I became very discouraged with the manner in which our Franchisor, which is a wholely owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation, was treating its franchisees. After careful consideration and after seeing sales at our fellow franchisee's stores plummet as a result of the placement of new stores and drastic changes to the system which we had originally purchased, we decided to sell our store. In February of 1997, three months after notifying Baskin- Robbins that we were interested in selling our store, we received a notification that Baskin-Robbins was considering a location for a new store located in a shopping mall, a mere two miles from my store and well within the market from which we draw a large number of our customers. Later that month my wife and I met with our district manager to discuss our ability to sell our store and the tremendous impact the new store would have on our existing store. To our surprise the representative from Baskin-Robbins agreed with us, and suggested that if Baskin-Robbins were to go forward with this plan, how would we feel if they were to purchase our store, and then sell both our store and the new store as a package to a new buyer? We agreed that this would be acceptable to us. Whereafter, the Baskin-Robbins representative offered us $40,000 dollars less than what I had paid for this store seven years earlier, and after an additional $70,000 dollars I paid for improvements which were required by Baskin-Robbins. We were appalled at this offer, but were advised by the Baskin-Robbins representative that we really should considert his offer, because if Baskin-Robbins does elect to place this new store at the proposed location, our store wouldn't even be worth that amount. Thereafter in April of 1997, and pursuant to an internal policy of Baskin-Robbins, which is not binding on Baskin- Robbins, and which is rarely followed by the company, I submitted to my district manager my response to this Baskin- Robbins proposed new location. He assured me that he would notify me of any developments as they occur, and that we would be notified promptly, once a determination had been made. In June of 1997, after several unsuccesfull attempts to learn whether Baskin-Robbins would proceed with the new store my wife called our district manager and explained to him that we needed immediate information on what the company intends to do about this new site, because we have had several prospective buyers for our store that were disinterested once we disclosed to them Baskin-Robbin's plan. The Baskin-Robbins representative advised us not to disclose the information about the new store to our prospective buyers. In July of 1997, our local neighborhood magazine publications reported that a new Baskin-Robbins would be open two miles from our store. We were shocked. Two days after this news story appeared, and after numerous telephone calls to Baskin-Robbins on our part, we finally received official notification from Baskin-Robbins about the new store. We later learned that Baskin-Robbins signed the lease for this new store on May 13, 1997. On August 5, 1997, after the underhandedness that we had felt from Baskin-Robbins, my wife and I decided that in our best interest we should retain legal representation to help us resolve the matter with Baskin-Robbins regarding the encroachment issue and the subsequent issue of our inability to sell our store. In June of 1998 the new store opened, with their grand opening celebration following in August. As you can see on the enclosed charts, sales at our store have drastically declined as a result, and have effectively terminated our ability to sell the store at a reasonable price. While attempting to resolve matters through our attorney, Baskin-Robbins has become increasingly hostile towards us. They have begun arbitrarily rating us as ``C'' franchisees, when in the past, we had always maintained an ``A'' or ``B'' rating. In addition, they have brought against us a lawsuit, contending that we were poor operators. One week before the inspection that is the basis for their lawsuit however, a mystery shopper trained and employed by Baskin-Robbins rated our operation superior, as did the LA county Health Inspector. In closing, I would ask your full support in addressing the obvious imbalance in the relationship between franchisor and franchisee through legislation. I am one Franchisee of many that are so frustrated in the way that we are literally forced to do business. Many franchisees I now that have lost their businesses, are going to lose their businesses, or are just plain hanging in there because there's nothing else they can do. I am extremely fortunate that I have another profession to fall back onto, while others suffer from intimidation, or being afraid to stand up and say anything, for fear that they will be strong-armed into submission, as Baskin-Robbins has attempted to do me. Please give us the tools that we need to survive in this giant corporate world, so that us little guys can continue making those big guys who they are. Thank you.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in supporting the fight against diabetes. Today, nearly 16 million people in the United States have diabetes-- many of which are not aware that they have the disease. With every passing day, over 2,000 Americans discover they have diabetes. By the end of the year, almost 800,000 people will have been diagnosed as diabetics The most difficult part about treating and preventing diabetes is that most people are not aware they are diabetics until after they develop one of its life-threatening complications; including blindness, kidney disease, nerve amputations, and stroke. In fact, studies show that diabetes is the leading cause for blindness as well as kidney failure. Also, over sixty percent of diabetics suffer from nerve damage, which can lead to limb amputations. Diabetics are also two to four times more likely to suffer a stroke. Because of these serious complications, diabetes is one of the most costly health problems in America. It is estimated that the costs associated with diabetes treatments and overall health care for patients with diabetes costs $92 billion each year. Diabetics also incur almost $8,000 per year more in medical bills than those who are not diagnosed with diabetes. Due to the high cost and life-threatening implications of diabetes, I believe it is imperative that we raise awareness about the disease. Knowing the early signs of diabetes and its risk factors are a patient's best defense against diabetes. It would be a tragedy if more Americans were forced to suffer from diabetes without an increased effort to ensure people are aware of the steps they can take to best prevent the disease. Members of my own family have suffered from diabetes. I have witnessed firsthand the devastating effects of this disease and am committed to finding a cure. Like many of my colleagues here today, I am a member of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, chaired by my colleague from Washington state. We have worked tirelessly to increase the awareness of diabetes in Congress and to promote greater research into diabetes. For this reason, I stand in strong support of H. Res. 325. This resolution underlines the importance of increasing research funding for diabetes so that improved treatments and a cure may be discovered. It also highlights the need to raise awareness about the importance of the early detection and proper treatment of diabetes. I am proud to rise in favor of this initiative to help the millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes. I strongly support this resolution and sincerely hope my colleagues will join me today in passing H. Res. 325.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the victims of the terrorist attack in Yerevan last month. Like many of my colleagues, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the fatal shootings in the Armenian Parliament. For this reason, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 222 to denounce the terrorist attack and express our sympathies in mourning this devastating loss of the leadership in the Armenian government. When a tragedy as horrific as this one occurs, it is important to extend our support for the families of the victims as well as the people and leaders of Armenia. We must encourage them to follow the beliefs and ideals practiced by those who were victims of this tragedy. Since its independence over eight years ago, Armenia has struggled to promote democracy for its people. These important strides must not be forgotten during this time of mourning and great loss. It is my hope that the people of Armenia will continue build upon the principles of freedom they have worked so hard to achieve. For this reason, I commend my colleague and friend from California (Representative James Rogan) for introducing this resolution to condemn the attack and commend the leaders of Armenia for their commitment to democracy. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 41 commends the women who served in the military during World War II and their contribution to victory in that epic struggle. This resolution communicates a very simple statement about the importance of women who served the Nation in uniform in World War II. It is a statement that I suspect will be endorsed overwhelmingly today. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look beyond the simple statement contained in H. Res. 41 and examine the resolution in greater detail. I urge my colleagues to take special note of this important and long overdue resolution, because, if they are like me, they will learn a great deal about World War II and the contribution of military women. Mr. Speaker, the role of women in World War II was critically important to the war effort on many levels. From Rosie the riveter to the millions of homemakers tending their victory gardens, the contributions of women were vital to the allied victory. This resolution tells the story of a special group of women and their very, very direct contributions to the war effort. It is the story of the women who stepped forward when the Nation was at risk and volunteered to serve in uniform. Not only did women perform military duties with proficient skill, but often with incredible courage and at great personal sacrifice. They got the job done and, by doing so, freed men to be assigned to combat missions. I am very proud of the support provided by Congress to the Women in Military Service for America Memorial that was opened at Arlington Cemetery. But if this House is to faithfully honor the historical contributions of women in the military, we must adopt this resolution. I want to commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for introducing this resolution and bringing it to our attention. I think it is vital that this House and the Nation focus our full attention on this resolution. We must never forget the contributions and sacrifices of these American heroes, the military women of World War II. The world might well be a very different place if they had chosen to ignore the call to duty. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), author of this resolution.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 41.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 41) honoring the women who served the United States in military capacities during World War II and recognizing that these women contributed vitally to the victory of the United States and the Allies in the war, as amended.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for her leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for working with her on that, and all those who have spoken and those who were intending to speak and had to leave early to go back to their districts. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act. Not only does it focus on the need to help noncustodial fathers gain employment in order to pay child support, it also includes important changes to the Welfare to Work program. These changes are reflected in the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3073 offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). This substitute includes important provisions passed in the Committee on Education and the Workforce under H.R. 3172, the Welfare-to-Work amendments of 1999, and reflect bipartisan consensus among Members from both our committee and the Committee on Ways and Means. Just over a month ago, my Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Lifelong Learning held a hearing on the issue of welfare reform and, in particular, on the Welfare to Work program. I was encouraged by a report presented at that hearing by the General Accounting Office which found the Welfare to Work program to be providing an incentive for greater collaboration between welfare agencies and the job training system. This is an issue I believe is critical if these Federal programs are to be cost-effective, efficient, and avoid duplication. This hearing also highlighted the frustration of many States and localities regarding several aspects of the Welfare to Work program. Specifically, they noted the State eligibility requirements that have limited their ability to serve individuals clearly in need of services, but who simply do not meet the program's targeted criteria. I am pleased the Johnson substitute includes relief to these agencies by providing more flexibility in designing local programs to address the significant barriers to employment facing those who are still on welfare today. In addition, this legislation includes several other important provisions which, taken together, expand flexibility for how these funds are used and which cut down on burdensome red tape requirements that have hampered the program's effectiveness. It is my hope that we ensure States and locals are able to use these funds effectively as part of an ongoing successful strategy to forever change the nature of welfare. Indeed, these strategies are beginning to show some very encouraging news. The Department of Health and Human Services recently completed its annual review of welfare reform and provided clear evidence of this success. Specifically, the number of families relying on public assistance has fallen tremendously. Income among those leaving welfare has increased. Employment rates among single parent mothers have increased, while poverty rates have fallen. These are all indeed reasons to be encouraged by welfare reform. However, welfare reform will not continue to be the success that it is today if there is not a focus on the unique needs of those individuals who have far greater barriers to employment than those who have already left public assistance. We know from the experience of States such as Wisconsin that these individuals can and are making a successful transition into employment and towards self-sufficiency. However, it takes hard work, dedication, high expectation, and the types of assistance provided through the Welfare to Work program for this to happen. The changes we are making to this program today will help ensure these funds are an effective tool in these efforts to assist these individuals. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for taking the time to set up this special order to give us a chance to talk a little bit about what we are trying to do in education on our side of the aisle. Last year, early this year, we in our subcommittee started holding hearings on what we could do to improve and to help education. We were specifically looking at what we could do to help improve teaching. We started holding hearings around the country and here in Washington and people came and testified before us, people from various phases of education, administrators, teachers, school board members, parents, and they all said one thing in common, that the most important person in teaching is the parent; number two, the next most important person is the teacher. I think we all agreed on that and in a bipartisan way we moved forward and crafted legislation that said we would send money to the local school districts and let them decide how they would spend that money. We gave the highest priority to classroom reduction, class size reduction, because we felt that was a very high priority. However, if the district was unable to hire qualified teachers, we said that they could use that money to train the teachers that they now had. We had a young man, a young educator, African-American from Washington, D.C. come in to testify. He had been teaching, he said, for a couple of years, and he felt very inadequate. He was put in a third- grade class and was told to teach these children how to read. He knew how to read and the principal said, you know how to read, teach them how to read. But he had never in his education had a class on how to teach reading, and he was very frustrated. He felt like he was not doing an adequate job and he was ready to leave the profession. Fortunately, somebody was able to get him to a class where he was able to learn how to teach and he was doing a much better job, his students were prospering, he was feeling better about himself and stayed in the profession. I have some real concerns about hiring a lot of people that may not be adequately prepared. In my own State of California, we reduced class size a couple of years ago, we put that as the number one priority from the governor, they mandated from the State headquarters class size reduction, and it has resulted in over 30,000 underqualified teachers in California. Another example, Jacques Steinberg of the New York Times wrote that 58 percent of newly hired teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which is part of my district, are not certified. Instead, some were hired solely on their experience of leading church or camping groups. I am not saying that these are not good people and I am not saying that they are not concerned and they are trying to do their best, I am just saying that they are not prepared. We said in our bill that you take the money and you decide what is best for your local school district. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), myself from southern California, all have different kinds of districts. I served for 9 years on a local school board. I was very frustrated with the mandates coming from Washington, or the mandates coming from Sacramento. That was one of the reasons why I ran for Congress and why I am happy to be on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and why I wanted to, to see if we could not try to solve a problem. Many Democrats joined with us in this legislation on teacher empowerment. They felt like it was the right thing to do. We talked and said, once in a while you can do the right thing here. But it is like the President is stuck on this 100,000 teachers and no matter what we do or say, he says, we are not leaving town until we give him a program for 100,000 teachers. We say, we have the program. The only thing we are saying is, we are not going to run it out of Washington, we are going to let the local people decide. The money is there. Take the money. If you need it to hire teachers, do it. If you need it to train teachers, do it. If you need it to provide merit pay to ensure that your teachers do a better job or the better teachers are rewarded, do it. If you need it for tenure reform or other innovations, do it. But you have the responsibility. You have the ability. I represented our area in the State school board association for the time when I was on the school board. We had 6,000 locally elected school board members in California. They were good people. They were sincere. They really wanted to do what was right for the children. But their hands in most cases are tied, because of mandates that come out of Washington. If we send this money out and say, you can use it because the President says so for a Federal mandate to reduce class size, K-3, to 18 children, I do not know where they got that magical number, but that is what they said and that is the only choice you have, and like the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, his district probably will not see any of that money. Your districts may not see some of that money. But what we are saying is use it to improve the teachers that you now have. Help them do a better job. We did a press conference today and outside we were talking to a reporter. And there was one of our security people standing right there, a mother; and I could see, she heard us talking and I could just see she wanted to enter into this conversation. And the reporter was asking questions, well, do you feel like you have reneged because you agreed to the President's 100,000 teachers last year and now you are backing out from it? I said look, we are not backing off of that at all. We are just saying that instead of Washington having to decide, we let the local people decide. Ask this lady right here. She looks like a mother. Ask her if she wants to have the best qualified teacher or if she wants the smaller class size. We say, she can have both. I have six children that grew up through the public education system. I have 17 grandchildren now growing up through the public education system. I have talked to my daughters, and I have talked to my daughters-in-law; and I find out what is going on in the school and they say look, if we have a chance to get the best teacher in the second grade class, and all teachers are not equal, if we have a chance to get that teacher and the class size is 25, worse is the teacher that they just hired to fill a Washington mandate and maybe made the class size 18, if I had my choice, I will take the teacher, the good, qualified teacher in the 25-student classroom, because I know my student will get a better education than they will in a smaller class size with a poorly prepared or inadequately prepared teacher. All we are saying, we are not fighting over the money, we are not fighting with the President. We are saying, Mr. President, join us. Call this your bill. Make it the Clinton Teacher Empowerment Act. I do not care. But let us put the students first, let us put our children first, and let us let their parents at the local level, the school boards at the local level be involved in the decision. Let them decide. Because one-size-fits-all out of Washington will not work. We are going to hold on this. We think this is important. If we have to stay here, Mr. President, until Christmas, if you have to miss your trip around the world to stay here to work with us on it, let us do it; but let us remember the children first. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I heard a story over the weekend. One of our good Senators from the other body was having a discussion with one of the Federal bureaucrats and the Federal bureaucrat said, I resent what you are saying; I resent what you are proposing. I want you to know that I love your children every bit as much as you do. The Senator said, oh, yeah? What are their names? I go visit a lot of schools and I see principals go into classrooms and they know their names; they know the children. Are we to say that they are not going to do what is best for the children, at least as good as what they would do out of the White House. I propose that they would do much better. Let us give them the opportunity. Let us send the money back to them, and let them hire and train and help their teachers, and let us remember the children.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I would just like to talk a little bit about my family. I very fortunately have a wife of about 38 years who is a wonderful woman and has been a great partner to me all through our life, and we have six children, three girls, three boys. My girls, daughters, have all graduated from college. The boys are trailing behind a little bit. They have not done quite as well as their sisters, but they are doing well in life and in providing for their families. We have 17 grandchildren. We have nine granddaughters and eight grandsons, and two on the way. The thing that I am really proud about is that these daughters that graduated from college have done so without any special help or special benefit. We taught our children that they are all good and that they can all do good things. They do not need special handouts or special help. I have a little granddaughter that is competing. There is a boy in her class and she is in the second grade and one test he will be the best in the class and one test she will be the best in the class. She is very competitive, does very well in sports, in soccer and in her school work. I just hate to tell her that she needs special help to compete against the boys or other girls, and I just think that it would be good to be able to treat girls and boys as equals and give them both a chance to compete and do well in life. That is all I want to say on the amendment, but I would like to say a little bit more about the bill. I rise in strong support of the Student Results Act of 1999. H.R. 2 builds upon the public education reforms this Congress has already considered. First I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for their hard work. As a member and subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am well aware of the time and effort it takes to put legislation together and to get it to this point, and I wanted to commend them for their work and their dedication and leadership in bringing this here. Also, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member with whom I had the opportunity of working in the last Congress on our Higher Education Act, I know he has worked very hard and diligently on bringing this bill to the floor. At the beginning of this year, House Republicans outlined our top priorities, and strengthening public education was at the top of that list. Enacting the Student Results Act will move us another step toward that goal. H.R. 2 reauthorizes title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and other programs, which are the cornerstone of the Federal Government's role in education, to provide assistance to our most disadvantaged children. While we have spent billions of dollars over the last 30-plus years, the research shows that these programs are not meeting the goals of the act. So we must change the failings of the past and replace them with real results, and we can do that by voting for H.R. 2. For example, H.R. 2 places new qualifications on teachers' aides who are hired with title I funds. Too often they are providing instruction with little training. In fact, under current law these aides are not even required to have a high school diploma. All we ask for is that if they are going to be working in the classroom, they must meet basic standards. Quality teaching is mandatory in order for these children to succeed. Finally, I would like to take a moment to discuss an issue that is very important to my home State of California and many other States with fast-growing populations of poor children, the title I funding formula. Five years ago when we last authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we called for periodic updates to the formula so funding will go to where the most disadvantaged students are living. However, that provision has never been fully implemented because the Senate has substituted a hold-harmless each year the Labor/HHS does their appropriation. This simply is not fair and punishes our Nation's neediest students. I am pleased that this year's bill retains the changes we made and also calls on the appropriators to abide by the authorizing language. For these reasons and more, I call on my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, last fall the President signed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 into law after overwhelming bipartisan votes in both the House and the Senate. Three months later in their budget submission, the administration was back proposing deep cuts in the student loan program designed to jeopardize the lender-based Federal family education loan program. Lenders, in cooperation with guaranty agencies, have served students, families and institutions for 30 years. They currently provide $25 billion annually for new student loans. This represents 70 percent of all student loans made each year. The administration's proposal to recall all the remaining reserve funds held by guaranty agencies does nothing more than severely hamper the ability of these agencies to provide quality services to students and their families as well as institutions of higher education and lenders participating in the program. At the same time, it gives the Department of Education more money to spend on promoting the direct student loan program and other initiatives of the President that are not supported by a majority of the Congress. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 included the recall of more than one-half the reserve funds held by the guaranty agencies. The remaining reserve funds may only be used for the payment of insurance claims filed by lenders in the event a student fails to pay his or her student loan. I believe that allowing guaranty agencies to retain some reserve funds is a prudent course of action. Lenders are not going to invest the $25 billion annually if they have concerns about being paid in a timely fashion when a student fails to pay on a loan. The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 included several provisions designed to promote cost effectiveness in the administration of the student loan program by lenders and guaranty agencies. In order to see results, we must give the newly restructured financing plan included in the amendments time to work. Any changes in costs or revenues as proposed by the President may cause the failure of many of these entities and then we will have a true crisis in the availability of student loans for students across the country. I urge my colleagues to reject this offset by the administration and vote down this legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in supporting this bill that addresses the problem of the rising number of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. Under this plan, we will be able to extend health care options to the 44 million people in our country who remain uninsured. We know that most people without health insurance have one thing in common: they cannot afford health care. They are either self-employed or they work in a small business that cannot afford to pay for health benefits. The Quality Care for the Uninsured Act creates Association Health Plans to combat the high cost of health care in our country. Small businesses and self-employers will now have the ability to join together under the umbrella of trade and professional organizations to buy health insurance for themselves and their employees. Association Health Plans will bring more choices and greater flexibility to those who need it most. Estimates show that small businesses will save between 10 and 20 percent on health care costs with Association Health Plans. By cutting costs, we can expand health care coverage for the millions of hard-working Americans that are currently uninsured. I commend Representative Talent and Representative Shadegg for their dedication to this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote 418, on September 14, 1999. Please let the Record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy if he would do so. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman as part of the negotiations on this bill in order to obtain a one-time emergency funding designation for an important project in my district. The Los Angeles County sanitation districts urgently need funds to replace a sewer line beneath the Santa Clara River in my district. Following the El Nino storms in the winter of 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency declared Los Angeles County a disaster area. While the sewer lines have not yet leaked, storm-related erosion in the river bed did cause significant damage to the lines. Further erosions may very well cause the rupture of the lines releasing up to 8 million gallons of raw sewage per day into the Santa Clara River and eventually the Pacific Ocean. To permanently solve this problem, the sanitation districts have proposed a sound, one-time engineering solution that involves moving the pipelines deeper underground. This proposal is the best solution, both from an engineering standpoint and from an environmental standpoint as well. Unfortunately, both FEMA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service disagree on the manner to solve this problem, leaving it up to Congress to fill the void and protect both the residents and the environment of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. I appreciate the work of the chairman to date on this legislation and look forward to working with him to obtain a solution to this issue as the legislation moves along in the legislative process.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act. For years, the issue of ergonomics has been fiercely debated. Unfortunately, many would like to make this a partisan debate, when, in fact, we all want what is best for the American worker. Therefore, in order to best address the issue, last year Congress and the President agreed to fund a comprehensive 2-year study to look at the scientific evidence surrounding repetitive tasks and workplace injuries. I supported this provision when it was included in last year's omnibus bill because it provided a commonsense solution to a very difficult issue. As such, I was alarmed when I heard that OSHA was moving forward earlier this year on a proposed ergonomics standard barely before the study had begun. Consequently, I cosponsored H.R. 987 and voted for it when it was considered by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. To me, this bill is very basic. It simply says that the Labor Department must wait to move forward until the fundamental medical and scientific questions surrounding ergonomics are answered. We owe that to the Members of this body who supported the provision. We owe that to the taxpayers, who funded this million dollar study. We owe it to the thousands of businesses who would be accountable to the new standards. And most importantly, we owe it to the American workers who deserve a safe and healthy workplace. Again, I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 987.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is also correct. The defense authorization bill includes language which, in addition to making minor changes to the current program, will continue the Troops to Teachers within the Department of Defense during the fiscal year 2000 while providing for the orderly transition of this program to the Department of Education beginning in fiscal year 2001. The provisions under TEA reference back to the modifications of the program made under the defense bill, and will ensure that this program continues as part of the TEA program, beginning in fiscal year 2001. I commend the gentleman from Colorado for his efforts in this area. He serves as its subcommittee chairman on the Committee on Armed Services, and has done an outstanding job in this area. I look forward to working with him as we move forward under this important program.