Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, our forests are a valuable natural resource. They offer beauty and recreation for many across the Nation. My own hometown of Sacramento is but a couple of hours from Tahoe National Forest. Throughout the year, Sacramentans can be found taking advantage of this proximity, using the park for hiking, skiing and camping.

With 18 national forests and 20 million acres of national forestland in my home State of California, we face the challenge of a wildfire on almost an annual basis. Many western States deal with forest fires every summer.

In addition, Americas's forests also endure damage from hurricanes, floods, mudslides and our natural disasters. All of these events require swift action from our Nation's brave network of first responders as well as tailored government policies to help forests regenerate over the long term.

The rule before us would authorize debate on H.R. 4200, a bill which its supporters see as a way to speed forest recovery by loosening or eliminating some Federal regulations protecting our public lands. Such a proposal demands scrutiny and debate.

To warrant congressional action, there must be a demonstrable need for such a proposal and reliable proof that the proposed solution meets that need. Unfortunately, the evidence on the need for this bill points in both directions. While some sources claim that this bill would improve the state of forests, other scientific accounts indicate that H.R. 4200 would actually hurt the forest recovery process.

We do know that it would create a loophole to allow some industries to skirt compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Supporters contend that the logging industry is saddled with unfair government regulations which impede their postfire operations and ultimately hurt the forests themselves. At the same time, 35 percent of all logging in national forests in the past 6 years came from timber salvage in ways similar to this bill, accounting for $35 million to $40 million annually. The only difference is that now these activities have to comply fully with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act before moving forward.

While a CBO estimate projects that this bill would increase timber profits from salvaging by 40 percent, the first question which must be answered is not one of business, but one of science. Does the policy recommended under this bill make sense?

As I stated at the beginning, the evidence is too murky to tell, and we need to spend more time learning about and debating this issue before we act. I am encouraged that the Rules Committee recognized this and made four amendments in order which will add to the public discourse on this bill.

However, it is difficult to ignore the arguments of those opposed to H.R. 4200. One such voice comes from a January 2006 issue of Science Magazine. In that issue, a group of researchers published a study of logging in the aftermath of the 2002 Biscuit fire in Oregon. This peer- reviewed study concluded that the impact of logging in these areas reduced regeneration of new trees by some 70 percent.

This single scientific article is not the final word on such a complicated matter for sure, but its findings are consistent with a good portion of the larger body of literature on this subject. And when so many experts express concern with H.R. 4200, Members would be well advised to listen to their reservations and take time to reconsider the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record a letter to Congress signed by 169 experts in the areas of biology, ecology and forest management. This group of researchers includes UC Davis professors Dr. Robert Coats and Dr. Peter Moyle, as well as 13 other Californians.

March 14,2006.

Dear Members of Congress: The United States has made great

strides by relying on science to inform our decision making.

Science helped us travel to the moon; advance medicine and

health; and understand the complex web of life on land and in

rivers, lakes, and oceans. Science has also opened our eyes

to the workings of forests and provided blueprints for

federal plans to better protect the abundant natural

resources of our public lands.

When we, as scientists, see policies being developed that

run counter to the lessons of science, we feel compelled to

speak up. Proposed post-disturbance legislation (specifically

the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act [H.R. 4200]

and the related Forests for Future Generations Act [S.

2079]), crafted as a response to recent fires and other

disturbances, is misguided because it distorts or ignores

recent scientific advances. Under the labels of ``recovery''

and ``restoration,'' these bills would speed logging and

replanting after natural disturbances.

Although logging and replanting may seem like a reasonable

way to clean up and restore forests after disturbances like

wildland fires, such activity would actually slow the natural

recovery of forests and of streams and creatures within them.

Many scientist-reviewed studies and syntheses (please see the

selected citations appended to this letter) have recently

come to this conclusion. For example, no substantive evidence

supports the idea that fire-adapted forests might be improved

by logging after a fire. In fact, many carefully conducted

studies have concluded just the opposite. Most plants and

animals in these forests are adapted to periodic fires and

other natural disturbances. They have a remarkable way of

recovering--literally rising from the ashes--because they

have evolved with and even depend upon fire.

We are concerned that H.R. 4200 and S. 2079 will bind us to

land management practices that, perhaps logical in the past,

are no longer tenable in the light of recent scientific

understanding. Specifically, post-disturbance logging impedes

regeneration of forest landscapes when it compacts soils,

removes or destroys so-called biological legacies (such as

soil organic material, seeds in the soil, large standing and

downed trees), damages riparian corridors, introduces or

spreads invasive species, causes erosion, delivers sediment

to streams from logging roads and steep slopes, degrades

water quality, and damages populations of many aquatic

species. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on

Resources (November 10, 2005), eminent forest ecologist and

University of Washington Professor Jerry Franklin noted that

logging dead trees often has greater negative impacts than

logging of live trees. He concluded that ``timber salvage is

most appropriately viewed as a `tax' on ecological

recovery.''

Beyond those concerns, post-disturbance logging often

intensifies the potential severity of future fires by

concentrating the slash from logging at or near the ground.

Rather than leaving plant material standing--and providing

perching, nesting, and feeding sites for wildlife--such

logging abruptly moves the material to the ground. Most of

this material would naturally fall to the ground, adding

important supplies of nutrients and energy to the forest

floor and structure in the form of woody debris to stream

channels. But this naturally happens over decades, not in

the relatively short time associated with a logging

operation. Advocates of post-disturbance logging may argue

that this slash can be disposed of with controlled burns

and other treatments. Yet such treatments can severely

damage underlying soils, imposing other taxes on natural

recovery.

One additional tax concerns us. Postfire logging taxes the

public treasury. Recent analysis of postfire logging

operations after Oregon's Biscuit fire of 2002 shows that

costs of the logging operations exceeded revenue by about $14

million for logging that removed more than 53 million board

feet of timber (DellaSala et al. 2006).

Science provides the best insight into the real

consequences of our policies and actions. Ironically, this

legislation is crafted to ignore the science by waiving

environmental reviews, reviews that would make use of the

scientific knowledge often available only because of

expenditures of public funds. Failure to conduct full

environmental reviews informed by that science will

inevitably lead to ecological and economic harm from post-

disturbance logging.

In short, neither ecological benefits nor economic

efficiency result from post-disturbance logging. We therefore

urge you to defeat these legislative efforts because they

will set back forest recovery. We urge you to work with your

fellow lawmakers to craft legislation that will rely on the

most up-to-date scientific knowledge to protect the natural

resources of the nation's public lands.

Sincerely,

Isabella A. Abbott, Ph.D., Wilder Professor Emerita, Botany

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.

Paul Alaback, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, University of

Montana, Missoula, MO.

James P. Amon, Ph.D., Professor, Wetland Biologist,

Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University,

Dayton, OH.

Thomas H. Anderson, Ph.D., Professor, Geology, Department

of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh,

Pittsburgh, PA.

Robert Angus, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, University of

Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Julian D. Avery, Avian Ecologist, Eastern New Mexico

University, Portales, NM.

William L. Baker, Ph.D., Department of Geography,

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Mark Bamberger, Ph.D., Professor, Geology and Environmental

Sciences, Miami University, The Union Institute & University,

and Capital University Oxford, OH.

Linda Sue Barnes, Ph.D., Professor, Biology (specialty

Botany), Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC.

Frank Barnwell, Ph.D., Professor, Ecology, Evolution, and

Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Carol J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Austin Peay

State University, Clarksville, TN.

Craig W. Benkman, Ph.D., Professor, Zoology and Physiology,

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

David H. Benzing, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, Oberlin

College, Oberlin, OH.

May R. Berenbaum, Ph.D., Swanlund Professor and Head

Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

Robert L. Beschta, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Forest

Hydrology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Alfred Beulig, Ph.D., Professor, Biology, New College of

Florida, Sarasota, FL.

John G. Bishop, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology,

Washington State University, Vancouver, WA.

Scott Hoffman Black, Ecologist/Entomologist, Executive

Director, Portland, OR.

David E. Blockstein, Ph.D., Chair, The Ornithological

Council, Washington, DC.

Jane H. Bock, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, Ecology and

Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Reed Bowman, Ph.D., Associate Research Biologist, Head,

Avian Ecology Lab, Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I noted at the beginning of the debate, 169 scientists, all experts in the field, oppose this bill because its policies will impede the national forest recovery process. The preponderance of scientific literature supports this assumption in their opinion. The letter concludes with the following: ``Science provides the best insight into the real consequences of our policies and actions.''

I could not agree more. There seems to be a disconnect between the policy recommended in this bill and the consensus among the scientific community. For that reason, I cannot support the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Folsom Dam, a one million acre-foot multiple-purpose reservoir near Sacramento, California, that was completed 50 years ago this month, in May 1956. Severe storms have hit the greater Sacramento metropolitan region a number of times in the last 50 years and without the Folsom Dam, Sacramento would undoubtedly have flooded and caused millions of dollars of damage to the region. As local, State, and Federal officials gather to ether to celebrate this significant achievement, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in commemorating the 50th anniversary of the completion of the Folsom Dam.

Folsom Dam was initially authorized as a 355,000 acre-foot flood control unit, but in 1949 it was reauthorized as a 1,000,000 acre-foot multiple-use facility. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began building the dam in October 1948 and officially completed construction in May 1956. Even before the facility was completed, Folsom Dam was already storing water and was finished just in time to contain flows from a winter storm that filled the dam in a week. This first test of Folsom Dam proved that it would be able to successfully contain flows from severe storms and thereby prevent major flooding in Sacramento. Each year since 1956, Folsom Dam has prevented potential flooding from winter storms and spring snow melt.

After the dam's completion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers transferred Folsom Dam to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for coordinated operation as an integral part of the Central Valley Project. Although its primary purpose is flood control, Folsom Dam stores water for irrigation and urban use as well as for electrical power generation, salinity control in the Bay-Delta, ecosystem restoration, and recreation. Directly below the dam is the Folsom Power Plant consisting of three generators that produce almost 200,000 kilowatts of clean, renewable electricity to meet the need of nearly 10 percent of the power used in Sacramento each year.

The largest demand for water stored at Folsom Lake has been from California's vast agricultural needs. The crops grown from water stored at Folsom include beans, almonds, apricots, asparagus, peaches, tomatoes, walnuts, and dozens of the other fruits and vegetables that drive the State's economy.

Moreover, Folsom Lake State Recreation Area ranks as the most popular lake in the California State Parks and Recreation system with more than 1 million visitors annually. At the lake, visitors can enjoy themselves with such activities as boating, fishing, hiking, cycling, running, camping, and picnicking.

For 50 years Folsom Dam has provided the residents of Sacramento with increased flood protection, recreation, water storage, and power. With proposed modifications to Folsom Dam in the pipeline, Californians will enjoy even greater flood protection in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, as residents of Sacramento gather to commemorate this significant milestone, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the 50th anniversary of Folsom Dam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a distinguished woman who has tirelessly served the Sacramento area for many years. Jan Stohr will soon be retiring from the Nonprofit Resource Center as its Executive Director. As her colleagues, friends and family gather to celebrate her retirement, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding citizen of Sacramento.

When she steps down, Jan will leave behind a long list of accomplishments and a career devoted to helping others. She has been the driving force behind the creation of multiple Sacramento based nonprofits that continue to thrive decades after their founding.

In 1976, as a member of the Junior League, she initiated the establishment of the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Sacramento, CAPC, and a few years later was instrumental in the development of the Sacramento Region Community Foundation. Due to the successful efforts and outreach of CAPC, thousands of children have been spared from being victims of abuse; and since its founding, the Sacramento Region Community Foundation has given out 44 million dollars in grants.

The cornerstone of Jan's work in Sacramento, however, has been her longtime commitment to the Nonprofit Resource Center. The Center began in 1988 with Jan's help and has since blossomed into the place where nonprofits can turn to for assistance in writing grant proposals, securing funds and developing solid management practices. She has served as the Center's Executive Director since its establishment in 1988. Located in downtown Sacramento, the center now assists nonprofits throughout northern California.

Additionally, Jan has given her time by serving on the board of directors for numerous non-profits in the Sacramento area, including the Community Services Planning Council, the United Way, and the Mountain Valley Chapter of the American Leadership Forum. She also seen by many as a leader in the nonprofit field and has been active with the California Association of Non profits' Nonprofit Policy Council, UC Davis's Community Development Graduate Group and the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

Through her work, Jan has been awarded with numerous recognitions, including the Association of Fundraising Professionals' Outstanding Fundraising Executive Award and the United Way's Distinguished Service Award. Many more awards and accolades will certainly follow as she transitions into retirement.

Mr. Speaker, as Jan Stohr enters retirement, I am truly honored to pay tribute to one of my dear friends and one of Sacramento's most honorable citizens. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Jan and her husband Phil continued success and happiness in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are now considering allows for general debate of the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill and also makes in order a limited number of amendments.

The annual defense authorization is one of the most critical bills Congress considers. It serves two roles. First, for national security, it is a blueprint to ensure our military has the resources and tools to meet any threat from abroad.

Second, and just as important, this bill provides for the men and women standing on the front lines of our Nation's defense. These men and women work tirelessly to protect this country. It gives me great pride to support the most professional and dedicated military in the world.

For all that we ask of them, these individuals, be they members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserves or National Guard, ask very little of us in return. What they ask is that we provide the equipment they need to get the job done, provide for them and provide for their family.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is with these two key points in mind, our national security and our duty to our troops, that many of us were dismayed by several of the President's proposals for the Defense Department.

Our National Guard is an important source of strength for this country, both overseas and here at home. Whether they are risking their lives in combat or overseas or bringing order to a stressful situation after a natural disaster, it is clear that our National Guard is worthy of our strong support. The twin challenges we faced this year with Iraq and Hurricane Katrina could not have made this point more clearly.

I would like to thank the committee for preserving our Guard strength despite the President's recommendation to Congress to reduce the strength of the Army and National Guard by 17,100 and the Air Guard by 5,000.

From California alone, about 9,100 of our National Guard soldiers have been called to active duty. Almost 3,800 are still deployed, and another 2,300 are expected to be called up. Among those who recently returned after an 18-month tour are 350 soldiers from the 1-184 and 174 members of the 2668th Transportation Company. Both groups are from my hometown of Sacramento. Weakening the Guard in this manner only serves to weaken our security.

The strains of our current force strengths are already evident: In Iraq, too many Guard and Reserve have borne a heavy burden, some with multiple tours of duty. At home, we must have a strong responsive Guard if we are to be prepared for future natural disasters. Louisiana, facing one of the Nation's worst natural disasters, found its response efforts further hamstrung when one-third of its National Guard was serving in Iraq.

I also appreciate the committee's decision to include $300 million for equipment for the National Guard. This is a strong acknowledgment of the very real impact the war in Iraq is having on the Guard, and it is a strong signal that to be prepared in the future current preparedness is essential.

At a time when we are relying so heavily on our Armed Forces, there was also an attempt to urge Congress to allow an increase in premiums and fees for the military's health care plan TRICARE. Thankfully, this bill contains no such ideas, and I applaud the committee's decision to work in a bipartisan fashion to meet the needs of our troops. However, I am deeply concerned about one recommendation made that the committee did accept. This proposal would result in increases in TRICARE prescription drug copays.

If passed without further amendment, this legislation would double copays for generic drugs, and raises the costs of name-brand drugs 75 percent.

This potential increase in copays could be devastating to a young family. It is not enough to exempt mail orders from this hike. Our troops should have a guarantee that as they are serving on the front lines, their families back home are not presented with impossible choices because of financial hardship.

I mentioned the 2668th Transportation Company having recently returned from Iraq. During their deployment, I was privileged to sit down with the family members of these soldiers. They conveyed to me that for their family, the last thing the spouse serving overseas should be worrying about is whether their family is provided for.

The esteemed ranking member on the committee, Mr. Skelton, proposed an amendment in committee which would have blocked these large copay increases. Unfortunately, it was narrowly defeated, by just two votes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan collaboration between Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton has yielded a thoughtful, balanced defense authorization bill that seeks to meet our current and future defense needs. They should be commended for their hard work. However, there are still areas within this bill that can be improved. As we move to floor consideration, we have an opportunity to make this bipartisan bill even better.

Still pending before the Rules Committee are more than 90 amendments covering a host of critical issues. This includes Ranking Member Skelton's proposal on TRICARE prescription drug copays and Mr. Israel's correction to the guidelines for military chaplains.

Other amendments not yet allowed on the floor concern our Nation's Iraq policy, abuses of military contracting, and boosts to our critical nonproliferation initiatives.

It is my hope that when the Rules Committee reports out the second and final rule today these amendments will be made in order. Allowing these amendments to be debated on the floor will continue the committee's bipartisan precedent, something this body would benefit from, as well as show the issues addressed in this legislation, so critical to our Nation's well-being, the respect they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, this month we continue a nearly three decade tradition of Asian Pacific American Heritage. Without the sacrifices and contributions that have been made by Asian Americans, the United States would not be the world leader that it is.

During this special month we have the opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to the contributions of the 15-million strong Asian Pacific American community--from I. M. Pei, Maya Lin, and astronaut Ellison Onizuka, to Amy Tan, Yo Yo Ma, and General Eric Shinseki. Our Nation would not be what it is today without their immeasurable input. Their unique contributions enhance the moral fabric and character of this great Nation.

As we celebrate the contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to the whole of the Nation, we must rededicate our efforts to ensuring equality and opportunities so that all Americans have a chance to reach their full potential. Together, we can make the American dream a reality for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have lost faith in Congress--as seen in the dismal 30 percent approval ratings. It demonstrates that our fellow citizens believe Congress no longer keeps their interests at the forefront of its mind. Instead, they've learned that special interests get the first, and sometimes the only say, in this House.

They read in the paper about how some Members pay coach fares, but fly in luxurious corporate jets.

They've read reports about a Member who opened up defense contracts to the highest briber. And were only caught because a few, intrepid local reporters were better policemen than the gridlocked House Ethics Committee.

Because they know their elected representatives are often forced to vote on legislation that hasn't been available long enough to read.

What if, after someone signed papers on a new home, the bank inserted an extra page of regulations into the agreement? And the bank then claimed that the new homeowner's signature was proof they agreed to it? That person would be outraged, and justifiably so.

But last December, during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations conference report, 40 pages of text were inserted into the agreement after conferees had signed it. This text gave inappropriate immunity to makers of avian flu vaccines. It was done, quite literally, in the middle of the night. Sadly, there was no outrage from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It was business as usual under this House leadership.

Yet I must report with deep regret that the bill before us does nothing to address these issues. At best, the Majority's proposal only papers over the deep divide between Republicans and most Americans on how Congress should conduct itself.

In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to allow Members 24 hours to read legislation before a floor vote on it. It would seem like exactly the kind of approach that our constituents want. But, the Majority rejected in Committee mark-up in addition to blocking it from coming to the floor for debate.

I also offered an amendment that would require a public vote by conferees on all conference agreements, Again, my amendment goes to the real abuses that our constituents are concerned about. But again, the Majority rejected it.

It is perhaps the ultimate irony--and the highest level of hypocrisy--that the House is debating a bill intended to increase transparency under a restrictive rule. Democrats have consistently identified abuses of power in how this Congress conducts business. And now we see those same abuses being used to prevent true reform from even being debated in public.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have reached their limit with the conduct of this House. Soon, they may take their ball and bat and go home. They'll tune us out forever. Click off C-SPAN. Walk away, disgusted by the very process that is supposed to represent them. We must enact real reform before its too late--reform that raises the bar on both lobbyists and Members. That is not this bill, and it cannot be this bill under the straightjacket laid down in this rule. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, reject this bill and start over.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to California's Asian Pacific State Employees Association as they celebrate their 31st anniversary and honor two of Sacramento's most outstanding citizens. Genevieve Shiroma will receive the President's Award for her distinguished career and advocacy in support the Asian Pacific Islander community and Raynor Tsuneyoshi will be honored with the Members Award for his dedication to APSEA and State employees. I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting the Asian Pacific State Employees Association, as well as Ms. Shiroma and Mr. Tsuneyoshi for their accomplishments.

The Asian Pacific State Employees Association, formerly known as the Asian State Employees Association, was founded in 1975 for the purpose of working toward achieving equal opportunity within the State work force through professional development and community empowerment. The Association's vision is one of Asian Pacific State employee serving, enhancing, and leading State government agencies and their community.

Objectives adopted by the Association include advocating for Asian Pacific Islander State employee interests; providing an Asian Pacific network for its members and employers; advancing personal and professional development of its membership; consulting with members facing adverse action or other employment problems; working with the community to promote career opportunities, professionalism, cultural pride, self-esteem, and citizenship; and providing services and interchange with community, academic, and business groups.

Benefits and services offered by the Association include employee development, networking, scholarship opportunities, communications, and celebration of Asian Pacific contributions. At present time, the Asian Pacific State Employees Association has over 1,000 members statewide and includes chapters in the Southern, Central Valley, and Bay Area. Officers frequently serve on legislative fact-finding committees, and provide testimony before the legislative committees regarding advocacy and affirmative action policies.

I also would like to acknowledge and congratulate APSEA's special honorees. Through her work at the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and California Air Resources Board, Genevieve has constantly advocated for policies that benefit all Californians. In Sacramento, she continues to make her mark as a civic leader by working with numerous non-profits and currently serves as president of the Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District's Board of Directors. Ray Tsuneyoshi is the director of the California Department of Boating and Waterways and serves on the National Boating Safety Advisory Council. He is known by many as one who all State employees can turn to for assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the Asian Pacific State Employees Association has evolved into a leading organization within the State, a dynamic force striving to improve the quality of life of its members and the general community. I am confident that Asian Pacific State Employees Association will continue to do great work and yield tremendous benefits to the Asian Pacific Islander State workers of California. I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing the Asian Pacific State Employees Association continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the budget the House will debate tomorrow will keep us on the same irresponsible and unsustainable path that America has been traveling for the past 5 years. As a consequence of massive tax cuts, this budget continues to run dangerous fiscal deficits . . . while under-investing in programs vital to developing future generations of Americans.

For instance, the President's budget freezes funding for Head Start. As a result 19,000 children will have to be cut from Head Start next year. When I was home in my district, I toured the Nedra Court & Whispering Pines Head Start programs. They offer comprehensive child development programs vital to women's economic well-being and the ability of their children to succeed in school.

I understand we are in a tight fiscal situation and we need to be realistic. But we need to start making smarter spending decisions--like ensuring children succeed in school and that parents have the resources to support them.

Yes, we need to be making tough choices, but not on the backs of women and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution. The impact this budget will have on families demonstrates how misguided it really is. Our Nation has had a long-standing commitment to investing in medical research. We all know someone, a friend or a relative, who has fought breast cancer. Each one is an inspiration as they exhibit a reservoir of strength and perseverance.

This is an issue that is very close to me as members of my family have been diagnosed with the dreadful disease.

When I am home in Sacramento, I make it a priority to meet with survivors. As each woman shares her personal battle with me, the one thing they all reiterate is how appreciative they are that research and technology exists to help them win their fight with cancer, and they ask me to express their appreciation to my colleagues for their continued support of the medical research programs that have driven the development of life-saving techniques and technology.

One example is innovative advances that the UC Davis Cancer Center located in my district has made. Last year, its researchers discovered a new method to improve early detection of breast cancer. As that group of survivors has emphasized, early detection is essential to surviving breast cancer.

Tragically, this budget underfunds critical medical research. As a result, dynamic institutions like the UC Davis Cancer Center will not have access to the same level of Federal resources as they did in last year's budget.

What do you tell the children or the spouse of a woman who may have benefited from additional cancer research, but will not now because of this budget?

The fact is this budget chooses tax cuts for the very, very, very wealthiest instead of investing in medical research. This is a choice that Congress is making.

We need a budget that makes sense for America's families. I think about my 2\1/2\-year-old granddaughter, Anna. It is Congress' responsibility to invest the resources today so that Anna and her friends have at least the same opportunities that you and I have had. To accomplish this goal, we must devote long-term resources to health care, education, and scientific discovery. Yet with this budget, we are reducing our capability in these areas while continuing to run a massive deficit. So not only are we not investing in Anna and her friends, but we are passing our debt to them.

Congress cannot continue to run this government in the same selfish, shortsighted manner that we have over the past 5 years. Congress risks breaking America's foundation of opportunity and prosperity and imperiling the quality of life for our children and our grandchildren.

When we talk about the quality of life, that means your grandchildren and those of you who may hope for grandchildren. They may not have access to world-class education. It means that the Annas of our country may not benefit from the world's best health care system or be a part of the most innovative and productive economy. It means that citizens of the United States may look at foreign countries and see people who have better opportunities and better lives.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and vote in favor of Mr. Spratt's alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time as we continue into part two.

Today, we are considering a second rule to make in order amendments to the Republican majority's version of the higher education reauthorization. I had hoped we would have had the opportunity to continue a meaningful debate about how to best assist families and students across this Nation trying to pursue the college dream because a college education plays such a critical part in our lives.

As children, we all play at grown-up roles, dreaming of what we may be when we grow up, a teacher, an astronaut, a doctor, a scientist, an underwater adventurer or perhaps even a Member of Congress. Well, an education is what turns those dreams into reality, and with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we could have had an opportunity to play a role in encouraging these children's futures.

But to do that, we need to be looking at a reauthorization that reinforces our Nation's longstanding commitment to providing educational opportunities for all Americans, but alas, at the start of this year, my colleagues across the aisle pushed through the budget reconciliation package that cuts student loan programs by $12 billion, the single largest cut to the Nation's Federal student aid programs ever.

Middle-income families are hard-pressed to keep up with rising tuition costs. Due to record high financial barriers, high school graduates who are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college are unable to do so.

While college tuition has continued to rise far faster than the cost of living, the maximum Pell Grant level has remained virtually constant, thus forcing many qualified students to postpone or cancel their dreams of a college degree or to incur significant debt in the form of loans.

Clearly, this bill has room for improvement. We could be debating a number of thoughtful amendments that would help substantially increase our investment in student loan programs, recruit teachers and develop a high-skilled workforce. However, fewer than one in five amendments was made in order.

Take, for example, the amendment offered by Representative Inslee to recruit Head Start teachers. I remember visiting the Nedra Court and Whispering Pines Head Start program in my district. The 60 students at each site definitely kept those teachers busy. This is a challenging job for which the $20,000 salary really is not much of an incentive.

Yet, last year, the House passed H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act, to reauthorize the Head Start program. Contained in that legislation was an unfunded mandate requiring Head Start teachers to obtain a bachelor's degree.

Representative Inslee offered a straightforward amendment to increase student loan forgiveness programs to $17,500, which is the same level allowed for other targeted forgiveness programs for high-need professions. However, we will not be allowed to debate this amendment because the Republican majority are limiting the democratic process.

And those $12 billion in cuts from the Deficit Reduction Act, Representative Emanuel had an amendment that would restore the $12 billion to student aid programs cut in the Deficit Reduction Act. I think I hear about the negative impacts of these student aid cuts at least every other day, whether I am home in Sacramento or here in Washington, D.C. I find it hard to believe every other Member is not hearing this as well. But that amendment was not made in order.

Nor was the bipartisan Student Aid Reward amendment. At no additional cost to taxpayers, the STAR amendment would generate more than $12 billion in additional college scholarship aid.

Representatives Holt and Kind also crafted an exceptional amendment to promote students to study and enter into careers focused on math, science, engineering and technology. At a time of increasing concern about America's competitiveness in the world, these are fields we must promote to develop an engaged workforce.

I recently toured the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics in my district. This center explores how light and lasers can be applied to medical procedures, making for less invasive treatments and better diagnoses of cancer. The center has dozens of math and science graduate students assisting with research alongside the Nation's leading biophotonics experts.

Unfortunately, today we are sending a mixed message to students: We need you to pursue math and sciences, but we will not ensure that you can afford the education to enter these fields.

Today, the economic, social and civic importance of a college education has never been more important. Yet, college enrollment rates in the United States are stagnant. As more and more baby boomers begin to retire, we will be facing a crisis in the employment market if we cannot develop a highly skilled and trained workforce. This must be a national priority, but apparently not for this Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to continue debate on a bill that forms the backbone of the opportunities our Nation's students may have at our Nation's colleges and universities. We must get it right which is precisely why this House must reject the rule before us.

As I reminded my colleagues yesterday, the House reauthorized the Higher Education Act in 1992 and in 1998 in a very different way than we have seen in the 109th Congress. Historically, any amendment to the Higher Education Act that was printed in the Congressional Record ahead of time could be offered on the floor.

The broad consideration those rules provided yielded reauthorization measures with broad support in the House. Each of those years, the rules, the bills and the conference reports passed either by voice vote or by overwhelming margins.

So my colleagues will forgive me when I place the historical record on reauthorization next to this year's bill and ask: What happened?

Instead of a bipartisan bill, we see the Higher Education Act torn in two by the majority, solely so some of its provisions could be used to cut more than $12 billion from student aid partially to finance the majority's tax cuts. Instead of careful floor consideration of several different policy approaches, we saw 118 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules but only 23 amendments were made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of all of the amendments to H.R. 609 submitted to the Committee on Rules but not made in order under either of the two rules.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 97--(Late) Requires institutes of higher

education to request emergency contact information on

enrollment forms.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 98--(Late) Allows students, whose parents

refuse to provide financial information on FAFSA forms, to

receive unsubsidized loans.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 99--(Late) Provides right of action for

students to sue IREs for violations of privacy rights.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 100--(Late) Provides that federal aid be

given without regard to university aid, which could then be

given on top.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 101--(Late) Requires personal computers

that are disposed of by IHEs be fully scrubbed of all

personal information.

Andrews (NJ)/Price (GA)--No. 105--(Late) Requires IHEs to

distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with

the other general disclosures they are required to provide.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 106--(Late) Protects the award levels of

institutions that report at least at 75% of their students

come from families with incomes that are within 150% of the

poverty line.

Andrews (NJ)/Price (GA)--No. 117--(Late) Requires IHEs to

distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with

the other general disclosures they are required to provide.

Berman (CA)/Bono (CA)/Goodlatte (VA)/Hoyer (MD)--No. 61--

Requires colleges and universities to report whether they are

taking steps to prevent illegal downloading of copyrighted

material on their campus information technology systems.

Bishop (UT)--No. 32--(Withdrawn) Ensures that state and

local education officials, as well as private schools and

parents of home schooled students, retain control over

secondary school curriculum for purposes of eligibility under

the new Academic Competitiveness Pell Grants program.

Potential control over this curriculum was improperly given

in-part to the Secretary of Education by the portion of the

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which created this program.

Bishop (NY)--No. 34--Increases oversight on the

administration of the ability to benefit test.

Bishop (NY)--No. 36--Blocks any Department of Education

funds from being used to recall Perkins loan funds.

Bishop (NY)--No. 37--Extends the Tuition Deduction for

Higher Education through 12/31/2011.

Cole (OK)/Payne (NJ)--No. 2--(Withdrawn) Strikes Section

402(c) from the bill to eliminate the 10 percent set aside

for novice TRIO applicants.'

Davis (IL)/Owens (NY)/Pickering (MS)--No. 80--Includes

predominantly black institutions into existing higher

education efforts to strengthen the ability of minority-

serving institutions to attract, retain, and graduate low-

income students.

Davis (IL)--No.81--Re-extends Pell eligibility to

individuals in prison in an effort to increase successful

transitions into the community and reduce recidivism.

Davis (IL)--No.82--(Withdrawn) Revises the study on

minority graduation rates that was included in H.R. 609 as

reported by Committee to be consistent with recommendations

made by the Department of Education and the National Center

for Education Statistics.

Davis (CA)--No. 14--Prevents contributions made by military

service members to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGJB) program from

causing any reductions to a veteran student's eligibility for

federal student financial aid.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 16--Provides grants to states and local

education agencies seeking to create teacher preparation

activities. In order to qualify, agencies must have a written

agreement with a local college or university where the

teaching residents will enroll and complete a Masters Degree

in teaching; teaching residents will spend no less that 10

months in a classroom with an experienced mentor teacher; and

teaching residents must sign a written agreement with the

local education agency agreeing to teach in that district for

a minimum of five years.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 17--Instructs the Secretary of Education

to reduce the number of questions on the Free Application for

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form by 50 percent within 5

years.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 18--Simplifies the application process

for the neediest students with automatic qualification for

the maximum aid awards through federal means tested programs

(such as Free and Reduced Price School lunches). Raises the

automatic zero income threshold to $25,000 (from $20,000) and

adjusts the threshold annually according to the Consumer

Price Index. Also eliminates certain nontaxable income data

elements from the FAFSA form.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 19--Restores the $12 billion to student

aid programs that the Deficit Reduction Act cut.

Engell (NY)--No. 88--(Late) Expresses the sense of the

House of Representatives that, in an effort to raise

awareness about sexual assault, all colleges and universities

should provide a training course to incoming students to

educate them on sexual assault.

Etheridge (NC)--No. 47--Adds Fayetteville State University

to the list of schools eligible for funding under Title III B

of HEA.

Fattah (PA)--No. 107--(Late) Establishes a new and distinct

Dual Emollment Section as an addendum to the current GEAR UP

program. This section is essentially an additional

programmatic element that would specifically target

resources and services towards the promotion of dual

enrollment among low income students participating in GEAR

UP programs throughout the country. The language was

drafted in a manner that adds a new section to GEAR UP,

and attaches a separate appropriation for this section,

$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be

necessary for each of the succeeding five years. In short,

dual/concurrent enrollment is defined as the practice by

which high school students may enroll in college courses

while still enrolled in high school. Students receive

college credits but are not required to apply for

admission to the college in order to participate.

Fattah (PA)--No. 108--(Late) Adjusts the minimum

scholarship amount in which grantees are required by law to

distribute in accordance with the requirements of the program

from the maximum Federal Pell Grant to the minimum Federal

Pell grant awarded.

Fattah (PA)--No. 109--(Late) Creates legislative action to

take precedence over current agency regulations which prevent

new funds appropriated under new authorizing legislation to

be used to provide services under old authorizing

legislation. With this amendment, funds will be permitted for

use with current GEAR UP students who have not yet graduated

from high school.

Gingrey (GA)--No. 104--(Withdrawn) Ensures economically

eligible students enrolled in a full-time, university level,

academically gifted program, but are of traditional high

school age, qualify for Pell Grants. Students affected by the

amendment are full time university students who reside on

campus as a requirement of the gifted program. The students

do not attend high school courses, nor will they return to a

high school classroom as a student.

Grijalva (AZ)--No. 58--Offers loan forgiveness for teachers

who work in schools located on Native American reservations

or in Indian Country who complete five years of service.

Grijalva (AZ)--No. 59--Offers loan forgiveness for

educators working at high poverty (Title I eligible) and

large free-and-reduced lunch population Border Schools within

the 100 mile region of the US-Mexico border who complete 5

years of service. Seeks to reduce the burden of student debt

for Americans who dedicate their careers to service in areas

of national need along the border.

Grijalva (AZ)--No. 60--Offers loan forgiveness for teachers

who work in rural schools located in low-income communities

who complete five years of service.

Holt (NJ)/Bishop (NY)--No. 33--Rebates students who lost

Pell Grant eligibility due to changes in the state tax

tables, and replaces the tax tables with the highest income

protection allowance.

Holt (NJ)--No. 50--Authorizes $15 million in grants to

institutions of higher education to establish programs that

encourage students to develop foreign language proficiency as

well as science and technological knowledge. Eligible

institutions will develop

programs in which students take courses in science, math and

technology taught in a foreign language. Funds will also

support immersion programs for students to take science and

math courses in a non-English speaking country.

Holt (NJ)--No. 51--Creates the opportunity for school

systems to complete a Needs Assessment in science,

mathematics, and foreign languages to guide teacher

professional development and classroom improvement. The Needs

Assessment will include as many education stakeholders as

possible, including teachers, administrators, parents, school

boards, businesses, institutions of higher education,

professional associations, and others as determined by the

community. The purpose of the Needs Assessment is to properly

direct funds and energy to necessary and ambitious teacher

professional development and classroom improvement.

Holt (NJ)--No. 52--Creates year-round professional

development for mathematics, science, vocational education,

and technical course teachers inspired by reports like the

NAS' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and the Glenn

Commission's ``Before Its Too Late''. The process begins with

a two week summer institute at an institution of higher

education targeted to improve content knowledge of, grade

level teaching of, and the use of technology in the

disciplines in which they teach. The professional development

continues with meetings to discuss new scientific,

industrial, and academic research and how to incorporate it

into classroom practice. Additionally, an online community is

created to further foster a collaborative learning community

amongst teachers that exceeds the limits of a once a month

gathering.

Hooley (OR)--No. 46--Creates a Technology Education State

Stimulus Scholarship Program, that will allow the Secretary

of Education to award grants to States to provide

supplementary scholarships to students for study at the

postsecondary level in science, math, engineering, or a

related field.

Inslee (WA)--No. 25--Seeks to retain Head Start and Early

Head Start teachers by increasing the level of discretionary

loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 (the level for math

and science teachers). Seeks to address the unfunded mandate

passed in School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) requiring 50

percent of Head Start and Early Head Start teachers to obtain

a bachelor's degree in early education by 2011.

Inslee (WA)/Wu (OR)--No. 26--Instructs the Advisory

Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA) to assess

the increasing cost of college textbooks and the effect on

access to higher education, and to recommend strategies for

reducing the costs. Currently, ACSFA operates within the

Department of Education to advise and counsel Congress and

the secretary of education on student financial policy,

focusing only on financial aid. Allows the ACSFA to consider

total costs, including textbooks, that may affect overall

costs and access to postsecondary education.

Israel (NY)--No. 66--Requires the Department of Education

to study and report on methods of encouraging centers of

higher education, and their students, to study topics and

regions important to our nation's national security, such as

Islamic studies and China studies.

Israel (NY)--No. 67--Directs the Secretary of Education to

match, on a 1:1 basis, any funding set aside by National

Security Education Trust Fund (NSETF) for the National

Security Education Program, thereby doubling the funding of

this program.

Israel (NY)--No. 68--Directs the Secretary of Education to

make grants to eligible members of the Armed Services to pay

tuition and other authorized fees to an educational

institution in which the service member is enrolled. The

funds made available for these grants shall match, on a 1:1

basis, funding set aside by the Secretaries of the military

departments.

Israel (NY)--No. 20--(Withdrawn) Requires the Department of

Education to study and report on methods of encouraging

centers of higher education, and their students, to study

topics and regions important to our nation's national

security, such as Islamic studies and China studies.

Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 73--Expresses the Sense of Congress

encouraging publishers, professors, and universities to

ensure accessibility of braille textbooks for blind or

vision-impaired students.

Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 74--Commissions a study of students

in higher education with learning disabilities.

Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 55--Increases the maximum Pell grant

from $6,000 to $7,350.

Jefferson (LA)--No. 38--Seeks to provide an additional

semester of Pell Grant eligibility to college students who

(1) attended school in an ``area affected by the Gulf

hurricane disaster''; (2) were dependents whose parents lived

and were employed in the area; or (3) whose education was

interrupted by the disaster. Also directs the Secretary of

Education to increase the annual loan limits by $3,500 for

affected students; eligible students may elect to apply the

loan increase to either the 2005-2006 or 2006-2007 school

years.

Jefferson (LA)--No. 110--(Late) Establishes a low-cost

relief loan program to make available low-cost, long-term,

guaranteed loans to eligible institutions of higher education

for expenses relating to the losses incurred during and after

the gulf coast hurricane disasters including: construction

and rehabilitation, faculty salaries and benefits and to

supplement the institution's operations. The loan should be

repayable over 50 years and the Secretary will determine the

loan amount.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 64--Expands anti-

discrimination measures to preclude institutions of higher

education from using Federal financial assistance to perform

any study or fulfill any contract that prohibits persons of a

particular color, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender

identity, sexual orientation or national origin from

performing that study or executing that contract.

Institutions are not prevented from conducting objective

studies pertaining to discrimination or including the subject

of discrimination' in its curriculum.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 65--Expands Pell grant

eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a

result of the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. These

children will be eligible for the maximum amount of Pell

grant assistance.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 62--Changes eligibility

standards for Academic Competitiveness Grants by requiring

recipients to also be Pell recipients, as opposed to the

current requirement of Pell eligible. Academic

Competitiveness Grants are not to exceed that of a student's

Pell grant, with first year awards adjusted from $750 to

$1,000, and second year awards adjusted from $1,300 to

$1,050. Academic Competitiveness Grant recipients will be

given top priority for SMART Grants.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 63--Expands Pell grant

eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a

result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. These children would be

eligible for the maximum amount of Pell grant assistance.

Kind (WI)/Van Hollen (MD)--No. 30--Reinstates the

eligibility of undergraduates in Section 602(b), Foreign

Language Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships, for advanced level

training in foreign language, world area, and other

international studies. It also clarifies that undergraduates

may use the fellowships while studying abroad.

Kind (WI)/Holt (NJ)--No. 31--Provides institutions of

higher education with grants to institute creative and

innovative ways of encouraging students to study and enter

into careers focused on math, science, engineering, and

technology.

Lantos (CA)--No. 24--Makes a technical correction to the

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program

to clarify Congressional intent that a Masters Degree level

institution or program is eligible to be the lead recipient

of a grant under the GAANN program.

Lee (CA)--No. 15--Makes school counselors, school social

workers and school psychologists eligible for student loan

forgiveness program and identifies them as an ``in need''

profession in our elementary and secondary schools.

Lewis (KY)--No. 49--(Withdrawn) Strikes a provision from

the legislation to allow states to become accreditors of

independent colleges and universities. Regional accrediting

entities now assure that colleges and universities are

meeting standards. Prohibits state intervention into private

and independent colleges and universities.

McCarthy (NY)--No. 21--Requires teacher preparation

programs to publicly report on the number and type of

teachers they are preparing.

McCarthy (NY)/Andrews (NJ)--No. 22--Includes nursing

schools in Section 102, ``Institutions Outside the United

States''.

McCarthy (NY)--No. 23--Creates a pilot program to increase

the number of graduate educated nurse faculty to meet the

future need for qualified nurses.

McCollum (MN)--No. 75--Requires colleges that participate

in Federal financial aid programs to disclose information to

students and the Department of Education about the college's

compliance with U.S. regulations that prohibit bonuses to

admissions counselors for their recruitment efforts.

McCollum (MN)--No. 96--(Late) Strikes Section 204 and

related sections. This amendment strikes the Teacher

Incentive Fund provisions and requires the Secretary of

Education to direct any funds appropriated for the Teacher

Incentive Fund to financial assistance to higher education

institutions located in areas affected by Hurricanes Rita and

Katrina.

Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 4--Makes mentoring a component

of the community services programs under work-study. The

program can be coordinated between the eligible

institution and the public and private organizations and

entities that will participate in providing mentoring for

children in foster care (such as faith-based

organizations, foster care/adoption agencies, children's

groups, State Departments of Social Services, public

school systems).

Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 3--Directs the Secretary of

Education to advocate for and support the addition of foster-

care mentoring programs as part of the independent study

requirements if such independent study requirements are

required for graduation in the following areas of Education,

Sociology, and Psychology at 4-year or 2-year intuitions. The

duration of the program would be as outlined by academic

requirements for graduation.

Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 6--Clarifies the due process

owed to educational institutions throughout the accreditation

process. The amendment would: (1) provide express

Congressional definition of minimum due process for

educational institutions; and (2) require key accreditation

decision making to be made in public and after an opportunity

for public comment.

Miller (NC)/Bishop (NY)--No. 89--(Late) Establishes a pre-

competitive innovation investment grant program that will

assist colleges and universities in establishing

precompetitive technology transfer centers.

Miller (CA)/McCarthy (NY)--No. 91--(Late) Offers up-front

tuition assistance to undergraduates committed to a teaching

career, and seeks to establish teachers infields like math

and science. Establishes grants with which local districts

can provide competitive salaries to their best teachers in

the most high-need areas.

Norton (DC)--No. 93--(Late) Amends title III of the Higher

Education Act of 1965 to include the University of the

District of Columbia as an eligible institution in Section

326 to receive funding for its qualified graduate programs.

Norton (DC)--No. 95--(Late) Amends Section 496 to clarify

the current statutory due process requirements, require cited

institutions to receive notice of the deficiencies and be

provided the opportunity to respond, grant cited institutions

the right to assistance of counsel, and change the final

appeals procedure to provide an alternative dispute

resolution component.

Petri (WI)/Miller (CA)--No. 27--Inserts at the end of part

G of title IV of the bill, the provisions of HR 1425, the

Student Aid Reward Program.

Ryan (OH)--No. 8--Requires the Education Secretary to award

grants of not more than $25,000 each on a competitive basis

to not more than 20 institutions of higher education to

enable those schools to determine the feasibility of

operating a course material rental program on their campuses.

The feasibility studies would determine the effectiveness and

cost of a program which expands the services of bookstores to

provide the option for students to rent course materials in

order to achieve savings for students.

Ryan (OH)--No. 7--Requires institutions of higher education

to waive academic progress requirements for interruptions of

study caused by active military service.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 111--(Late) Adds language so

that paragraph 4 of section 513 enables students receiving

financial assistance to receive some sufficient to cover

elevated costs of living that exist in some regions.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 112--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 131(b)(1) will require the website to provide,

along with other data elements of importance, information

which will be useful to minority student populations. For

example, by including Hispanic Serving Institutions as a

search criterion in the website's college search, students

will be able to target the universities which may provide

scholarships or areas of study of their preference.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 113--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 131(b)(3)(B) reads as follows: ``includes clear

and uniform information determined to be relevant to

prospective students, enrolled students, and families; in

both English and Spanish''. This amendment will require all

the information in the website to be presented in both

English and Spanish.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 114--(Late) Adds a new paragraph

so that the new SECTION 131(c)(2) requires the schools in the

website to present a list of scholarships they offer. This

will help students who are eligible for specific scholarships

to identify institutions who offer that specific type of

scholarship.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 115--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 131(d) will require the information under this

section to be in both English and Spanish.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 116--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 401A(a)(1) will oblige recipients of federal

student aid to receive some instruction in financial literacy

and responsibility to better manage their financial aid.

Scott (GA)/Drake (VA)/Weiner (NY)--No. 69--Establishes a

student loan repayment program within the Department of

Education for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at

least three years, as public attorneys who are: (1) State or

local criminal prosecutors; or (2) State, Local, or Federal

public defenders in criminal cases. The repayment under this

program will be limited to $6000 per calendar year and

$40,000 total.

Scott (VA)--No. 83--Requires degree granting institutions

to collect hate crimes data using the same crime categories

that the FBI is required to use under the Hate Crime

Statistics Act of 1991.

Strickland (OH)--No. 70--Requires that the maximum

authorized Pell grant award increases every year by a

percentage equal to the percent increase in the cost of

higher education, according to the Price Indexes for Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Type of Product of the Bureau of

Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce.

Strickland (OH)--No. 71--Defines and sets minimum standards

for ``educational organizations'' eligible for teacher

education partnership grants under Title II of the bill.

Strickland (OH)--No. 53--Expands the loan forgiveness

program for FFEL and DL borrowers to all teachers working in

low-income schools who became first-time borrowers on or

after October 1, 1990.

Stupak (MI)--No. 78--Provides Federal student loan relief

to borrowers who go into school administration in low-income

school districts. Applies to any borrower who has been

employed as a full-time school superintendent, principal, or

other administrator for five consecutive complete school

years in a school district in a low-income area.

Tierney (MA)/Kind (WI)--No. 76--Prohibits the campus-based

aid funding formula changes from taking place until the

Secretary of Education certifies that sufficient funding has

been appropriated so that no school loses money.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 40--Provides incentives to

make tuition affordable. Provides that any institution of

higher education that keeps its net tuition price increase

below the Higher Education Price Index receives a 25 percent

increase to the Pell Grant award of its Pell Grant recipients

and any institution that guarantees net tuition price

increases below the Higher Education Price Index for five

years receives a 10 percent increase to the Pell Grant award

of its Pell Grant recipients. Institutions that raise net

tuition price by more than the Higher Education Price Index

shall submit a report explaining the causes of such an

increase and detailing a plan for preventing such increases

in the future.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 41--Commissions the

National Research Council to conduct a national study to

determine the viability of developing and implementing

standards in environmental, health, and safety areas to

provide for differential regulation of industrial

laboratories and facilities, on the one hand, and research

and teaching laboratories on the other. The National Research

Council shall make specific recommendations for statutory and

regulatory changes that are needed to develop such a

differential approach.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 42--Creates an articulation

agreement demonstration program, monitored by the Department

of Education, to encourage institutions of higher education

to enter into articulation agreements or consortia groups, as

a means to lower tuition prices to students.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 43--Renews states'

commitment to affordable college education by ensuring that

they maintain their own level of college financing. Gives

students and families access to accurate information about

the cost of college and steps individual schools are taking

to offer affordable rates of tuition.

Tierney (MA)--No. 44--Commissions a study by the Advisory

Committee on Student Financial Assistance to examine the

adequacy of current financial aid programs and the extent to

which every qualified eligible student receives a sufficient

comprehensive financial aid package from all sources,

induding aid from Federal financial aid programs under this

title, state financial aid programs, institutional financial

aid programs, and privately-funded grant aid programs.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 45--Commissions a GAO Study

on college costs and the relationship between state, Federal

and institutional support for higher education and college

costs.

Waters (CA)--No. 118--(LATE) Seeks to condition the

eligibility of private, post-secondary institutions as

``institutions of higher education'' for purpose of funding

under the Act on the obtainment of at least 10 percent of its

total funding from sources other than Title IV.

Waters (CA)--No. 56--Extends eligibility for Centers of

Excellence program funds to states in which a major disaster

has occurred under Section 402 of the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for a period of

two years following the date of Presidential declaration.

Wu (OR)/Simmons (CT)--No. 9--Allows student loan borrowers

to refinance their student loans. Upon reconsolidation, the

borrower would get a variable rate with a cap of 6.8 prcent.

Wu (OR)/McGovern (MA)--No. 10--Increases the Pell Grant

award to $8,000 through the use of mandatory funds over a

period of 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, why doesn't Mr. Inslee deserve a floor vote on his proposal on Head Start teacher loan forgiveness? Why prevent public discussion of Mr. McGovern's and Mr. Wu's proposal that we increase Pell Grant awards? Or the amendment from Mr. Miller and Mr. Petri that would provide $12 billion in student aid without costing the taxpayers a dime?

Clearly, their ideas would have at least made it to the floor for the debate in 1992 and 1998. So have these Members simply shown up to the wrong section of Congress, or does the majority feel that these amendments might be sound policy and pass?

Members on both sides of the aisle decry the lack of bipartisanship in the House every day, but what are we doing to really embrace bipartisanship? We should be able to agree that every Member of this body deserves time to offer his or her suggestions on something as fundamental as our Nation's education policy. Sadly, that is not the case this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the second rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, in our country, education has long been viewed as the doorway to opportunity. Unfortunately, if we pass this rule and the underlying legislation, we will be closing this door for many.

Over the past year, I have sat down with students at Sacramento State University in my hometown of Sacramento. These young people are so talented and so filled with the possibility of tomorrow, but they are all concerned about the cuts to financial aid and their ability to finish college. This legislation will not address their concerns and, actually, will probably increase them.

The inability to afford college was less of an issue for my generation. When I was growing up in California, there was never a concern that I couldn't go to college. But this is not the case today. In all likelihood, my parents would have a very difficult time putting together a package that would allow me to go to college because, across the Nation, the average tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges have risen 40 percent since 2001 when adjusted for inflation. Yet when also adjusted for inflation, the maximum Pell Grant last year was worth $800 less than it was in 1975, and this bill only raises the authorizing level by a mere $200 over 6 years.

The spending cuts this Congress passed earlier this year represented the single largest cut to the Nation's Federal student aid programs ever. Sadly, this bill fails to reverse that trend, and it puts college even further out of reach for many. For the students at Sac State, UC Davis, and across the Nation, this legislation will impact their ability to earn a degree as well as their future, and ultimately it will impact this Nation's future.

Today, this country is a world leader by nearly every economic indicator, and our standard of living is without equal. But that didn't happen by accident. Our predecessors made a decision to make the critical investment in education and ensure access to an affordable education. While we seem to be increasing the barriers to a college education, we should not doubt for a moment that our international competitors are making that mistake. China, India, South Korea and others are making the investment to produce the intellectual capital they will need to boost their economic growth and catch up to the United States.

College financial aid is an investment in America's economic strength and its workforce. If the barriers to a college education continue to increase, America's preeminence in the world economy will be at risk. If we want to ensure we retain our international preeminence, we must make the investment in our most important engine of economic growth: the American people. They are our Nation's most valuable resource.

We must make college truly affordable for every student who has the ability and the will to work hard, study and continue to make America the world's economic leader. But we will not be doing that with this legislation. And as we bring this bill to the House floor, we are sending a very loud signal that partisanship has a higher priority in this Congress than working together to address the needs of the Nation.

In previous Congresses, the higher education reauthorization has come to the floor with a rule simply requiring the preprinting of amendments, certainly a far more open process than today. Those rules passed each time by

voice vote. It allowed healthy debate on one of the most important bills this Congress considers, because we must get it right. But we don't see the same rule in this Congress. Instead, the Rules Committee chose to shut out Members' ideas by issuing this first restrictive rule late last night, which is likely to be followed by a second rule that also shuts Members out of the process.

Once again, we see the majority limiting the ideas that can be debated on the House floor. It will only add to this bill's flawed consideration, and ultimately, it will block efforts to correct its misguided priorities.

So I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and the underlying legislation so we can return to the floor with a higher education bill that does make the investment in our young people and our Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud that America stands for opportunity, regardless of one's background. Our colleges and universities provide millions of students with the chance to realize their dreams and blaze their own paths. This could not happen without the Higher Education Act. But today we see the support coming under attack. This bill keeps the Federal Pell Grant stuck in the 1970s.

It increases interest rates on loans and forces students to absorb new fees. We should be expanding our students' horizon, not restricting it. And unless the second rule is open or allows every amendment submitted to Rules to be considered on the floor, it is shutting down this process.

Again, I want to point out that the last two times this House reauthorized the Higher Education Act, in 1992 and 1998, it did so under an amendment process that allowed any amendment that complied with House rules to be offered on the floor. We should do the same this time.

I urge all Members to reject this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I was participating in a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, March 15, 2006, and missed two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as noted below:

Rollcall vote 43: ``nay.''

Rollcall vote 44: ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in tribute to a dear friend, tireless volunteer and community leader. Kuni Hironaka, served our nation through many decades of service at McClellan Air Force Base as well as volunteering with numerous community organizations in the Sacramento region with great passion, integrity and commitment. He passed away on March 8th. As his family and friends gather to honor and remember his wonderful life, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting one of Sacramento's most well-respected figures, and my friend, Kuni Hironaka.

Kuni was born and raised in Sacramento, where he lived for most of his life. He worked for 37 years at McClellan Air Force Base as a civilian employee. In 1967 he observed that Asian Americans were not a protected minority in the federal workforce. At McClellan there were no Asian American supervisors or foremen in the maintenance department or in the base's management, even though there were a considerable number of qualified individuals with the experience and education necessary to do the job well.

Taking a personal and professional risk, Kuni strived to change this. He repeatedly inquired with the McClellan Air Force Base chain of command and did not rest until the Department of Defense reviewed their hiring and promotion practices. Ultimately, his decision to challenge the status quo resulted in more qualified Asian Americans being promoted in the civilian workforce and the removal of the term ``Oriental'' as an ethnic identifier. Kuni played a crucial role in ensuring that all minorities were treated fairly and protected in the workplace.

Kuni was always one to give back to our community, spending most of his free time helping others. He was active with the Sacramento Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League, the Sacramento Asian Sports Foundation, Bocho Doshi Kai and the South Tanoshimi Kai. The day of his passing, he spent all morning volunteering at the Japanese American National Bowling Association's annual tournament.

In recognition of his longtime dedication to numerous non-profit causes and his commitment to civil rights, Kuni was honored as an ``Asian Pacific American Heritage Hero'' by Sacramento's public television station, KVIE, just last April. It was a fitting honor for a man who gave so much to so many others.

Bob and I were truly lucky to know Kuni so well and to be able to call him our friend. He was always there to help us and our family. Brian, Amy, Anna and I, as well as countless others in Sacramento will miss him deeply.

Kuni is survived by a loving family, including his wonderful wife Rose, their four children, David, Amy, Arlene, and Richard, and seven grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, as Kuni Hironaka's family members and friends gather to honor his legacy and many contributions, I am honored to pay tribute to one of my closest friends. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in paying respect to and acknowledging the life of an extraordinarily caring man.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, warnings of mercury levels in fish, the safety of our children's milk, birth defect warnings, reducing lead in calcium supplements, cans, and wine bottle caps, if we pass H. Res. 702, the rule governing the National Food Uniformity Act, and ultimately the underlying legislation, these are but a few of the food safety laws that would be preempted.

We would be placing at even greater risk the health of millions of Americans, our children, and pregnant women. Parents would have less information about the harm their children would come to because of a simple meal. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Information about the health implications of what we are assuming is abundant, and we should be an ally in helping parents to protect their children.

With this legislation, Federal food safety regulations would supplant State food safety laws. Even though our food safety system has been created to rely upon the States, the FDA will make recommendations on its Web site. But the States need to take this information and determine the best way to inform and protect their residents. There is a reason for this: 80 percent of the enforcement is at the State and local levels.

Let me take one example: mercury levels. Because of the implications of mercury in my home State of California, we have a program to place in-store notices about mercury levels. This concern about mercury has been raised by the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. I remember when my daughter-in-law Amy was pregnant with my granddaughter Anna. Her doctor repeatedly warned her about the harm mercury could cause her fetus. Fortunately, she was able to afford prenatal care and had the warnings, so Anna was born a perfectly normal child, free from any adverse effects of any mercury.

But what about those who do not have adequate prenatal care or have warnings? How do they learn about these? Most of us will never think to go to the FDA Web site before putting our shopping list together. We find out about FDA warnings because our State laws require them to be posted next to the supermarket fish counter. We see the sign as we shop.

As many of you are probably aware, certain fish contain high levels that can harm pregnant women and young children. High levels of mercury can damage the brain or kidneys. And this is in adults. Imagine what this can do to a developing fetus: blindness, seizures, speech problems, as well as nervous and digestive problems. But under this legislation, this program would be gone, as would the protections for our children. All that would remain is a posting on the FDA's Web site. Under President Bush's budget, the FDA's food safety funding would be cut by $445 million over 5 years. Where does this leave parents and the health of our children?

When it comes to our children's health, we should be setting the highest bar possible rather than the lowest common denominator. Why would we not warn parents of this potential for harm? I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, our minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so I can amend the rule and allow the House to approve a plan that lets Congress vote up or down on the President's plan to turn over six of our Nation's ports to a government-run company in Dubai.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule would provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation to guarantee that the House will have the opportunity to vote to block the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at six of our Nation's busiest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

This legislation is nearly identical to a measure introduced by the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee that requires a thorough, in-depth, 45-day investigation of this contract followed by a report back to Congress on the results of that investigation. The only difference is that this bill requires a vote in the House and Senate to block the agreement if the President decides to proceed.

The same administration that talks tough on terrorism and protecting Americans on every front has now negotiated a secret, backroom deal to turn the management of these vital ports over to a foreign entity. And it has done so without going through the proper channels as required by law and without including Congress in the process.

The House must have the opportunity to play a role in this matter of national security. It is time for the Republican-controlled Congress to stop giving rubber-stamp approval to this administration at the expense of our Nation's citizens. This bill is the only way to guarantee that the House and Senate have the opportunity to vote on the Dubai deal, a vote that cannot be blocked by the Republican leadership.

Whatever Members believe about this deal and whatever results from this investigation, the House should be allowed to vote up or down on whether or not we want to turn control of six of our Nation's ports over to this foreign-government-owned entity.

I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation that gives Congress the right to participate and to vote on this matter of significant national security. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, 64 years ago, on February 19, 1942, tens of thousands of Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and communities in one of the great suspensions of liberty in our Nation's history. We recall the day President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 as a Day of Remembrance. This was the day the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans and legal residents along the West Coast were suspended and they were incarcerated during World War II.

Families and communities were uprooted from the life they had known. This memory is actually quite bittersweet for me and my family. My grandparents and parents were uprooted from their communities, their lives, their homes, their businesses, despite the fact that they were American citizens. My parents actually met and married at the Poston Internment Camp, my birthplace. In fact, my father says that that was probably the only good thing that came out of that camp.

Growing up, my parents protected me from the experience they went through of having the loyalty they held for this Nation being questioned. And as I was growing up, my parents made a concerted effort to teach me to believe in this country and love this country despite what it did to them.

I shared this sense of patriotism with my husband. Bob, who despite spending his toddler years in a camp, grew up to have a staunch and steadfast belief in our country and our Constitution, including the ideals of justice and equality firmly embedded in both.

Because of the implications of this incarceration, my grandparents, my parents like Bob's and so many others of this generation, did not speak of their experience in the internment camp. It wasn't until my father was much older that this time period was brought up.

But this is an experience that we cannot allow to fade. The government at all levels was blinded by war, and it is imperative that we learn the lesson this moment in history has taught us, including this Nation's ability to recognize and acknowledge our mistakes.

As we mark this tragic anniversary, I hope every American will take this day to affirm their commitment to our Constitution and the rights and protections it guarantees for all of us.