Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Under TEA, the Secretary of Education is authorized to use a portion of funds reserved at the national level to continue the Troops to Teachers program, which was originally established under the Department of Defense in January, 1994, as part of the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 as a result of the gentleman's efforts.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the distinguished ranking member to a couple of things he said. I appreciate, and I would like to say that before the world, the fact that we did work together on a bipartisan bill. We ran into a glitch along the road, but this was a bipartisan bill, and my hope is that with final passage today, the world will know it is a bipartisan bill. A couple of things the gentleman talked about. The gentleman mentioned reducing the class size K through 3, but then he used K through 6 several times. In the bill that we have, it says reduce class sizes nationally in grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. So the difference is the substitute is a Federal mandate that says nationally reduce class size 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. And then as to the gentleman's question about who do we trust more, local or Federal Government, well, I spent 9 years on a school board. I do have great confidence in local control.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. I would like to open my remarks by thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the House floor. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, other members of our committee, and certainly the Speaker of the House, the majority leader, and other Members of the House leadership for their hard work on this issue. This legislation will make a significant and positive impact on how we prepare our Nation's teaching force by providing States and local school districts with needed funding to train high quality teachers and to hire new teachers where necessary. In the development of the Teacher Empowerment Act, we have made every effort to put together a bill that is in the best interest of children, parents, and teachers. We have also tried to include the best elements of teacher training proposals from the governors, the administration, and different Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis. The Teacher Empowerment Act was developed with three key principles in mind: teacher excellence, smaller classes, and local choices. The bill gives States and particularly local school districts the flexibility to focus on initiatives they believe will improve both teacher quality and student performance. In exchange for this flexibility, the bill holds local school districts accountable to parents and taxpayers for demonstrating results measured in improved student performance and higher quality teachers. This legislation encourages intensive long-term teacher training programs that are directly related to the subject matter taught by the teacher. We know that this works. If localities are unable to provide such professional development, teachers will be given the choice to select their own high quality teacher training programs through teacher opportunity payments. For the first time, we are giving teachers a choice in how they upgrade their skills. Our teacher opportunity payments will empower individual teachers or groups of teachers to choose the training methods that best meet their classroom needs. The Teacher Empowerment Act maintains an important focus on math and science, as under current law, but the legislation expands teacher training beyond just the subjects of math and science. The legislation ensures that teachers will be provided training of the highest quality in all of the core academic subjects. By combining the funding of several current Federal education programs, the Teacher Empowerment Act provides over $2 billion annually over the next 5 years to give States and, more importantly, local school districts the flexibility they need to improve both teacher quality and student performance. The bill also encourages innovation on how schools improve the quality of their teachers. Some localities may choose to pursue tenure reform or merit-based performance plans. Others may want to try differential and bonus pay for teachers qualified to teach subjects in high demand. Still, others may want to explore alternative routes to certification. Further, the Teacher Empowerment Act continues to support local initiatives to reduce class size. In fact, schools would be required to use a portion of their funds for hiring teachers. However, unlike the President's program, we do not dictate to the schools how much they spend on new teachers. Instead, schools will be allowed to determine the right balance between quality teachers and class size reduction. Instead of paying for 100,000 new teachers 1 year at a time, we are providing local school districts with the resources to train over 500,000 qualified teachers each year over a 5-year period. Finally, schools will also be allowed to hire special education teachers with these funds. All of these options are feasible in our legislation because we do not try to tell schools what their approach should be. We do not want to impose any one system that every school must follow in order to upgrade the quality of its teachers. That will not work, because one size does not fit all. The Teacher Empowerment Act is good, balanced legislation. It provides the flexibility that States and local school districts need to improve the quality of their teaching force with two goals in mind: increases in student achievement and increases in the knowledge of teachers in the subjects they teach. I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to support this important legislation as we work to improve our Nation's schools.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting process. We started this as a purely bipartisan bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I and members of the subcommittee held hearings. We really tried to learn what was really important. We went out to schools. We heard from experts on the subject. They said it was very important to have class size reduction, but it is also very important to have qualified teachers. So what we have tried to do with this bill is establish a balance. We were accused by some on the other side of making deals. I have to admit that we did. Whenever we found somebody on the other side that had something that made the bill better, we accepted it. I think that is what bipartisanship is. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be accused of making deals, and that is a bad thing, and then at the same time if we do not make deals, we are partisan. I think what we have done is something that we do not always have the opportunity of doing here. Once in a while we have the opportunity of doing what is right, and I think in this bill we have done what is right. Please support this bill, H.R. 1995.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, I would be pleased to work with both gentlemen on this as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. McKEON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, information recently provided to us by the Department of Education indicates that their incomplete records show the total amount actually expended by local school districts on math and science is less than $300 million.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who was placed on this committee by the last Speaker and the current Speaker by special assignment because of his background in the area of science, that he would really do all he could to see that we improved education in math and science, and he has done a great job to that end. I want to commend him for that at this time. In response to concerns raised by both the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who has worked with the gentleman to this end, a Member from the other side, a provision was added to the en bloc amendment to ensure that local schools will continue to expend the same amount of funds as they actually spent on math and science, as opposed to what they were required to spend under the Eisenhower program. It was understood, based on initial information from the Department of Education, that this amount of funds represents roughly $300 to $335 million appropriated for this program. However, the flexibility under the committee-reported version of TEA, Teacher Empowerment Act, has been maintained, providing local educational agencies the ability to seek a waiver from their State if they are able to demonstrate that their math and science needs are being met.

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

Mr. McKEON. The beauty of this bill is that we can have both, because we do the class size reduction, unless they do not have the adequate space or do not have the adequate teachers. Then we give them the ability to enhance the education of the teacher. This is the beauty of this bill, is we can have our cake and eat it, too. That is one of the great things about the thing we have put together in this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill that has been brought by the chairman and ranking member. I want to commend them for the great work that they have done on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by applauding the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Military Construction Subcommittee for what they have done to ensure our military personnel live and work in safe and quality facilities. H.R. 2465 provides $4.2 billion for military construction projects and $3.6 million for family housing. This is $3 billion more than the President had requested. I want to commend the Chairman for his tremendous efforts. I also want to highlight an issue of great importance to Lancaster--a major city in my district--and the military personnel in the state of California. In the last five years the California National Guard has lost the leases on five armories in the Los Angeles basin. This has led to severe overcrowding at the remaining armories. After examining 38 sites, the California National Guard chose the Antelope Valley Fairgrounds in the city of Lancaster as the site for a new armory. Congress directed the Secretary of the Army to submit a plan and schedule for the consolidation and replacement of existing armories by January 15, 1999. In order to meet this schedule, the design and construction of the armory must take place in FY 2000. The City of Lancaster recently learned that it secured $1 million in state funds for this project, and now it needs the federal matching funds of $500,000 in FY 2000 and $2.5 million in FY 2001 to ensure that the project is kept within the time frame of the consolidation plan. I would be extremely grateful if the Subcommittee would work with me to ensure this project can be completed on time. Once again, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his efforts in drafting this important piece of legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Regula, the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for his fine work on this legislation. However, I would also like to pay tribute to a provision within this legislation on the Pacific Crest Trial. The Pacific Crest Trail is a marvelous stretch of land that runs from California, through Oregon, and into Washington state. Established in 1968, this trail operates over 2,650 miles with a large portion of that land owned by the Federal government through the Park Service, Forest Service, or BLM. However, nearly 300 miles of this trail are located on simple right-of-passage easements across public land or along public highways. The land along the highways, it should be noted, were never intended as permanent routes and today have become extremely hazardous for users of the trail. It should also be noted that during the last 20 years, Congress has appropriated more than $200 million to the Park Service to acquire private land for the Appalachian Trail, an effort that is now complete. During this same time period, the Pacific Crest Trail, managed by the Forest Service, has received a fraction of that amount for land acquisition. As I stated earlier, the 300 miles of trail that run along dangerous throughways are the result of this failure. I am pleased to announce that Chairman Regula has agreed with many of my California Colleagues that this trail needs to become a priority. I am pleased that he saw fit to include a line-item of $1.5 million for this project in the Interior Appropriations Act. I am more pleased that the report language included will leave no doubt in anyone's mind of the importance that this project now holds. I would like to thank Chairman Regula on behalf of myself, my constituents, the many users of the Pacific Crest Trail for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 221, I was present, but was not recorded as voting. I should have been recorded as voting ``yea.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, for the last 2 days we have heard from many of our colleagues talking about what Washington can do to combat crime on our streets. The amendment that I rise in support of goes a long way to achieving this very goal. However, it accomplishes it in a way that combats the crime but leaves Washington out of the combat. I support this amendment because instead of a Washington-knows-best approach, States and local leadership are given the resources they need to design solutions best suited to combat violence in their streets. It accomplishes this by streamlining current law, reducing burdensome State regulations and providing States and local communities greater flexibility in addressing juvenile crime. The Goodling amendment begins with a basic acknowledgment that prevention is the key to stopping juvenile crime for most youth. It also puts teeth into this statement by combining current discretionary programs into a prevention block grant to States and local authorities allowing them broad discretion in how they use these funds. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1150, that I am a proud cosponsor of. This legislation and now this amendment will provide States and local governments the ability to be flexible in their approach while still maintaining a strong preventive record against juvenile crime. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their leadership and for bringing this amendment to the floor.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives a wonderful program that exists in the city of Santa Clarita called the ``Hero of the Week'' and those individuals honored in this program. The program is jointly sponsored by the City of Santa Clarita Anti- Gang Task Force and Mad About Rising Crime Santa Clarita Chapter under the direction of Mr. Gary Popejoy. Started by Maria Fulkerson and Lorraine Grimaldo of the Sant Clarita Anti-Gang Task Force, the ``Hero of the Week'' program focuses on more of the positive actions of our youth rather than the negative. The program honors students for their positive actions and choices they have demonstrated. The students from the Santa Clarita Valley Junior and Senior High Schools are recommended by teachers and principals based on their observations of the student exhibiting positive behavior. The students that are selected exhibit the qualities that we are looking for in future leaders of our nation. These students, many of whom have had previous problems of one sort or another, have made remarkable improvements in many different areas. I am pleased to honor these students today here on the House floor. On June 2, 1999 the ``Hero of the Week'' program honored 47 members of my community for their outstanding activities that truly made them heros in our neighborhood. These students have faced serious obstacles and, in many cases, faltered in the face of adversity. However, none of these students gave up. Their hard work and determination have truly earned them the title ``Hero'' in our community. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude these remarks by listing the 47 students honored by the city last week. I congratulate them and the sponsoring organizations for such a wonderful, positive program.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1401. I want to thank Chairman Spence and ranking member Skelton for their work in bringing this vital piece of legislation to the floor. As many of my colleagues follow the military conflict in Kosovo, they may be surprised to hear that much of our success has been a direct result of the B-2 stealth bomber and its critical role as a key strategic component of our armed forces within the US-NATO mission. Contrary to what opponents have claimed in the past, the B-2 has proved to be extremely durable and reliable, even after flying through terrible rain storms and skies filled with dense clouds. In fact, it was the first manned aircraft to penetrate the Kosovo region at the outset of the air strikes while other types of aircraft were deterred from the bad weather conditions. As the B-2 missions were increased with the progression of the air strikes, the accuracy and reliability of the B-2 was confirmed. The incredible success of our most advanced strategic bomber only proves how critical it is to our national defense strategy. With our national security at stake, I am very pleased that H.R. 1401 includes almost $500 million for the modernization of our B-2 fleet-- nearly $187 million more than the President had requested. These funds will be used to improve the B-2 stealth and communications capabilities, increase its memory capacity, and update targeting information to support reactive real-time targeting. Additionally, this critical funding will also provide for a software upgrade to increase the survivability and flexibility of the B-2 when attacking the most heavily defended enemy targets. I am proud to support H.R. 1401 and strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Castle, the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, Mr. Watts, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Pryce, and other distinguished Members of the House to introduce the Teacher Empowerment Act. This legislation will make a significant and positive impact on how we prepare our Nation's teaching force by providing States and local school districts with needed funding for the provision of high quality teacher training and for the hiring of new teachers, where necessary. In the development of the Teacher Empowerment Act, we have made every effort to put together a bill that is in the best interests of children, parents, and teachers. We have also tried to include the best elements of teacher training proposals from the Governors, the Administration, and different Members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis. I hope that by the time this legislation is considered by the full House, we will have a bipartisan proposal that will vastly expand training opportunities for our Nation's teachers and increase the achievement of all of our Nation's students. I intend to work closely with Mr. Martinez, the Ranking Democrat Member on the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-long Learning, and others, on a bipartisan basis, to bring this bill to the floor of the House as rapidly as possible. We believe that parents and other taxpayers have the right to information about student achievement and the quality of the teachers in their schools. Our bill holds schools accountable for raising student academic achievement, and we ensure that parents know the quality of their children's teachers. We encourage intensive, long-term teacher training programs, focused on the subject matter taught by the teacher. We know that this works. If localities are unable to provide such professional development, teachers will be given the choice to select their own high quality teacher training programs. For the first time, we're giving teachers a choice in how they upgrade their skills. Our Teacher Opportunity Payments will empower individual teachers, or groups of teachers, to choose the training methods that best meets their classroom needs. The Teacher Empowerment Act maintains an important focus on math and science, as under current law, but the legislation expands teacher training beyond just the subjects of math and science. The legislation ensures that teachers will be provided with training of the highest quality in all of the core academic subjects. By combining the funding of several current Federal education programs, the Teacher Empowerment Act provides over $2 billion annually over the next five years to give States, and more importantly local school districts, the flexibility they need to improve both teacher quality and student performance. This legislation also encourages innovation in how schools improve the quality of their teachers. Some localities may choose to pursue tenure reform or merit-based performance plans. Others may want to try differential and bonus pay for teachers qualified to teach subjects in high demand. Still others may want to explore alternative routes to certification. The Teacher Empowerment Act continues to support local initiatives to reduce class size. In fact, schools would be required to use a portion of their funds for hiring teachers to reduce class size. However, unlike the President's program, no set amount is required for the hiring of new teachers. Schools will be allowed to determine the right balance between quality teachers and reducing class size. Schools will also be allowed to hire special education teachers with these funds. All of these are feasible in our legislation, because we don't try to tell schools what the approach should be. We don't want to impose any one system that every school must follow in order to upgrade the quality of its teachers. That won't work, because one size does not fit all. The Teacher Empowerment Act is good, balanced legislation. It provides the flexibility that States and local school districts need to improve the quality of their teaching force with two goals in mind: increases in student achievement; and increases in the knowledge of teachers in the subjects they teach. I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to support this important legislation as we work to improve our nation's schools.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Hospital Week. It is a time when communities across the country celebrate the people that make hospitals the special places they are. The theme for this year's commemoration sums it up nicely: ``People Care. Miracles Happen.'' It recognizes the health care workers, volunteers and other health professionals who are there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, curing and caring, for their neighbors who need them. An example of this dedication is the Sexual Assault Response Service of Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster, CA--which is in my district. This wonderful program won the American Hospital Association's prestigious Hospital Award for Volunteer Excellence, which highlights special contributions of hospital volunteers. The Sexual Assault Response Service is a team of hospital volunteers that frees up hospital staff for other duties by offering specialized assistance to sexual assault victims, families, hospital personnel and law enforcement agencies. To meet the program's high standards, volunteers get more than 60 hours of training. Responding to a call from any area hospital emergency department, they provide support to victims while helping solicit histories, preparing evidence collection kits, assisting with medical and legal examinations, and overseeing the completion of state forms. Volunteers work with the district attorney's office throughout the court process and offer one-on-one counseling, a referral service, a lending library and community education. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Antelope Valley for this outstanding program and congratulate them for this prestigious award.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. A lot of the debate today, Mr. Speaker, has focused on Pell grants, but I also want to point out this does cover the Campus-Based Aid Programs which provide institutions with Federal support for grants, loans, and work-study programs. These require matching funds from the schools. It gives the schools greater flexibility to keep those in school that have the greatest need. And with requiring the matching funds, it is a multiplier and brings more money to the table to help those students that need it the most. There has also been some talk about the fact that this is a resolution and does not really carry the weight of law. It does state and it does show how we have performed the last 5 years. Since we have had the majority, we have increased Pell grants every year. It indicates our high priority for the Pell grants and campus-based programs and the fact that we continue to want them to be the highest priority of higher education.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Con. Res. 88, which sets forth specific priorities for higher education funding and proposes that we refrain from creating new education programs until we adequately fund these priorities. The top funding priority for higher education is the Pell Grant Program, and the goal is to increase the maximum award to students from low-income families to $3,525. This amount represents an increase of $400 to the maximum Pell grant award and would be the largest increase since the inception of the program in 1972. The resolution also recognizes the importance of providing increased funding for the existing campus-based student aid programs. These need- based programs provide financial aid administrators at colleges across the country with considerable flexibility in the packaging of financial aid awards that best meet the needs of their students. The Pell Grant Program is one of the largest voucher programs in the country, and it is considered the foundation program for all Federal student aid. Students eligible for a Pell grant can use that money to attend one of almost 6,000 postsecondary institutions in the country. The Pell Grant Program was created in 1972, and the goal of the program was simple. Congress wanted to assist students from low-income families who would not otherwise be financially able to attend a postsecondary institution. In the first year of the program, 176,000 students received Pell grant awards. Funding Pell grants at the level set forth in the resolution would make more than 4 million students eligible for Pell grants next year, including an additional 21,000 students in my home State of California. Ninety percent of the students who will receive a Pell grant come from families with incomes under $30,000, and 54 percent of those students come from families with incomes under $10,000. This is a program that simply continues to serve the vital purpose for which it was originally created. This is not the first time that we have stated our support for making the Pell Grant Program the top funding priority for higher education. On June 26, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and I sent a letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that began by saying, we greatly appreciate support for increased funding for the Pell Grant Program, and we believe it should be the top funding priority of all higher education programs. I continue to believe that the Pell Grant Program should be the top higher education funding priority. I also think a $400 increase to the maximum award is a very reasonable request. For more than 7 years, the Pell grant maximum fluctuated between $2,300 and $2,400. However, after years of stagnant funding levels, the Committee on Appropriations has shown overwhelming support for the program during the past 3 years by increasing funding for the Pell Grant Program by more than $2.7 billion. Had the administration not cut $250 million from last year's appropriation level for the Pell Grant Program in order to fund its other priorities, we would be well on our way to our goal of a maximum award of $3,525. In addition to the Pell Grant Program, this resolution supports increased funding for the campus- based student aid programs. While Pell grants open the door to postsecondary education for many students from low-income families, it is the campus-based programs that provide these same students some degree of choice in selecting a postsecondary institution. After years of double-digit increases in the cost of a college education, the maximum Pell grant no longer covers a large percentage of the cost of attendance at most public 4-year institutions in the country. However, a Pell grant, coupled with awards from the campus- based program, goes a long way in reducing the amount a student needs to borrow in student loans in order to pay the bills for tuition and room and board. In closing, I want to address some of the objections I have heard with respect to this resolution. We all know the budget caps are tight, and the Committee on Appropriations will have a difficult time in making funding decisions, but that simply supports getting our priorities on record. I have copies of testimony submitted to the subcommittee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) from various higher education organizations, and each one identifies certain funding priorities important to the particular organization. However, there are two consistent messages. The first is strong support for a $400 increase to the maximum Pell grant. The second is strong support for funding proven education programs, rather than creating new ones that take money away from the existing programs. Finally, do not misread this resolution. It does not say only fund Pell in the campus-based programs. It does not say that we should cut the class size teacher program. Unlike the President's budget that cuts several existing programs, including the Pell appropriation, impact aid, the Title VI block grant and others, this resolution does not propose cuts to existing programs. This resolution simply establishes funding priorities for higher education. We have many higher education programs that have been in existence a long time and serve students well, such as the TRIO programs, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need, Institutional Aid programs under Title III, and many others. We reauthorized these programs last year, and we support their continued funding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the following associations and organizations that have given their support for this resolution, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the United States Student Association, the Career College Association, the American Council on Education, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Coalition of Higher Education Organizations, the Association of American Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land- Grant Colleges, and finally, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution and the higher education funding priorities it establishes for the Congress and the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important resolution and in recognition of the hard work of our Nation's teachers. As a former member of the local school board and President of that school district for 9 years, as a father of six and grandfather of 16, I understand the crucial role that teachers play in the lives of our children and in our communities. We have for too long taken their role for granted and have come to expect our teachers to perform heroic acts of teaching despite ever-rising challenges. I believe that as a Nation we must no longer take for granted the ability for teachers to somehow magically prepare our students. We must join together at the national, State and, most importantly, at the local level in working together to address these challenges facing our teachers, our schools and our students. At the national level, we must ensure that Federal education programs are flexible enough to allow local schools to make decisions which meet their specific needs. At the same time, we must ensure that these funds are used effectively and that they are used for activities that demonstrate increased academic achievement for all students. I am pleased to say that as chair of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning, I am working with Members to craft a bipartisan bill which will address some of these important issues. I am especially pleased to be working with the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), who has deep insight into this important area. I would like to take just a moment, along with this resolution, to thank teachers who have had an impact on me personally. I have four younger brothers. We went to school in the Los Angeles unified school system. All five of us had Mrs. Peters for kindergarten. I can think back to teachers at all levels, high school, junior high, elementary school, university, that have had an impact on my life. I do not know that I ever took the time to thank them, I know I did not thank them adequately, for the job that they have done. There is probably not a day that goes by that I do not think of some lesson that I learned from some teacher. Probably outside of my parents, teachers have had more impact on my life than anyone else. I go visit schools whenever I am home in the district. I like to go in a classroom, probably for a selfish reason, because I always feel good when I leave, after seeing an enthusiastic, motivated teacher that is devoting and dedicating their life to helping our young people to make this a better world. Our district at home, each year the members of the community have a night where they honor teachers. I was not able to be there this week, but I would like to thank them for taking the time to honor our teachers, because I do think that that is very important. I tell teachers when I visit that you can count the number of seeds in an apple, but you cannot count the number of apples in a seed. One little seed can grow into a giant apple tree that grows apples for many, many years and has great impact. That is what our teachers mean to us.