Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 2013, the world witnessed the deadliest disaster in the history of the garment industry. That morning Rana Plaza, an eight-story building housing five garment factories just outside Bangladesh's capital of Dhaka, collapsed. 1,138 people were killed and over 2,500 more were injured.

Just 5 months earlier, at least 112 people were killed, and scores more were injured when they leapt from a burning building at the Tazreen Fashions factory.

These tragedies laid bare the broken system, ineffective government oversight, and failed corporate responsibility and the powerlessness of the garment workers.

They also left nearly 4,000 survivors, families of the victims in need of long-term compensation. Many of the survivors are unable to find work, struggling with physical disabilities and mental trauma that could last for a lifetime. The injured workers and their families who lost loved ones--for many of them, their only income earner--are now trying to survive economic impoverishment in addition to the painful memories.

In the wake of these disasters, the International Labor Organization helped set up compensation funds for victims and families. Labor groups, the Bangladeshi Government, and several prominent retailers and brands who sourced from Bangladesh have committed funds to the survivors of Rana Plaza. Two years after the Tazreen fire, an agreement has also been reached on compensation for these survivors.

The Rana Plaza Donors Trust Fund needs an estimated $40 million to provide for Rana Plaza survivors and victims' families, but as of last month the fund only had collected $22 million, barely half the amount.

Injured workers and victims' families are being shortchanged. Nearly 40 global garment brands had recent or current orders in the five garment factories in Rana Plaza when it collapsed. They owe better compensation to the victims of their carelessness.

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

Chairman Kline, I thank you so much for your very kind words, for your friendship, and for your willingness to work together.

You are right. We haven't always agreed, but we tried to honor that by not becoming disagreeable with one another. My service on the Education and Workforce Committee has been the joy of my life in the Congress of the United States. Thank you for steering the committee over these last several years.

I want to join you in thanking all of the hardworking staff not just on this piece of legislation, but year in and year out, hearing in and hearing out, amendments and changes, and all the things staff goes through. They have really acted in a very, very professional manner.

They too have been able to work back and forth across the aisle and across ideologies and all the rest of it and serve as a buffer every now and then when the Members get a little out of control. Thank you so very, very much.

This Kline-Miller multiemployer pension agreement that was added to the bill before us today is based upon a proposal developed nearly 2 years ago by labor unions and employers who wanted to find a path forward for severely distressed and failing pension plans.

This provision will give plan trustees--labor and management--the tools they need to avoid the impending collapse of many multiemployer plans. It will also provide new funds--with a premium increase--for the insurer charged with backing up these plans which is also facing bankruptcy.

The Kline-Miller provision is the only available option to save these failing plans, and it is the last chance that labor unions, their members, and employers have to gain some control over the future of their pensions.

Throughout my 40 years in Congress, I have worked to strengthen pension protections and to expand retirement security for all Americans. I have fought for workers, and I have fought for their benefits.

I have fought for their right to collectively bargain over retirement and from the hidden fees in their 401(k) plans. I fought to protect them from conflicted investment advice that could have put their retirement security at risk. It is my commitment to workers and their retirement security that brings me here today.

We have an obligation to reform the multiemployer system so that we can protect the retirement security of workers nationwide. The approach we have put forward, which is backed by business and labor leaders, will secure the multiemployer pension systems for millions of current and future retirees.

It includes important consumer safeguards that give participants in these plans a voice to protect the most vulnerable retirees. Most importantly, it gives employers and the employees the option--a choice, not a mandate. They get to choose. They get to decide that they want to design a plan that they think can rescue their currently failing pension system. That is an important right to grant them.

Many local unions have already made this decision with their members, but they can't do it. They can't cut their own benefits because they are prohibited from doing it by law.

Who are we to tell these workers that they can't take the opportunity to stretch their pool of pension money, their savings, so that it may cover more people for a longer period of time if they make these adjustments? They want to make these adjustments, but the law says they can't.

If we trust labor unions, if we trust the workers, if we believe in the dignity of the worker, we should give them the opportunity and the responsibility of trying to save their own pensions. This is all this bill does. It gives them the option. It gives them the opportunity.

It lets them take on the responsibility for trying to design a rescue plan that may increase the longevity of their plan. It may allow retirees a better pension than they would get if they just fell into the government rescue system. That is what they are asking us to let them do.

This is not a new idea. It has been here for 2 years of hearings. It has been under Chairman Kline. We have had exhaustive hearings on this provision. We have heard from the employers. We have heard from a cross section of unions, some who agree with this plan and some who disagree.

That is why it is an option. For those who don't want to do it, those who have written you letters and said, ``Don't do this,'' what about the guys that want to do this? So this is an option. They will have to talk to their members, they will have to talk to the employers, they will have to talk to their trustees, and they will have to make a decision. If they can come up with that rescue plan, they ought to be allowed to do that.

The time has come to let them do this. These plans are losing altitude every day that they can't make these adjustments. Hopefully, a pickup in the economy, an increase in employment, an increase in enrollment will help them, but they still need the option to be able to make these judgments.

I would hope that my colleagues here in the Congress would trust these workers enough to give them this opportunity and this responsibility to make these decisions about their retirement, not our wish list of how we would like it to be, but their retirement today that is in threat of collapse.

I urge my colleagues to support this provision and support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like, so my colleagues fully understand this, to read the list of some of the unions that are supporting this legislation: North America's Building Trades Unions, International Council of Employers of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, International Union of Operating Engineers, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Service Employees International Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Actors' Equity Association, and the American Federation of Musicians--a very diverse group of American workers who are asking us to give them the option to make decisions about the future of their pension.

Some of these pensions are in better shape than others, but they are all asking for this right. For those who may be opposed to this legislation, don't like this legislation, they don't have to exercise their right; but we cannot deny these workers this opportunity to make this decision about their very hard-earned pensions.

As Mr. Norcross said, they made these decisions together where they are today, and they ought to be able to make the decisions together to change direction and to head off for an opportunity at greater solvency and longevity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Congressman Kline and all of the staff and all of those who have cooperated and all of these organizations that have spent many years trying to investigate the best way to answer this nagging question of how to save these plans.

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

Mr. Speaker, during last week's vote on Roll No. 551, I inadvertently voted ``yea.'' I intended to vote ``nay'' on Roll No. 551.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for their help in bringing this bill to the floor. It has been subject to negotiations that didn't end until just a couple of weeks ago, and fortunately, we have this time for Congress to consider it. It is a very simple bill that will greatly benefit our national park system by expanding the John Muir National Historic Site in my congressional district in Martinez at no cost to the Federal Government.

The Muir Historic Site is a terrific resource for people living in and visiting the bay area. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people come to the historic site every year. Schoolchildren visit it on a regular basis, and certainly visitors from Scotland come to the site to learn about this rather remarkable native of Scotland who stirred up so much activity in the United States.

As Ranking Member DeFazio pointed out, he was absolutely key to the founding and existence of Yosemite National Park and Sequoia National Park. In fact, he left his home site that is part of this park and walked to the Sierras to explore the Sierras and to live in them and to write about them. Some of his most famous books were written on those journeys.

This land, what we know locally as the Plummer Ranch, is contiguous to the John Muir National Historic Site. It was once part of a ranch owned by John Swett. John Swett was a very close friend of John Muir. There are many historic pictures of them together. John Swett was, in fact, the father of the California public school system. They spent a great deal of time in this area, both farming, farming fruit and grapes and other agricultural products, and were very close friends. So this donation by the Muir Heritage Land Trust to the Federal Government, if we accept it, will bring these two pillars of California's history together, linking the physical connectedness of their ranches. It will connect this area to Mount Wanda, which was named after John Muir's daughter. He used to have orchards at the top and side of Mount Wanda.

So this is really a win-win for the historic community, and it is a win-win for this historic site which is visited by so many people. It is a win for the taxpayers since the money was raised locally to purchase this land from the original owner and to provide it in donation to the National Park Service. With the passage of this bill, that transaction will be completed. It will expand this park. The Nation will have the benefit of this additional historic asset to the site for people to visit and to understand.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for making time for this legislation in his committee's jurisdiction and deliberations, and my good friend Peter DeFazio for allowing me to present this on the floor. Thank you so much to both of you.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this matter.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Since you opened up commending Doc Hastings for his career in the Congress, I want to join you in that. We were both discussing yesterday that we started our careers battling over California water when he came to the Congress and when I came to the Congress, and on the last days of our legislative action we will, once again, be discussing California water. Those are the twists and the turns that this place takes with legislation.

But I want to thank him for his service and leadership of the Resources Committee. He knows how dear those issues are to me in many years of service on that committee. Thank you for your fairness in dealing with a lot of the issues. As Mr. DeFazio pointed out, it wasn't about whether we always agreed, but it was about whether or not you could work with one another with some respect and figure out where you could get together on particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to this bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended.

There is no question that the underlying bill is controversial, but wherever you stand on the goals of this bill, it is clear that it was not drafted properly. That is no surprise. It was introduced just a week ago and did not go through the normal legislative process. It did not receive a hearing or a markup.

On top of that, the sponsors of the bill failed to consult the interested parties. They didn't consult the fishermen, both commercial and sports fishermen; duck hunters; and others who are deeply impacted by this bill, such as the thousands of farmers who are farming hundreds of thousands of acres and millions of dollars in crops.

They didn't consult the water agencies that are responsible for delivering safe and clean drinking water to the Western States and to many in my district. They didn't consult the tribes whose rights may very well be affected by this legislation. They didn't even consult the Members of Congress from this great delta, the largest delta of the Pacific Ocean. They didn't even consult the Members with direct interest in this legislation.

In fact, it was only when Senator Barbara Boxer insisted that there be transparency in the process and that we be given copies of the bill that negotiations were called off and Senator Feinstein said that she would take up this bill next year under regular order.

Where does that leave us? With a bill intended to help one region of California at the expense of endangered species that could end up hurting millions of dollars' worth of commercial fishing interests, farmers, tribes, and neighboring States.

My amendment would fix that. First, it clarifies that nothing in this bill would adversely impact the fishing industries in California, Oregon, or Washington. Without this clarification, the bill would result in exporting additional water, which would devastate the salmon population and harm thousands of small businesses and commercial fishermen.

Second, my bill would clarify that this bill would not create a precedent of impacting water rights in other States. This bill is a major rewrite of California's water rights, plain and simple. Most notably, under existing State water rights, the bill's increased pumping for the Central Valley Project would require a reduction in State water project pumping; yet the bill specifically mandates that the water supply for the State water project cannot be reduced, contrary to California law.

This will mean that a small subgroup of water users in California will get a higher priority access to water than they are entitled to under their contracts.

Finally, my amendment clarifies that the bill protects tribal sovereignty and won't reduce the quality and quantity of water provided to the Indian tribes under the Federal Government's tribal trust obligations.

To give you one example of a tribe that could be harmed by this legislation, the Hoopa Valley Tribe in Humboldt County is dependent on water from the Trinity River. Their economy is dependent upon it, their fisheries are dependent upon it, and the tourism of the tribe is dependent upon the water of this river.

We already saw this year emergency water releases from the Trinity River to prevent mass fish kills. If the water is all pumped out of the dam before then, the problem is there won't be any to help the tribe or to help other parts of the economy lower in the State.

Truly, the House should reject this radical, ill-conceived bill. At a minimum, we should pass my amendment that would ensure that the reckless actions of this bill's sponsors do not result in significant harm to our tribes, fishermen, and neighboring States.

One of the rationales for passing this bill by the supporters of it is that this water just flows to the ocean, that is sort of the way God created the plain; but the fact of the matter is it doesn't just flow to the ocean.

As it goes to the ocean, as it leaves the Sierra mountains and comes down the State, it goes past the cities of Sacramento, Concord, and Pittsburg, where hundreds of thousands of people live and depend upon it for their drinking water supply--clean water.

It goes past the United States Steel mill that uses and needs clean water for steel production. It goes past the DuPont chemical facility that needs clean water for production. It mixes with the saltwater in the Suisun Marsh which allows fish to survive the difference between saltwater and freshwater.

It provides all of those kinds of benefits and jobs for hundreds and thousands of people in the industries that are located in the delta and that are located there because of the delta.

Finally, if there is no water, it does not flow to the ocean. That seems to be some kind of indictment against the river systems of California, that it flows to the ocean. If it doesn't flow to the ocean, then the salmon can't get out into the bay, they can't get out into the ocean, and the incoming salmon can't get up to spawn for the next generation.

What happens when that happens? It means that in Oregon and Washington, it will affect the runs that come up here and provide for commercial fishing; that provide for sport fishing; that provide for recreation; that provide for tourism; that provide revenues to the States in terms of fishing licenses, revenues to all of the States, like California. It provides for the wetlands, for duck hunters, and preserves one of the great byways.

That is not just going to the ocean. That is an incredibly important water system. A small group of farmers here want to take it all for themselves.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Joseph Ovick as he retires from his long-held position as Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools and to congratulate him on the culmination of a truly outstanding 45-year career in education.

Joseph Ovick began his career as a Special Education teacher, working diligently to ensure

that each student in his classroom was given every opportunity to succeed. Although classroom teaching has always been his passion, Joe's ability to develop strong coalitions of educators, community members and legislators has led him into a variety of important leadership roles. He served as Assistant Principal, Principal, Director of Special Education, Assistant Superintendent for Student Services, and Associate Superintendent for Business. For the past 18 years, Dr. Joseph Ovick has been at the helm of Contra Costa County Office of Education working tirelessly to assure that all students receive the very best education. In addition to his administrative work, Dr. Ovick has taught in a variety of schools including Chapman University's Graduate School of Education and San Jose State University.

Joe has also devoted a great deal of his time to community service. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of the East Bay Leadership Council, Contra Costa County's Children and Families Policy Forum and has served as the President of the Executive Board of the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association. He has also served as Chairman of the Bay Area Leadership Foundation, the Federal Policy and Legislation Committee for the Council of Administrators for Special Education, as vice-chair of the Federal Advocacy for California Education, he is past president of the Association of California School Administrators and a former chair of the Bay Area Region Superintendents Association.

It is easy to see why in 2008 Dr. Joseph Ovick was named Citizen of the Year by the East Bay Leadership Foundation. He has also been awarded the Superintendent of the Year Award and the Ferd Kiesel Memorial Award by the Association of California School Administrators and he received the President's Circle Award for Outstanding Service to Education and the Community from Diablo Valley College Foundation. These are only a few of the many commendations that over the years have recognized Dr. Ovick's outstanding service to our students, teachers, and our entire community.

But what is most important to know about Joe Ovick is that he has always been a ``students first'' type of educator. He has made it a point to personally visit students and teachers throughout the year, lending freely his support and hands-on experience to ensure that every child has an opportunity to thrive in the classroom. And it is clear from the energy and enthusiasm Joe brings to every facet of his job, that this has been a 45-year love affair with the learning process.

I ask my colleagues to join with me today in commending my friend, Dr. Joseph Ovick, on his outstanding career and to thank him on behalf of the thousands of students and teachers who have been the beneficiaries of his work over the years. We join with his family, friends and colleagues in wishing him the very best as he begins his well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we find ourselves in a situation where a group of people in the Central Valley--a small number of farmers in the Central Valley--have decided that if they can't have it their way, they are just going to roll over the process.

Now, we are confronted with a piece of legislation that was, in fact, much of it was withdrawn by the Senator from California because it became apparent to all of the interests in the State that there were no public hearings, there was no public participation, and it was a very narrow group of people sitting in the back room in the Capitol of the United States drafting legislation, where essentially everybody except the people in that room take a hit. The people in the room get a benefit.

How do they get the benefit? Because they extract more water than you can currently extract and still keep the State whole. They extract more water from a vibrant, commercial fishing industry. That is why the Senators in Oregon and the Pacific Fisheries Association are against this legislation.

This is a fishing industry that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and they are at risk if you operate under this legislation because this legislation overrides what the State agencies, what the Governor, what the Federal agencies, and what the Secretary of the Interior did this last time.

Mr. Speaker, when we got two surprise storms in March of this year, we went back to the drawing table, and we figured out how we could get more water out of this system to help these farmers in the Central Valley. That was a good faith effort. That was done within the law.

Now, what they want to do is eviscerate that law, take away those safeguards, and say, ``We are going to take additional water out this system.'' When they take that additional water out of the system, they take that additional water out of the water quality of hundreds of thousands of people who drink the water from the delta and rely on a fresh water supply.

We are quite aware of what happens in these dry years, and if you keep turning the pumps on, those people are going to start sucking-- those water districts are going to start taking saltwater out of the delta. They take it at the expense of the delta farmers who pump water in the delta. That water will become saltier and saltier, and they will not be able to plant their crops. They have limited time to plant their crops, as it is, under these droughts.

Everybody in this State is paying a price for this drought, but now, in the eleventh hour of this Congress, this group of farmers, these very powerful, small people--these very powerful, small people--have decided they are going to do it this way. We have seen this before.

We have worked year after year to get agreement, and when they can't get their way, they go off to a private meeting, they draft legislation, and that collapses all those talks, and then we start over again. This is about the third or fourth time we have been here because it is their way or the highway, and they absolutely expect that they can take water.

These are people who have a contract right. They have a contract right that is variable because they have the lowest water rights in the State, and so what they are trying to do is to say they get to get in line in front of everybody else in the State in exercising their water rights.

The fact of the matter is we understand exactly what this is going to do. That is why The Sacramento Bee, the Central Valley newspaper, the Fresno Central Valley newspaper said that this bill deserves to die. This bill deserves to die.

Mr. Speaker, I want to praise Senator Boxer for alerting the Members--they talked about working across the aisle. They worked across the aisle, but not with members of the House delegation who represent this impacted area who stand to lose these jobs and who stand to lose millions of dollars of economic activity.

I am not suggesting things are right for the people in the Central Valley or right for people in the State. Our whole State is suffering from a drought, but now, this is an eleventh hour attempt to say that we don't like the way you are coming together to do this, and we are going to take ours first.

This is contrary to what the State legislature did on a bipartisan basis and with the participation of legislatures from the Central Valley, from Southern California, from the Imperial Valley, and from north California.

This is contrary to what the State and Federal agencies did to try and work out and to get additional water, as we did in March. This is contrary. This is contrary to what the State legislature said about these being coequal values.

You have to protect the northern delta region, the origins of this water, and you have to try to have sustainable water deliveries to southern California. The legislature, again, on a bipartisan basis agreed to that.

Then, on the bond issue, overwhelmingly, State legislatures voted to put a bond on to try to deal with the drought, a rather remarkable issue, with the support of the Governor. Legislatures from southern California, from the Central Valley, and from north California voted to put it on the ballot.

The public across the State--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from every region of the State--voted overwhelmingly to support the bond issue, and now, in the eleventh hour, this small group of people think that they can come and turn those expressions of State legislative intent, of State law, of Federal law, and of State environmental quality laws.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot let this happen. The suggestion is that, somehow, there is free water floating around out in that system and somebody is denying it. All of the water in this current system, especially in this drought, is for purposes to try to maintain a great Pacific coast salmon run that is tens and tens and tens--hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity from the mouth of San Francisco Bay almost to Santa Barbara and from the mouth of San Francisco Bay almost to the Washington-Oregon border.

This impacts across State lines and the economy that that generates, the economy that that generates in the hospitality industry and the tourism industry, and the economy that generates in the delta. Yes, there have been cutbacks. There have been cutbacks. We have all had cutbacks, all of us; but now, you just don't get to go take your neighbor's water. You don't get to go do that.

We will try and try again, and with these storms, I assume there is going to be a renewal of the effort that was successful. It was successful for the Central Valley, it was successful for the biological opinions, and it was successful for the delta farmer; yet we moved a little additional water that we hadn't anticipated.

Now, with these storms, hopefully, we will be able to do the same things, but to write into the law that all of that water must always be moved as long as this law is in place is absolutely contrary to the interests of the rest of the State of California, whether they are in northern California or whether they are in the Central Valley or whether they are in southern California.

That is how we try to move this policy forward. It is a much better policy today than it has been in the past, but we have got to have this open hearing. We have got to discuss this among all of the members of the California delegation, among all of those who represent the taxpayers of this Nation.

The idea that you can just go into a room in the eleventh hour because you know the session is ending, and you are going to say, ``we have greater merit than anybody else, we are going to change this law,'' that is not the democratic process.

That is not the proper representation of the people we represent in the State of California, and it is absolutely contrary to what the State government has done and accomplished, what they have done and accomplished together with the Federal agencies, to try and make this work recognizing the incredible hardship that every region in our State is under.

The State is investing billions of dollars, and the private sector is investing billions of dollars to try to make us water efficient, to try to capture more

water and anticipate the building of dams.

All of these things are being done, but the idea that you can just come in and say: Well, you know what, we are tired with the process, we are impatient, even though we just voted for the bond issue, we are going to take our water now, and you do the best you can.

They are saying: You do the best you can. You do the best you can if that is your drinking water in towns across Alameda County. You do the best you can if that is the water you farm with. You just do the best you can. If it is too salty and raises health concerns and you can't grow your crops, that is tough because we are coming in line first. We are going to step in front of everyone else.

What you are going to ignite here with the passage of this bill, you are going to take us all back in time. As Senator Boxer pointed out, this reignites the California water wars, something that we tried to move away from, and we have made progress. I appreciate that those who are impatient and who think that they are given a greater right than in fact they are to water, that they believe now that they can just take it from their neighbor--just take it from their neighbor--that is an unacceptable process.

That is why Senator Feinstein withdrew from these negotiations, said she would come back next year and go through regular order and have the hearings that the people of California are entitled to so they know what is going on. And those of us who represent very disparate parts of the State will be able to participate and have hearings and understand how California together cannot only solve the current problem in terms of impacts, but also prepare the State for what most people tell us will be a series of droughts by changing the manner in which we manage water.

Everybody has to put into that pot, but this is somebody just reaching into the pot and saying: I am taking mine first and you all do whatever you want because we have changed the laws of the State, we have changed the laws of this Nation, we have overwritten the biological opinions from the courts, and we have overwritten the basic environmental laws of the State and the Nation. So we are going to get ours first, and then you do the best you can after that.

Those ramifications ripple across billions of dollars in our economy, just as this drought has rippled across billions of dollars in our economy because of the hardships in agriculture and the shortening of seasons in fishing.

I urge my colleagues not to support this legislation and demand that we have an open process and that we do not cave in to the same group of people who have been trying to do this for 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joining Representatives Cartwright, Scott, Courtney, and Rahall in introducing the Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act of 2014.

The Black Lung Benefits Act was enacted in 1969 to provide health care and modest benefits to coal miners who develop black lung disease, also known as coal workers' pneumoconiosis, which is a crippling respiratory disease that has left generations of miners tethered to oxygen tanks. Today, the black lung benefits program is failing far too many miners and their survivors because there is an unfair disparity in medical and legal resources between miners and coal operators when it comes to establishing eligibility for benefits.

This legislation seeks to level the playing field by ensuring that miners have equal access to medical evidence, better access to legal resources, a remedy for those whose claims were denied due to recent discoveries of discredited medical evidence. In addition, it includes a requirement that the Department of Labor improve the timeliness of benefit decisions and an adjustment of benefit payments so that miners and their survivors receive the cost of living increases that Congress intended.

Black lung disease has killed more than 76,000 miners since 1968. Rates of black lung disease dropped steadily after the Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969 set enforceable limits on exposure to coal mine dust. However, rates are now on the rise again, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH. The number of people with the most severe form of black lung disease has spiked ten-fold over the past 15 years. In a heartbreaking example of the disease's prevalence, autopsies of the 24 miners who died in the Upper Big Branch mine explosion in 2010 revealed that 17 of these miners had black lung. And the Department of Labor expects 7,300 black lung benefit cases to be filed in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, an increase of 35 percent since fiscal year 2012.

The Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act of 2014 seeks to level the playing field for miners and strengthen our black lung benefits program in nine key ways.

First, it addresses the lack of legal assistance available to miners. The determination of a claimant's eligibility for black lung benefits often requires complex, adversarial litigation, but resource disparities between coal companies and claimants make it difficult for many miners and survivors with meritorious claims to prevail. The Government Accountability Office found that many claimants under the Black Lung Benefits Act are not equipped with the medical and legal resources necessary to develop sufficient evidence that can meet the requirements for benefits. Miners often lack complete and reliable medical evidence, which increases the risk that the individuals who review claims for benefits will be presented with insufficient medical evidence. Similarly, without better options for legal representation, significant numbers of such claimants proceed

through a complex and potentially long administrative process without the resources that Department of Labor officials and black lung disease experts note are important for developing evidence and supporting their claims. Only a quarter of claimants are represented by an attorney when filing a claim. A major obstacle to securing legal counsel is that it can take up to ten years for a claim to be resolved, and under the current system, a claimant's counsel receives no payment and must make numerous outlays during that time. Reforms must be made to remedy this resource imbalance between claimants and operators so that claimants with meritorious claims will receive the benefits they deserve.

To solve this problem, the legislation expands the Secretary's current statutory obligation to offer a complete pulmonary evaluation to a coal miner in order to substantiate a claim for benefits. It now requires that the Secretary supplement the medical evidence in cases where a party who opposes the claim provides evidence that could be considered contrary to the initial report of the pulmonary examination when the case is being considered by either a district director or an administrative law judge.

In addition, this section provides miners with greater access to legal representation by creating a system to pay a portion of their attorneys' fees earlier in the litigation process. Attorneys who prevail at each stage of the litigation would be paid $1,500 per stage, not to exceed $4,500 in total. These partial payments will be paid from the black lung trust fund, which is administered by the Secretary of Labor, but the advance payments must reimbursed to the trust fund by the operator if the claimant ultimately prevails through all stages of the litigation.

Second, the legislation addresses circumstances in which medical information is withheld from miners. Full disclosure of relevant medical information between miners and coal companies (or their insurers) is essential for fair adjudication of claims under the Black Lung Benefits Act, regardless of whether the parties intend to submit such information into evidence. Records of adjudications reveal that some mine operators' legal representatives have withheld relevant evidence from claimants, administrative law judges, and, in some cases, even their own medical experts. In several cases, the disclosure of such evidence would have substantiated a miner's claim for benefits. Withholding medical information can endanger miners by depriving them of important information about their own health and the potential need to seek medical treatment or cease employment where there is risk from continued exposure to coal dust.

To solve this problem, the legislation requires that claimants and operators must share all information about medical tests and examinations, as well as interpretations of pathology and x-rays that are developed as part of the claims process, regardless of whether such information is going to entered into the record or not. The bill balances sanctions by applying penalties for false statements to operators in addition to sanctions already applied to claimants. It also authorizes administrative law judges to levy sanctions for noncooperation in the discovery process. Full transparency and disclosure is needed for fair adjudication.

Third, the legislation provides the benefit of the doubt to miners in cases where the evidence is evenly balanced. Given the remedial nature of the Black Lung Benefits Act, when an adjudicator determines that evidence is evenly balanced, it is appropriate for any resulting doubt to be resolved in favor of the claimant. The Supreme Court vacated this longstanding legal principle--known as the true doubt rule--in 1994. This provision had been applied to both the Black Lung Benefits Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, and it was vacated because it was not expressly mandated in the underlying statutes. This principle should be reinstated in the Black Lung Benefits Act because it provides fairness.

This problem is resolved in the legislation by providing that claimants will receive the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in equipoise.

Fourth, the legislation addresses recent cases where biased medical evidence was systematically used to defeat meritorious claims. Physicians who read lung x-rays as part of pulmonary assessments under the Black Lung Benefits Act are required to demonstrate competency in classifying chest radiographs by becoming certified as ``B Readers'' by NIOSH. However, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, or CPI, and ABC News uncovered that there are NIOSH-certified B Readers who were under retainer by coal operators or their law firms and who systematically misclassified chest radiographs so that they could be used in opposing claims. The CPI report found that since 2000, Dr. Paul Wheeler of Johns Hopkins Medical Center had never once interpreted an x-ray as positive for complicated pneumoconiosis in more than 3,400 x- ray readings. Dr. Wheeler consistently concluded that there was not severe black lung present, even as other doctors saw the disease in hundreds of cases and other evidence, including biopsies, repeatedly proved him wrong. In response to these reports, Johns Hopkins immediately began an internal investigation and suspended the black lung x-ray reading program. A year later, the investigation is reportedly ongoing and the program remains suspended.

In response, the Department of Labor has issued guidance to its claims examiners ``not to credit negative chest x-ray readings for pneumoconiosis'' by Dr. Paul Wheeler unless the conclusions of such physician ``have been rehabilitated.'' DOL has provided written notice to miners whose claims were denied within the one-year window for reconsideration--and where Dr. Wheeler's evidence was used during the claims proceeding--that informs the miners of their right to seek reconsideration. Going forward, claimants need to have an unbiased place to turn to get their lung x-rays read.

To address this problem and help ensure access to credible medical evidence that can assist in establishing a claim or rebutting questionable medical interpretations, the bill establishes a pilot program at NIOSH that will provide impartial x-ray readings. These readings will be offered specifically to assess whether a miner has advanced stages of black lung disease--known as complicated pneumoconiosis or progressive massive fibrosis--which results in benefits being awarded on a presumptive basis. NIOSH is required to establish panels made up of three physicians who are certified as B Readers; the panels would prepare reports that can be used in claims proceedings as a service to claimants or operators on a fee-for-service basis.

Fifth, the legislation covers the need for remedies for those whose claims were unfairly denied due to tainted evidence. More than a year has passed since many miners' survivors were denied benefits in cases where Dr. Wheeler, the discredited Johns Hopkins' physician, provided the chest radiograph interpretations. Logically, survivors should be permitted to file a new claim for benefits if they were denied based on bogus medical interpretations. However, under current law a survivor is barred from filing a new claim more than one year after a decision to deny benefits is final, unless they can show a change in medical conditions. Obviously, for a deceased miner, demonstrating a change in medical condition is impossible.

The legislation remedies this injustice by allowing survivors to refile their claim outside of the one-year window. In addition, in cases where DOL has directed its claims examiners ``not to credit negative chest x-ray readings for pneumoconiosis'' provided by any physician whose interpretations have been discredited, the legislation also directs claims examiners and administrative law judges to exclude consideration of those discredited medical interpretations.

Sixth, the legislation addresses cost of living increases that have not been provided to miners and their families as intended. Contrary to the intent of Congress, benefits payments under the Black Lung Benefits Act have not been automatically increasing with the rising cost of living Benefit payments are tied to the monthly pay rate for federal employees in grade GS-2, step 1. In several of the prior fiscal years, there was a pay freeze for federal employees, which had the effect of eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for miners, surviving spouses, and dependents under the Black Lung Benefits Program during such years.

To resolve this issue, the legislation restores the cost-of-living adjustments for black lung beneficiaries that were blocked or reduced as a result of federal employee pay freezes in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Seventh, the legislation addresses the need for training to help improve claims administration. A competent assessment of medical information and testimony, which often involves multiple physicians disputing a diagnosis, is necessary to determine whether to award benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. To ensure that a determination regarding a claim for benefits under the act is fair and accurate, regular training is needed by claims examiners and administrative law judges regarding: developments in pulmonary medicine relating to black lung disease; medical evidence necessary to sustain claims for such benefits; and the proper weight to be given to conflicting evidence.

To address this need and improve claims administration, the legislation requires those administering this program to have annual training on the latest medical developments.

Eighth, there is a need to eliminate excessive delays in the adjudication of claims. There are currently egregious delays in adjudicating claims before an administrative law judge at the Department of Labor due to budget and staffing cuts. Between 2004 and 2014 there was a large reduction in the number of administrative law judges, coupled with a large increase in the number of cases filed under

the Black Lung Benefits Act. Compounding this problem were furloughs resulting from sequestration and the 16-day shutdown of the federal government during calendar year 2013. Due to the imbalance between resources and caseloads, it currently takes 429 days to assign a case to an administrative law judge, and claims remain unresolved for an average of 42 months prior to a decision, according to Department of Labor data. These delays directly and severely impact the lives of workers throughout the United States, placing an undue financial and emotional burden on the affected individuals and their families.

To resolve this issue, the legislation directs the Department of Labor to develop a plan to eliminate the backlog and eliminate delays.

Ninth, continued studies of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's recently adopted rules are needed to prevent future cases of black lung disease. Black lung disease has been the underlying or contributing cause of death of more than 76,000 miners since 1968. After decades of decline, the incidence of coal miners with black lung disease is on the rise. According to NIOSH, miners are developing advanced cases of the disease at younger ages. In response, the Mine Safety and Health Administration in the Department of Labor has taken important steps to combat the disease, including the promulgation of a rule in 2014 that reduces the allowed concentration of coal dust and eliminates weaknesses in the current dust sampling system.

To ensure that these reforms are sufficient to stem the scourge of black lung disease, this legislation requires continuing retrospective studies.

In total, the Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act of 2014 will restore a measure of justice to thousands of coal miners who have long toiled to provide the energy that powers our nation's homes, farms, and factories.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the 100th anniversary of the incorporation of Walnut Creek, California.

Walnut Creek is a vibrant city within the boundaries of my 11th Congressional District in Contra Costa County. Once a small rural town, east of San Francisco, Walnut Creek has evolved into a beautiful city with plenty of open space and the reputation as a regional destination for shopping and fine dining.

Walnut Creek began as the home to four tribes of the Bay Miwok: the Chupcans, in the northern part of the Diablo Valley; the Saclans, in present day Lafayette as well as in smaller valleys of the east bay hills; the Volvon, in areas surrounding Mount Diablo and Marsh Creek; and the Tatcans along the San Ramon Creek. The region's history was first recorded in 1772 when Spanish explorer Captain Pedro Fages led the first group of explorers into the Contra Costa County. The area began seeing an increase in settlement following the Mexican Revolution in 1821. In 1834 Mexico encouraged settlement in its new territory and as a result, four large land grants were made available. In 1849 the first American settler arrived and built a cabin in an area called Rancho Arroyo de las Nueces y Bolbones, one of the original 4 land grants. Americans called this area ``Nuts Creek'' due to the many walnut trees and creeks that were in the region.

Following the Mexican-American War, California became a U.S. Territory and subsequently gained statehood in 1850. As the area grew, commercial structures were built including, a hotel, general store, a blacksmith shop, and a meat market. Twelve years later with the establishment of the U.S. Post Office the community was officially named ``Walnut Creek''.

As years passed Walnut Creek continued to grow. In 1871, a plan to build a school failed for lack of funding, so the residents took the initiative to tax themselves $15.00 and Walnut Creek Central School was built. This tradition of valuing education remains as strong today as evidenced by Walnut Creek's exceptional elementary, middle and high school programs.

Residents continue to generously support the schools with their time, talent and their money to ensure a bright future for all of their children.

The City of Walnut Creek was officially incorporated on October 21, 1914 making it the eighth city in Contra Costa County. Originally a small town comprised of 500 acres, Walnut Creek now covers almost 20 square miles.

In 1951 Walnut Creek entered its modern era of commercial growth. Broadway Plaza opened with 38 shops. The '50s also saw the first population boom for the region as total population soared from 2,460 in 1950 to 9,903 in 1960 and 39,844 in 1970. On May 25 of 1976 across the street from Broadway Plaza, Liberty Bell Plaza was dedicated to the nation's bicentennial by former President Gerald Ford. Walnut Creek has continued to experience rapid growth and today is the home to over 64,000 people.

While Walnut Creek is no longer a small town it still boasts of the most open space per capita than any other community in the entire state of California, bringing together the comfort and excitement of city life while still maximizing the conservation of the surrounding environment. Today with its vast expanse of open space combined with a Mediterranean climate, sweeping views of nearby Mount Diablo, and diversity of flora, Walnut Creek has been established as one of California's most picturesque and charming communities. It is a thriving city with a colorful history and a very bright future.

I ask my colleagues to join with me today in celebrating the 100th Anniversary of Walnut Creek's incorporation and in wishing the residents another century of continued prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding record of a remarkable high school football program and Mr. Bob Ladouceur, the coach who, for 34 years, brought out the very best in his players both on and off the field. Under

Coach Ladouceur's guidance, the Spartans of De La Salle have recorded a historic 151-game winning streak over a 12 year period and are the inspiration behind the recently released film, ``When the Game Stands Tall''.

In 1979 at just 24 years of age, Bob Ladouceur was hired as both a religious studies instructor and Head Coach of the De La Salle Varsity Football Team to mold an athletic program in the early stages of development. Coach Ladouceur masterfully shaped an outstanding program and by 1995 he was named the National Football League's first National High School Coach of the Year. In 2001, he was inducted into the National Federation of State High School Associations Hall of Fame and has been named ``Coach of the Year'' by both ESPN and USA Today.

In addition to the winning streak, the statistics for the De La Salle Spartans are quite simply amazing:

--399-25-3 overall record

--20 undefeated seasons, including 12 in a row, resulting in the 151 game winning streak

--49-7 average margin of victory during the streak

--28 CIF North Coast Section titles

--No. 1 in national rankings seven times

--A dozen future NFL players began their careers as Spartans.

But the story of De La Salle football is more than touchdowns and field goals. To quote Coach Ladouceur, ``I always placed the huge value in our program in how our kids treat each other; what kind of students they are. Are they learning things under our care?'' He masterfully developed this outstanding program to guide his students to excellence not just on the field but through life.

Mr. Speaker, I invite this chamber to join with me in recognizing Coach Bob Ladouceur for his tireless service to the students of De La Salle and to congratulate each of the members of the Spartans Football Team for their dedication to the game and to values they have carried with them off the field.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Chairman Kline's amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1086.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant, or the CCDBG, is an indispensable resource for millions of children and families nationwide. This enables parents to send their kids to safe, high- quality, and affordable child care so they can work or attend training programs or provide for their families. Meanwhile, the program helps place children in the sorts of environments they need for healthy growth and development.

However, it has been almost 20 years since last we updated this program. In that time, we have learned that we need to do more to ensure that children receive high-quality care in safe settings. That is why this vote is so very important. That is why I am so pleased to have reached bipartisan-bicameral consensus on this legislation.

I would like to thank all of the organizations for their support of this legislation in the process of finalizing this legislation, which has been done over the last several weeks. This bill is not on suspension because it is unimportant; it is on suspension because we recognize the urgency of getting this done this year, and we also recognize a growing national bipartisan consensus about the value of children being placed in high-quality, safe environments during their early learning years.

I would like to include letters from the following organizations: Save the Children; Child Care Aware of America; the National Women's Law Center; the Center For Law and Social Policy; Zero to Three; the Early Care and Education Consortium; the National Association for the Education of Young Children; the Children's Defense Fund; the National Education Association; and the American Federation of Teachers.

American Federation of Teachers,

Washington, DC, September 15, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.6 million

members of the American Federation of Teachers--including

approximately 90,000 early childhood education professionals

who work in diverse settings, such as preschool classrooms,

family child care, child care centers, Head Start and Early

Head Start--I urge you to support, as amended, S. 1086, the

bipartisan Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of

2014.

The CCDBG helps low-income parents pay for child care so

they can work or pursue an education. S. 1086 guarantees a

family's child care eligibility for at least 12 months,

regardless of any fluctuation in income, job or education.

This offers a vital lifeline and a path to the middle class

for millions of families across the nation.

It has been nearly 20 years since the CCDBG was last

reauthorized. Since that time, early childhood education and

child care programs have been transformed by research on

child development. This bill reflects the advancement of this

knowledge and will truly modernize the program.

S. 1086 brings child care standards into this century by

focusing on the health and safety of children, and by giving

parents more confidence that their child is being well cared

for while they are at work or school. In addition, the bill

ensures our youngest and most vulnerable are safe by making

inspections annual and requiring that all providers and

employees obtain background checks and training before they

care for children. S. 1086 also makes all this information

more transparent and available to the public, especially to

parents and family members.

This bill acknowledges that a component of a high-quality

child care program includes having a workforce that is well-

prepared and well-trained. This bill requires states to

establish a professional development progression and dedicate

more funding for training, professional development and

advancement of the child care workforce. In particular, the

bill, as amended, also addresses the latest data on

expulsions from early education programs by requiring that

part of the staff training focuses on child behavioral

supports. The training and professional development

requirements not only will benefit educators and staff

working in child care, but also will have lasting, positive

effects for the children in their care and those children's

families.

However, while this bill is a significant first step toward

providing every child in our nation with a high-quality early

learning and care program, we know we can't do it right on

the cheap. Without the necessary federal resources to

implement these important health and safety standards and

trainings, states either will be unable to increase the

quality of child care and education or will simply have to

cut access to high-quality child care to children and

families that need it the most. States should not have to

choose between quality and access. We look forward to working

with Congress to pass this legislation and secure the

resources needed for its successful implementation.

Finally, we are equally committed to partnering with

Congress to expand high-quality early education for all

children from birth to kindergarten.

Thank you for your consideration of our views on this

matter. The AFT urges you to vote yes when S. 1086 comes to

the House floor.

Sincerely,

Randi Weingarten,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Ted Radke, a dynamic leader in the community, and congratulate him as he retires after more than thirteen-six years of service to the people of the East Bay.

From a young age, Ted understood the importance of environmental preservation. He grew up learning to hike, camp, fish and hunt, while hearing stories about Theodore Roosevelt's and John Muir's adventures as early conservationists. While studying at San Francisco State University, he founded Contra Costa Ecology Action. Through Ted's continued support, Ecology Action has blossomed into an award-winning organization committed to environmental and economic sustainability. Throughout Ted's tenure, he has served in a variety of positions, including educator and public official. As an elected member of the Martinez City Council, Ted was as an active leader on environmental issues and successfully opposed the development of the Martinez shoreline.

Ted's valued advice and input improved California's environmental policies and regulations. His ingenuity, brilliance, and breadth of knowledge shaped California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which now requires local and state agencies to identify and consider their impact on the environment.

In 1978, Ted was elected to the East Bay Regional Park District Board, where he served for more than thirty years. The organization attributes much of its success to Ted's experience, leadership, and enthusiasm. During his time as a Board Member, Ted more than doubled the District's landholdings, expanding regional parks and nature reserves. He was also instrumental in the passage of Measure AA, an essential source of funding for land acquisition and preservation. In 2008, he again secured this funding through Measure WW, ensuring the future protection of our beloved parks and reserves.

I ask my colleagues to join with me today in commending Ted Radke for his committed and diligent service to the people of the East Bay. I am pleased to congratulate Ted on an outstanding career and wish him the very best as he begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I thank him for his defense of the Endangered Species Act. And I thank him for how he administers his position as the ranking member of the Resources Committee.

This is an old argument. We have been around here time and again. Time and again, people who don't like the Endangered Species Act have tried to put their thumb on one side of the scale of justice whenever these arguments come forward. They have tried to empower junk science and give it the status of thoughtful, proven science to get in.

But now they are suggesting that the science would be based upon the party that submits it. If the right parties--if a local entity submits it, then it will be judged as the best science. Whether or not it is science at all won't matter. It will simply be deemed that by the Congress of the United States, and the Department will have to follow that.

That just, obviously, takes you right back to the courtroom, where they now inspire litigation. When the citizens want to sue, then the citizens will have to go back to the courtroom because they have deemed junk science as real science. And then they will try to limit the amount that the citizens can be compensated in terms of their lawyers.

And yet, as the gentleman from Oregon just pointed out, they are going to spend millions of dollars suing the President of the United States, and they are not going to pay for any of it. They are going to charge it to the deficit. They will charge it to the deficit. So how is this justice coming out of the House of Representatives?

The fact of the matter is, the Endangered Species Act has been effective. It has worked. It saves species. It has returned species off of the list. And the American people truly support it in great numbers. They truly support it in great numbers because they recognize that this is about one generation taking care of what we inherited and passing it on to another generation. People are most often pleased with the public spaces that have been preserved to protect it, to protect the various species.

Has every decision been exactly right? Of course not. And that is why people go to court on both sides of the law.

Nobody is suggesting that you limit it equally. This is a question of the science being used and who gets a leg up in that argument in the courts, which leads to more litigation. So the idea is that you are trying to get away from litigation.

But the fact of the matter is, the fact of the matter is that this is an act that has caused us to pause and wait and think about what we are doing, and what the impact of that is, whether that is development, whether that is forced practices, whether that is public infrastructure. Whatever it is, what is the impact beyond that project? And is that adverse and is it detrimental to these species? Is it detrimental to the health of the neighborhoods, to the health of the communities? And very often, the Endangered Species Act has resulted in better projects being designed, very often better projects being designed because of those considerations, more sustainable projects being designed because of those considerations.

But the fact of the matter is, many people just hate the Endangered Species Act. So we come here Congress after Congress with these meat-ax approaches.

I spent one of the longest negotiations on a bipartisan basis trying to arrive at a conclusion on a section of the Endangered Species Act. In the eleventh hour, my Republican partner, the chairman of the committee, walked out the door. I don't know why that happened. It wasn't communicated, but that was that. That morning, we were supposed to have a press conference to announce the agreement, but it never happened. With the hours and hours that were spent, I thought we had reached a good agreement between those areas.

But the idea of frustration builds up, and you can just swing away at the Endangered Species Act. Yes, it is very popular, and it can be very controversial.

I am more concerned about what local agencies do in the name of endangered species sometimes when they ask for mitigation that I find is very unfair, that I have complained about, that I have written the agencies about.

I think very often, it is not so much the Federal protection of endangered species. Very often, it is people who then want to use it at another level of government to extract from developers, from land use, for the purposes of mitigation that I think is hard to justify.

And I would just hope that, once again, this Congress would use its good judgment, it would support the American people, it would support the Endangered Species Act, and it would, in fact, reject this legislation.

This is really bad legislation, and you can't pretend that you care about science and at the same time say you get to deem the best science based upon the party of submission.

I have fought with agencies to get the science that people have worked on, that universities have worked on, introduced into the discussion. I have never suggested that they would have to accept it as the best science. I thought it would broaden the discussion. I thought it would bring another consideration to those debates.

So this is a bill that should be rejected, and the gentleman from Oregon is quite right. I would have been so much happier spending our time here on the floor today dealing with the issue of wildfires, and not just those wildfires that are burning in California today, but by all projections, we are already ahead of the worst wildfire seasons this year already, and we expect it to get much worse with the persistence of this drought. And as the chairman and ranking member know, in those three States, we are way out ahead here on wildfires, and I wish at some point, we would make a decision that we could deal with these in an institutional fashion so that the firefighting assets would know what is available to them. We wouldn't scramble around. We wouldn't put other agencies in jeopardy by stealing money from their accounts. But we would deal with this in an adult fashion. We would set aside money for the purposes and replenishment of that money to fight wildfires because the alternative cannot be not to try to control this wildfire and stop the damage that they do both to the natural environment and to the private environment and the local economies that are so severely impacted by the aftermath of those fires.

But we are not going to do that. We are just going to stand up here and take another meat-ax approach to the Endangered Species Act, which is going to be unsuccessful, in the time we could have been talking about wildfires, in the time we could have prepared for the remainder of this wildfire season, giving notice to State agencies, to local agencies, to our Federal agencies on what they can do to prepare and the assets that they can have in place for those wildfires. We have missed that opportunity today in the name of this continued attack on the Endangered Species Act, which the American people have rejected over and over. And fortunately, this Congress has rejected over and over.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for all of his work on this legislation and joining Mr. Salmon in an effort to bring this to the floor. I thank both of them for reaching agreement on this. I also thank the chair of the committee, Mrs. Brooks, and Mr. Tierney on our side, for this opportunity to vote on this legislation.

We have made a promise to America's students. We have said that we will make the cost of a college education affordable and accessible. With that comes another promise--the promise that when a student graduates with a college degree in hand, they will have the skills to succeed in the workplace and in the economy.

But the traditional college degree has not changed since the 1800s, as my colleagues have pointed out, despite dramatic changes for businesses and the workforce. We all know that a good middle class job requires some college education and training. And today, as most workers move from job to job more frequently, they need to tap new skills to keep up with the demands of emerging industries.

Despite the changing workforce needs, college credit is earned based upon the hours spent sitting in the classroom, not on the knowledge or the skills earned. Today, the Congress has an opportunity to vote for a new competency-based education model so we can flip the old model on its head.

This model is an opportunity for American students to access a high- quality education in a new way. And through technology and the Internet, this model becomes more user friendly and affordable for families.

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Tierney, for his dedication on this issue. Mr. Tierney and I spent many hours with the leaders of this movement to understand how the Federal Government can support these innovative programs--and, in some cases, where we can just get out of the way and let schools innovate.

In particular, I would like to thank the Lumina Foundation, New America, Southern New Hampshire University, Capella University, Cal State University, Open Learning Initiative, and San Jose State for their expertise on these programs.

This demonstration program makes sense because we need to test these innovations before we can make significant commitments of new Federal investments.

Specifically, this bill gives colleges a chance to create competency- based programs to help students succeed by measuring what they know and not solely the number of hours that they spent in the classroom.

Under this legislation, students will still learn the basic academic work, but this model allows them to become proficient at their own pace, potentially shortening the time it takes to earn a degree.

For the returning veteran, this could mean her Army medic skills are more easily transferred to an RN degree or some other medical degree. For a self-taught computer programmer, this could mean a computer science degree in a shorter timeframe and at less cost.

Combined with new technology, competency-based education is one of the most promising new innovations to help make college more affordable and more accessible. This is a very good step forward, and I urge the support of this legislation.

I also urge Members to support H.R. 4984, Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, a bill that would improve counseling on financial aid and student loans so that students can make more informed choices on how to finance their education.

While I support these bills, they are not enough for students already facing a mountain of college debt. I am disappointed that we are not voting today to help student loan borrowers save thousands of dollars and better manage their debt burden through lower interest rates.

My colleague, Congressman Tierney, offered an amendment at the Rules Committee to allow students to refinance student loans and to lock in lower interest rates, just like millions of Americans have been able to do with their mortgages or their car loans.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership refused to make the Tierney amendment in order, thus blocking a straight up-or-down vote on whether or not to help millions of students and their families reduce their debt.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Kline and my Republican colleagues for their cooperation and inclusiveness on all of the higher education bills that we are considering this week. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.