Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Eshoo and I rise in the memory of Rollin Post, a distinguished journalist, beloved husband, and proud father and grandfather, great American, and dear friend.

Rollin was a radio reporter and then television journalist in California for more than four decades, spending most of his career in the San Francisco Bay Area. He was, quite simply, the best at his craft. He died on October 3 at the age of 81 after suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

We also rise today to mourn the death of Rollin's wife, Diane Opley Post. After 57 years of a remarkable marriage, Diane survived her husband's death by only a month. She died peacefully at their residence in Corte Madera, California on November 6 at the age of 82. Diane, and her engagement in many important civic activities, will be fondly remembered.

We will miss Diane and Rollin for their friendship. And we offer our sympathy to their three children and five grandchildren and we thank them for having shared their parents with us for so many wonderful years.

Rollin was born in New York City in 1930 and received his undergraduate degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1952. He started as a radio reporter for the CBS affiliate in Los Angeles in 1954, switched to television in 1957, and moved to the Bay Area in 1961 where he spent more than 40 years working for three television stations--KPIX, the CBS affiliate, KQED, a public television station, and KRON, the NBC affiliate.

Rollin represented the best of political journalism. His deep understanding and knowledge of the issues and the California electorate were unparalleled. His analysis of state and national events truly informed his viewers. When ``gotcha'' journalism became the norm in his industry, Rollin stayed true to his beliefs about what it took to be a really good journalist.

Rollin informed himself before his interviews, asked his questions, and then asked them again if he didn't feel they had been properly answered. He was very tough but he was fair. He respected his viewers by holding politicians to high standards. Rollin was a man of high integrity, and his love of journalism and politics showed in every broadcast.

Our country is poorer today in the absence of his excellent reporting.

We ask our colleagues to join us in remembering Rollin Post and in honoring him for his efforts as a journalist to keep our country informed, its politicians honest, and the journalistic profession serious.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two people who have dedicated their lives to improving the educational outcomes for our Nation's youth. Gerard and Lilo Leeds are a shining example of two people who are giving something important back to a society that once offered them the opportunity to experience so much success in their own lives.

The Leeds came to the United States in 1939 as refugees from Hitler's Germany. After launching a successful media corporation, Mr. and Mrs. Leeds founded the Institute for Student Achievement--an organization that partners with low-income middle schools and high schools to improve student achievement for at-risk youth. They also created the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc, a coalition of concerned parents and education advocates seeking to reform New York State's school finance system. The Leeds also established the Caroline and Sigmund Schott Foundation--an organization that works on early childhood education and care, gender equity, and education financing issues.

The Leeds continued their philanthropic efforts on behalf of adolescent youth by founding the Alliance for Excellent Education in 2001 and charged it with reducing the nation's high school dropout rate and preparing each secondary school student to graduate ready for success at the college level.

Gerard and Lilo Leeds are recipients of many civic awards, including Socially Responsible Entrepreneurs of the Year, the Long Island Association Humanitarian Award, and Outstanding Philanthropists of the year for the Long Island chapter of the National Society of Fund Raising Executives.

The couple also has been honored by the Urban League of Long Island, the New York State chapter of the NAACP, the New York State United Teachers union, and the American Jewish Committee. They were cited by Newsday in its report on ``100 Who Shaped a Century,'' and were among the ten honorees selected by WCBS-TV for recognition in its annual ``Fulfilling the Dream'' celebration of the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Their spirit is filled with humanitarianism, kindness, and commitment to serve others. As displayed by their social ventures, they are fully dedicated to helping disadvantaged youth achieve and exceed expectations. When asked where their sense of responsibility comes from, they said the only thing that allowed them to succeed, especially as immigrants fleeing Germany during World War II, was a quality education. As lifetime learners earning both a bachelors and masters degree, they believe the same academic experience they received should be the standard--not the exception--for every boy and girl in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Gerard and Lilo Leeds for their tremendous leadership and dedication to helping students across the United States receive a quality education.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, last week the United Mine Workers of America released the results of their investigation into the deadliest coal mine tragedy in four decades. The report describes the conditions on April 5, 2010 in Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine that led to a colossal explosion killing 29 miners. It confirms the findings of two other independent investigations.

In short, Massey's failure to eliminate explosive coal dust throughout the mine converted an otherwise manageable methane fire into a catastrophic explosion. The force of this explosion traveled more than 7 miles underground, destroying everything in its path. Miles of coal belts were decimated, railroad tracks were twisted like pretzels, and massive mining equipment was tossed underground like lawn furniture during a hurricane.

The report noted that in the 15 months before the explosion, the mine was cited 645 times for violations of mine safety laws. They faced $1.2 million in potential fines. However, rather than improving safety, Massey challenged three-quarters of the fines. And in the month before the explosion, miners had asked that the accumulation of explosive coal dust be addressed 560 times. However, management only responded 65 times.

The Upper Big Branch mine was literally a powder keg. The mine workers' investigation concluded that 29 miners died because of a corrupt corporate culture that put production ahead of human life. Massey Energy's top management was well aware of the conditions at Upper Big Branch mine. They knew of the mountains of citations for dangerous conditions, but all they had to do was file an appeal to get Federal safety officials to back off.

Massey also obstructed mine safety inspections by illegally alerting operations of an inspector on the property so they could cover up any noticeable problems. And management knew that workers were complaining about the conditions below ground. But all Massey had to do was remind these miners that they were free to find other employment if they continued to speak up.

Corporate officers didn't mince words when it came to production over safety. In a ``RUN COAL'' memo from CEO Don Blankenship in 2005, he told his workers their only concern was to produce coal. The message was clear from the very top: produce coal, disregard safety problems or find another job. Miners of Upper Big Branch and other Massey mines have told Congress and investigators similar stories. To enforce their perverse philosophy, top management demanded reports every 30 minutes on how much their mines were producing.

It is clear that Massey Energy management actively disregarded their workers' health and safety. Unfortunately, the knowing violation of a mandatory health and safety standard is only a misdemeanor, no matter how many miners are killed. This kind of conduct needs to be made a felony, but efforts to increase sanctions have been stifled by the mining industry's lobby. Instead of being held accountable for the decisions that caused 29 deaths, Massey Energy executives got a massive $195 million payout when they sold off their company, according to the United Mine Workers report.

Even though Don Blankenship was forced to resign following the Upper Big Branch tragedy, he pocketed $86 million in the golden parachute when 29 of the miners under his jurisdiction and responsibility were killed. If you wonder why people are talking about the 1 percent and the 99 percent, the 99 percent in the mine had their lives put in danger every day they went to work for Massey. And every day they questioned it, they were threatened with job loss. But the 1 percent-- the 1 percent--walked away with $195 million for overseeing one of the most dangerous mining operations in the history of this country.

What about the families of the breadwinners of the 99 percent? They lost their breadwinner, they lost their husband, they lost their father, and they lost their brother. Now we understand

the disparity that motivates people to occupy Wall Street. We know why people are occupying hometowns all over the country. We understand this. But we also know that these miners had to simply go to work. This was the job that was available to them, but they were ridden roughshod over by Massey.

These families are now simply left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and may receive some scraps later on in some final determination. It's a familiar story in an era where Wall Street companies and their executives took big payouts after wrecking our economy. But Massey Energy executives' decisions resulted in the destruction of 29 lives and 29 families. This makes Massey's payout even more disgusting.

Massey Energy was recently sold to Alpha Natural Resources. I have been personally assured that these corrupt practices won't reappear with the new owner. However, there are some troubling contradictions that merit a careful watch. Despite stating their intention to fully cooperate with the government investigations, Alpha has been keeping some senior Massey managers who have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. And Alpha's recent actions to fight potential pattern of violation sanctions at former Massey mines don't set well either.

Yes, mining is a dangerous job; but not every mining company operates like Massey, nor should they, nor should we tolerate the Masseys of the coal industry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Small Company Capital Formation Act, which will help restore the purpose of the ``Regulation A'' exemption that was designed to make it easier for growing small businesses to access capital.

It is critical that we ensure that innovative, growing small companies have access to the capital that they need to continue to grow and hire, because these companies play such an important role in our economy.

Regulation A offers these small companies a unique chance to raise money through small offerings under a streamlined and less costly registration process. This opportunity is especially important in today's economy, in which access to capital has been greatly reduced as many banks hesitate to lend.

Unfortunately, in recent years, few companies have been able to take advantage of the Regulation A exemption because the offering limit of $5 million is too low and has not been updated in the last 30 years.

In fact, there have only been an average of eight filings per year under the exemption in recent years.

By increasing the offering limit, this bill will ensure that more growing companies can take advantage of Regulation A in order to access the capital that they need to expand and thrive.

I'm glad that this bill has come to the floor in a bipartisan way. This proposal is an important component of President Obama's American Jobs Act and has the potential to benefit small businesses across the country. It is the sort of commonsense solution that both parties should be able to agree on.

I particularly want to thank the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area delegation, as we have been working since early last year to enact this long-needed change.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the work of the men and women who have organized and staffed the North Bay Stand Down, serving homeless military veterans in my 7th Congressional District for a full 10 years. This annual event has quite literally been a lifeline for countless veterans and their families who have found themselves without support or resources to make it on their own.

The North Bay Stand Down was established in 2002 as a one-day, one- stop shop for access to health care and social services. That first year, 100 volunteer workers enrolled 50 veterans in the VA system, provided job counseling to 10 participants, and prepared 150 meals. Over the years, the program has met the ever-growing need in our community by expanding to a full three-day event. Last year alone, 601 volunteers enrolled 265 veterans plus 15 family members in the Veterans Affairs system. In addition, they served 2,700 meals, provided job counseling to 101 participants, resolved 298 court cases, and provided medical services to 413 of the attendees.

Each year, the North Bay Stand Down has recorded remarkable success stories. Veterans have found employment as well as medical and dental care. Many have found the strength and support to commit to a sober lifestyle with the help of the psychiatric services on grounds. Families have been stabilized as they have made the connection to transitional housing programs and counseling services. And Stand Down has provided an opportunity for veterans to connect with old friends finding the critical support network that is born out of shared experiences.

Our military men and women have stepped up to answer our country's call, and what we do for them as a nation after they step out of the uniform must match that level of commitment. While the GI benefits have been expanded in recent years, it is clear that the needs of our returning veterans still outweigh the resources available. The North Bay Stand Down continues to fill in that gap. So many of our returning military veterans are finding barriers to their successful readjustment to civilian life. I am ever grateful for the men and women volunteers of North Bay Stand Down who, year after year, have helped knock those barriers down.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, one of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote

and protect American jobs and values. When it comes to trade, jobs and values go hand-in-hand. To promote American jobs, we must promote American values. We do this by ensuring that our workers are protected from unfair competition with countries that keep wages artificially low by repressing essential democratic rights: the right to speak out, the right to organize, the right to bargain, the right for a better life without fear of reprisals.

And so as we now consider the trade agreement with Colombia, what do you get when you exercise your rights in Colombia today? You get death threats and death squad activities against you and your families. Colombia is the most dangerous place on Earth for workers who dare to exercise their rights. During the last Colombian President's 8 years in office, 570 union members were assassinated. To date, only 10 percent of the thousands of killings over the last 25 years have been resolved.

The problems here are undeniable. So I appreciate that the U.S. and the Colombia Governments have finally brought labor rights into the equation. They have agreed to a Labor Action Plan requiring Colombia to change some labor laws and to commit more resources to fight the violence and impunity.

But that plan is fatally flawed. It only demands results on paper. It does not demand real change. Colombia could have a record year for assassinations and still meet the requirements of the plan. Sure enough, real change is yet to come to Colombia. Since President Santos took office last year, press reports indicate at least 38 trade unionists have been murdered--16 since the Labor Action Plan was announced.

In mid-June of this year, I met with a Port Workers Union leader from Colombia in my office about his concerns with the free trade agreement. He told me that he was not provided protection and that the abusive cooperative system was still in place despite commitments made by the Colombian Government to remedy both. In July, I spoke directly to his concerns on the floor of the House. And 2 weeks later, this leader received death threats via text message. The message said, ``If you continue to create problems and denounce things, you will die in a mortuary union.''

It's under these conditions that we are asked to approve this deal. If we approve the deal now, any incentive for Colombia to truly improve will vanish. Now is not the time to reward violence with impunity with the seal of approval from the United States. The deal with Colombia is neither fair nor free. Telling Colombian workers that if they speak out for higher wages, they will die--that's not freedom. Telling American workers to compete with that kind of repression--that's not fair to our workers or our values.

Stand for American values, and reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

This Friday, October 7, marks the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform have fought valiantly in this war over the last decade at great cost. More than 1,700 American soldiers have lost their lives as they fought to destroy al Qaeda and hunt down Osama bin Laden. Thousands more have come home with very serious life-long injuries.

When I'm at home in California and talk with veterans and their families, I can see how much our soldiers have sacrificed. I want to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all of the men and women in uniform who have carried out their duty in Afghanistan.

As the anniversary approaches, I am thinking particularly of Army Captain John Hallett III of Concord, California, in my congressional district, and his family. Captain Hallett was killed in action in southern Afghanistan on August 25, 2009. I was honored to have provided him a congressional nomination to the West Point Academy.

This week, all of us should honor the tremendous sacrifices our men and women in uniform made for their country in Afghanistan. And our objective in Afghanistan has been achieved--Osama bin Laden has been killed, and few al Qaeda members remain in the country. Yet, unfortunately, our troops

in Afghanistan are now bogged down in an unending and deadly war with the Taliban and defending the corrupt Afghan Government. To this day, the government in Kabul, led by President Karzai, has not been able to take charge of its country, even as it has been able to provide enormous favors for the President's cronies and family.

In these difficult times, we cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars per month defending a corrupt regime. We cannot afford to continue to provide payments to contractors who turn around and use those payments to pay off the very same Taliban who are killing our troops in Afghanistan. But above all, our soldiers cannot be asked to continue to risk their lives for years and years to come. Instead, it is time to bring all of our troops home and to invest in America instead. By doing so, we can honor the enormous sacrifice that our troops have made, and at the same time ensure that they have a strong and prosperous country to come home to.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on September 23, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 741, final passage of H.R. 2401, which would block two landmark public health regulations under the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, on September 23, 2001, 13 brave miners lost their lives in two mine explosions in the depths of the Jim Walter Resources, JWR, #5 Mine, which is located approximately two miles from Brookwood, Alabama.

This mine is located in the deepest and most gas laden coal mine seam in the United States, some 2,100 feet below ground. The miners are represented by the United Mine Worker of America, who conducted a thorough investigation and report on this tragedy.

Four miners were building wooden cribs to fix a badly supported mine roof, when the roof collapsed nearby. Shortly thereafter, there was an explosion that injured these four miners. The roof fall occurred on top of a large six-ton, 64-volt scoop battery that was suspended from the mine roof in a track entry. The battery was connected to a battery charger, according to reports. The first explosion was likely caused by the scoop battery, which was damaged and short circuited, igniting methane that had become trapped due to the lack of adequate ventilation caused by the roof fall.

A chaotic emergency response followed and miners tried to assist those who were injured. About 55 minutes after the first explosion, a larger and more violent explosion rocked throughout the mine, and 13 miners were killed--12 rescuers and one miner who had been hurt and unable to move after the initial explosion. The second explosion was, according to reports, fueled by methane and float coal dust. This explosion took the lives of Gaston Adams, Jr., Raymond Ashworth, Nelson Banks, David Blevins, Clarence ``Bit''

Boyd, Wendell Johnson, John Knox, Dennis Mobley, Charles Nail, Joe Riggs, Charles Smith, Joe Sorah and Terry Stewart.

Rescue and recovery was difficult, since the ventilation controls were destroyed. It took seven weeks--until early November--until teams could recover 12 of the victims. It took eight months to rehabilitate the mine so it was safe enough to resume operations.

At the time of this mine disaster, the Nation's attention was focused the events of 9/11, which had occurred only two weeks earlier. As such, no mining law changes followed.

Five years after the JWR #5 disaster, a series of tragedies at Sago, Aracoma Alma and Darby spurred enactment of the MINER Act. The law largely focused on improvements to post-accident emergency response, and mandates for operators to provide tracking, communications and shelters. Had Congress acted in a timely way after the JWR #5 disaster, it is likely that other miners' lives could have been saved.

Important mine law changes have yet to be mandated by Congress from the JWR #5 disaster that should be acted upon.

For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has developed coal dust explosivity meters, which can give miners real time information on the presence of explosive coal dust--a substance ten times as explosive as methane--and can signal whether additional rock dust is needed to prevent mine explosions. The Robert C. Byrd Miner Safety and Health Act, which was introduced in 2010 but was not enacted, mandates that mine operators use coal dust explosivity meters as a way to assure more timely compliance with rock dusting requirements.

Independent investigations of major mine tragedies are needed to assure there is no conflict of interest involving questions about the adequacy of mine safety oversight and the performance of state and federal regulators. The Byrd bill contained a requirement for independent investigations.

Battery chargers, which ventilate explosive gases such as hydrogen, need to be directly vented to the returns in mines so that they cannot ignite fires. Roof control plans need to assure that areas around battery chargers have robust roof support.

As the senior Democratic Member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I strongly urge Congress to follow up on the lessons from the JWR #5 mine disaster, as well as the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, which took the lives of 29 miners on April 5, 2010. Miners' blood should not be spilled in vain. Continued inaction by Congress on matters of the health and safety our Nation's miners is simply inexcusable.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for that nice introduction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this legislation,

This is a first in America. We must repudiate this on behalf of families that are struggling all across the country, those who are fortunate enough to continue to have a job, but they can't have a job living under this threat that they won't be able to better themselves if their employer decides to be selfish, decides to retaliate against them for seeking to organize to do something on their behalf. It's a fundamental part of the contract in America for workers. It doesn't exist in a lot of other parts of the world, but it does here. It has led to the middle class in this country, and it's the middle class that is threatened by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker. I commend to my colleagues' attention the following statement on the debate over Social Security from John Burton, our former colleague here in the House, the former president of the California State Senate, and the current chair of the California Democratic Party. John has a long and distinguished career in standing up for the economic interests of the middle class and the long-term strength of the American economy.

No Social Security Cuts on the Table

(By John Burton)

Chair, California Democratic Party

Member of Congress 1975-1982

California State Assemblyman 1998-1994

California State Senate President 1998-2004

There has been a lot of pressure from Republicans, the

Chamber of Commerce, and newspaper editorials to put

everything on the table, including Social Security, in order

to deal with the federal deficit. That is a load of baloney.

No way in the world should Social Security be put on the

table to deal with the deficit. One thing should be

abundantly clear--Social Security has nothing to do with the

current budget deficit or any budget deficit for that matter.

It is a self-funding program that pays for itself. The

program has actually lent the government money by purchasing

U.S. Treasury notes and bonds.

Furthermore, Social Security, as a separate trust fund, was

never included in the U.S. budget until President Lyndon

Johnson decided to include it to demonstrate that domestic

spending had increased even though our military spending went

up during the Vietnam War.

The social security system is in sound fiscal shape. It has

a surplus that will be present until 2037. There is a great

deal of fuss about the fact that benefits paid out of the

program would exceed the Social Security tax revenue and the

fund has to be tapped to make the difference. That is exactly

how the social security trust fund is supposed to work.

That's why Congress created it. The bonds in the trust fund

earn interest. Therefore the total value of the fund will

continue to grow after that day. If nothing else changes, the

total payout benefit will not exceed tax revenue plus

interest on the bonds until 2024.

Some claim that the trust fund has constantly been looted.

Now it is little more than a pile of worthless paper. They

are not telling the truth. That paper is in fact a pile of

U.S. Treasury bonds, even now considered to be the safest

investment in the world. Under the law, the federal

government is obligated to pay the bonds held by the trust

fund, just as it has to pay interests on other government

bonds. The thought that the government would default on its

bonds owed to the social security trust fund is a pipe dream.

If there are perceived future problems with the Social

Security system, that is a separate issue unrelated to the

``deficit crisis'' and could be solved in an orderly manner.

A point of fact is that if the government pays what it owes

the fund, it will be solvent for another 26 years.

If the Social Security issue is ``to be dealt with,'' the

easy solution is to raise the payroll tax ceiling, which is

now around $107,000. When the ceiling was set, it was assumed

that payroll tax would cover 90% of all wages. When the

ceiling was set in 1983, the top 1% of Americans received

11.6% of total income. Today that 1% takes in more than 20%

of the total income. If the formula pushes it back up to 90%

of all wages envisioned in the 1983 legislation, the ceiling

would rise to $180,000. The long-term social security problem

would be solved.

In the meantime, the fund is safe and solvent through four

presidential elections. It is solvent for twelve more years,

if not twenty-six more years before there are any problems.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elia Martinez Lineweaver, a loving wife, a caring mother, a longtime medical assistant and translator and, along with her husband, John, the co-founder of the Danny Foundation for Crib and Child Product Safety. Sadly, Rose passed away suddenly on September 3, 2011, after a life dedicated to her family and the causes she championed.

Born in Mexico in 1942, Rose came here with her mother and siblings at the age of 5, and in 1961 became a naturalized citizen of the United States. While she was proud of her career as a health care provider, her true passion stemmed from her role as mother to thirteen children.

In 1984, a tragic crib accident left Rose and John's 23-month-old son Danny severely disabled. After this tragedy the Lineweavers formed The Danny Foundation for Crib and Child Product Safety. During its 20 years of international activity, The Danny Foundation created and advocated for safety regulations which defined for the very first time how U.S. crib makers should safely manufacture cribs. Additionally, they pursued legal remedies and sought changes from industry and government in the design, advertising, inspection, use, and sale of infant cribs. Their tireless work over the years has saved untold thousands of infants from injury and even death.

In 2006, Rose received the Jefferson Award for public service for her life-saving efforts, and over the years was honored by notices in the Congressional Record, the receipt of personal letters of thanks from the White House and many of my colleagues here in Congress, as well as from state legislators from seven states in which infant crib safety legislation was passed thanks to the Danny Foundation's efforts.

Those who knew Rose Lineweaver will attest to the fact that her true legacy is in her exceptional family: 12 children, 27 grandchildren and 13 great grandchildren. For those of us who had the privilege of working with Rose and John through the Danny Foundation, we can be thankful for her resilience and determination that created a safer environment for our youngest children. This was truly her gift to all families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Arlette Merritt, Executive Director of West Contra Costa County's Early Childhood Mental Health Program, and congratulate her as she approaches her well-earned retirement.

Arlette Merritt's outstanding career in public service was born out of her lifelong commitment to mental health services for the very youngest and most vulnerable children. In focusing on treatment for children ages 0-6, Arlette has made a priceless contribution to her client families and to our community as a whole.

Since becoming Executive Director 28 years ago, Arlette has been instrumental in keeping the Early Childhood Mental Health Program accessible to our region's population. Under her leadership, the Early Childhood Mental Health Program has pioneered early-intervention by developing infant/parent home visiting, preschool mental health consultation, and intensive day treatment for preschool children. Further, this agency provides specialized parenting support groups and critical wrap-around services, in both English and Spanish. During her admirable career, Arlette has molded an outstanding team of professionals who in turn bring these services to 400-500 families a year.

Arlette's rare and exceptional skills have earned her tremendous respect and the gratitude of her colleagues as well as the public at large. She has been a tireless advocate for the expansion of children's mental health services and is nationally recognized as an expert in her field.

I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Arlette Merritt as a true hero in our community and to thank her for her dedicated service to the families and especially the children of West Contra Costa County. While I will truly miss our interaction on issues related to supporting children's mental health, I am pleased to join with her family, friends and colleagues in congratulating Arlette Merritt on a long and highly successful career and wish her a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I rise today in support of the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Kline, and the subcommittee chair, Mr. Hunter, for all of their cooperation and support in working with the minority on this side of the aisle on this legislation. Both sides of the aisle have strong proponents of this legislation and of the charter school movement in this country.

This legislation, because of that cooperation, is the first bipartisan piece of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It passed the Education Committee with bipartisan support, and I'm hopeful that it will receive similar support from the full Congress.

This country is facing a severe education crisis. Our schools are simply not meeting the educational needs of our students, and it is a threat to our global competitiveness and to our economic security.

Charter schools began 20 years ago as a laboratory for innovation to help tackle the stagnant education system at that time and to give options to parents who felt helpless. These schools have often become the myth busters of what is possible for a demographic of children that have all too often been written off. Currently, they serve about 4 percent of all public school students. In urban areas, that number is much higher. Charter schools are not a silver bullet and will not solve all of the education challenges, but they have become an important part of the education system. We need to update the law to reflect that reality.

The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act encourages effective reforms that will help transform schools and communities.

First, this bill makes significant improvements to the existing Charter School Program and addresses issues that we have heard from education advocates across the country. It rightfully returns charter schools to their original purpose--public schools that identify and share innovative practices that lead to improvements in academic achievement for all public schools. It requires that charters be brought back into the traditional public school system as opposed to running in a parallel system. And it requires charters to actually serve all student populations and therefore provides more parents with real choices.

Second, this bill prioritizes accountability. It puts student achievement first, and it greatly increases the accountability of charter school authorizers and oversight by State education authorities.

Third, this bill addresses a recurring problem in charter schools, which is the lack of service to students with disabilities and English language learners. In this bill, we dramatically improve access for underserved populations. We require better recruitment and enrollment practices for underserved populations.

Lastly, this bill rightly focuses on our students and what they need to succeed. In many States, high-performing charter schools are a great option for some students. These schools are closing achievement gaps and shattering the low expectations that have stood in the way of student success.

Charter schools have been on the forefront of bold ideas and innovation in education. They have shown that, given the right tools, all students can achieve at high levels. We are learning from great charter schools about what works for students and what students need to be able to compete in the global economy. Replicating this success will help our students, our communities, and our economy.

With this legislation, we can help ensure that the positive reforms happening at some charter schools will happen at all charter schools, and we can help ensure that best practices are shared throughout that school district. But this legislation is only one piece of the education reform puzzle. Unfortunately, we are not taking up the whole Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but just one part.

This country is in the midst of the most dynamic education reform atmosphere that I have seen in my tenure in Congress. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act presents an opportunity to take hold of that momentum and bring our education system into the future.

The bill before us today is good, but we need to do much more. It will be a tremendous disservice for our children and our country if we do not provide relief for schools that are struggling under an outdated law. This relief should come in the form of a full, comprehensive reauthorization of ESEA. To do that, we must take on all of the real issues facing all our schools, not just charters. We need to address accountability, data, assessments, and college- and career ready standards and modernizing the teaching profession. We all have to hold true to the reason that the Federal Government has a role in education in the first place: to ensure equal opportunity for every student in this country to access a great education.

We know what it will take to fix our schools. It isn't a mystery. But accomplishing that goal isn't easy. It takes real political will to overcome ideology and to stay focused on what's best for kids.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I hope that we can get to a much more comprehensive reauthorization of ESEA in the near future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the intellectual architect of all of this.

They're here in spirit. They're not here in person, unfortunately.

I thank the gentleman. I have one or two other speakers. We've put out a call to them, but they've not responded. I'll see if we can maybe fit them in on the manager's amendment if they want to speak because I'll be very brief on the manager's amendment on this side.

So let me just close by again thanking everyone on the committee for their support. I certainly want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle but particularly the staff on this side of the aisle, and the members of our committee, for helping me with this legislation. I want to recognize Jamie Fasteau, Ruth Friedman, Kara Marchione, Laura Schifter, Daniel Brown, Megan O'Reilly, and Adam Schaefer for all of their contributions to this successful bipartisan effort.

Finally, I would just like to say, as many speakers have said, all charter schools aren't perfect; this isn't a silver bullet. What we hope to be able to do is to really continue to grow the entrepreneurial spirit of young people across the board looking at our education system, thinking how it can be done better, what are the best practices, what are the indicators of successful schools, of successful learning environments, of successful teaching environments for teachers, for students, and focusing on the academic achievement and the benefits to the students. And then to be able to share those models across the charter school spectrum, across the traditional public school spectrum so that all of us can learn and benefit from that, and most importantly so we can create those environments where America's children will have the opportunity to have access to a first-class education that will serve them the rest of their lives.

I believe that that effort is facilitated by the charter school movement. I believe that this legislation is a substantial improvement on the original authorization for charter schools to participate in this area, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

With that, I've danced as long as I can. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment.

I will be brief here because I want to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, but I want to point out that the manager's amendment again was a lot of hard work by the staff to put together the various ideas from the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, but I think they have done a spectacular job, and the chairman and myself both support this legislation.

I am very supportive of the efforts in the manager's amendment to make sure that parent and community input is a priority in the implementation of the charter school improvement and the operation of those charter schools. We require that, as you consider the beginning of a charter school, you take into consideration, and the State entities take into consideration, the input of parents and the community. I think this is very important.

We know that there are many, many parents that want to be involved in creating charter schools, sustaining a charter school, thinking about what they want to do with the schools in their neighborhood. I think this is an important component that I hope to see in the reauthorization of the ESEA, that more consideration is given to community and to parents about how we turn schools around so that they have some skin in the game, they have some interest in the game, and they have a stake in the outcome of that.

The manager's amendment also requires that each charter school in the State make publicly available information on the educational program, the student support services, teachers, and annual performance enrollment data for all students by the subgroups, and it strengthens the application process that includes application and description of how schools will consider the transportation needs of their students, and also on how the schools and entities will support diverse charter school models, including those serving rural areas.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado to talk about the replication of high-quality charters.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation.

I think one of the intents of this bill and, hopefully, in our reforms of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is to keep our eye on global competition and understand that we must prepare today's students for tomorrow's global economy and the global competition that that suggests.

I strongly support and have had long conversations with the gentlewoman on this amendment and agree to it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, thank him for offering the amendment, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I know Ms. Moore has reserved her time so she can respond to this, but I just want to say I think we tried to work this out in this legislation in the fashion that if a Governor makes application, he must do this in conjunction with the SEA. And the idea that the Governor would do this on his own, or whatever, we forced that working together simply because, as you point out, most Governors' offices would not have the internal capacity to carry out the responsibilities under the grant. But to deny the Governor the opportunity seems to me doesn't make sense when it's required that the SEA be involved.

I will just say I know why you're offering the amendment, and I am obviously reluctant to oppose it, but I think we have addressed this concern in the legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is very important for all the reasons the gentleman from New Jersey cited.

In terms of the savings, we are seeing more and more schools taking economic liabilities, if you will, such as parking lots and vacant land around the school, turning them into economic assets, and saving the kind of money--it has been recorded now for a number of years the money that is actually saved in these design practices in the schools that free up those resources for other educational purposes.

I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa.

We should be very clear about this amendment, what it would do and why it would be incredibly detrimental to our students, our schools, and to our country.

In this bill, we require the performance of poor and minority students and students with disabilities to be considered when measuring the success of charter schools. That's as we chose to do when we passed No Child Left Behind, not a perfect education act by any means. But a very important component was the disaggregation of the data so that the parents of each and every one of those children, so the community leaders representing each and every one of those children would know how those children were doing.

We used to have the day when we asked how these students are doing, how this school is doing and all we got were the averages, and everybody said, oh, it's better. The fact of the matter is this is to assure that we understand how those children who have access to these schools, how, in fact, they're individually doing.

These are Title I public schools. They happen to be charter schools. And the point of that is to make sure that poor and minority children, English learners, students with disabilities have the full access to an appropriate education. And to go back to a time when we start to hide those results or we don't hold schools accountable for that is to rip away the fabric of accountability that parents and communities and taxpayers are asking for from those schools.

The idea that you would be held accountable for English learners if you had no English learners in your school is simply hokum. It just isn't what the law says.

This would be an absolute disservice to parents, to the students, and to our communities. It takes us back to the time prior to No Child Left Behind when schools would participate in hiding their failures and champion what they were trying to present to the community as their successes, and that's why we have the charter school movement. That's why we have accountability now that we never had before. That's why this amendment is opposed by so many people who are involved in the promotion of the educational opportunities for these populations: the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the Center for American Progress, the Children's Defense Fund, and many others on the list that I would ask to be put into the Record. The National Counsel of La Raza, the National Disability Rights Network.

List of Groups Against King Amendment

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; 50CAN;

Center for American Progress; Children's Defense Fund;

Democrats for Education Reform; Education Equality Project;

KIPP; Massachusetts Charter Public School Association;

National Counsel of LaRaza; National Disability Rights

Network; NewSchools Venture Fund; Council for Exceptional

Children; National Center for Learning Disabilities; Easter

Seals Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has urged the American people to call, email and tweet their members of Congress to let them know they want a bi-partisan compromise solution to the dangerous impasse over the debt ceiling that the Republican leadership has engineered. I used my Facebook page to ask my constituents and others who follow my page what a bi-partisan compromise would look like to them.

I wanted to share with my colleagues the responses I have received so far. As you can see, the answers are very thoughtful. And the majority, not all, but clearly the majority, of responses are in favor of a balanced approach, one that combines new tax revenues with serious spending cuts. That's the approach I personally favor and that President Obama and congressional Democrats have been trying to achieve. Regrettably, we have been met with a stone wall of opposition from the Republican Congress to a balanced compromise. They are pushing for a short-term bill that would make seniors, children, and the middle class pay the burden of our fiscal problems, and that would force us to have this reckless and damaging debate again just months from now.

I want to thank the people who took the time to share their views on my page and I encourage all Americans to continue to make their views known to the Congress about this important issue.

I hope my colleagues find these comments, from people who follow me on Facebook, informative.

Kay: ``come now, let us reason together'' Praying for reasoning and that people will realize what they are doing. We must live in the solution--we know what the problem is. I'm glad you're there, George Miller!

Brian: I think you know what needs to be done. I hope your colleagues do too.

Sue: The right won't compromise and the President has already given away far too much. He needs to take a stand for the American people and sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment.

Felix: Well, what do we hold that they want? Settle on the debt in exchange for, say, national CCW reciprocity?

KeKe: I'm concerned with the health bill as well as curving the expenses for colleges and bringing jobs into our states!

Gayle: Bipartisan compromise would look like the Congress has finally restored some semblance of sanity to the process of government. It would include finally taxing corporations and the rich as they should be taxed, and it would NOT include cutting Social Security programs and other services to the elderly and most at-risk populations. Is that too much to ask? I think not . . .

Gail: Very unwillingly I opt for a `compromise' but NOT touching either social security or Medicare.. .and, in addition, pushing for closing those tax loop holes for the rich. It amazes me how little conscience the Republicans (both moderate and TPers) have with regard to a patriotic generosity towards those who have less . . .

Pamela: First of all, social security, etc., are NOT entitlements. We've paid in to them. We're not asking for a hand out, we want the money we put into the system. Stop them treating us like children looking for a handout. And I don't see why the President has to be so PC about how we got into this! Lay it right at Bush's doorstep.

Nick: It would close the tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, it would reform the tax code to a graduated flat tax, would end the income caps on SSI, and would modify Medicare by extending the age of eligibility to 67, adding small ($20) co-pays for medical services, and would extend the debt limit until 2014.

Nick: It would also close any and all tax benefits that U.S. Corporations receive by using overseas labor.

Anne: Quite honestly I think we need to reverse Bushs tax cuts and get out of three wars as quickly as possible.

Daniel: The President should use the 14th Amendment option and stop trying to exploit this ``debate'' for an opening to cut the social safety net. Anyone who votes for a bill--and both the Reid and Boehner plans have these things in them--that puts huge spending cuts in place during the longest unemployment crisis since the Great Depression is not getting my money, time, or vote in 2012. Anyone who votes for a bill that contains provisions for a ``super congress'' panel that could, say, force through massive spending cuts to SS, Medicare, or Medicaid too quickly for the public to notice is not getting my money, time, or vote in 2012. Any Democrat who attacks the New Deal or Great Society policy template in any way is not getting my money, time, or vote in 2012. Ideals and principles matter. People who think so aren't ``sanctimonious,'' they think what we say and do matters.

Karen: Tax the rich. Close the loopholes. Mega-corps & financiers need to pay their fair share. Reinvest in the United Stated and their people. Or they will not reinvest their trust in a Congress that has forgotten `by the People, of the People, for the People. Tell them they are close to committing treason, against the true government of these United States: We the People. We will not be distracted or forget this time. We are awake & We expect Action!

Pamela: There is no compromise at this time. Nor should there be. The full faith and credit of the US should not be held hostage to the budget. Simply raise the debt ceiling and then consider the budget as a separate issue . . . which it is. And THEN eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

Clark: As in the past, a REAL compromise would be a clean debt limit bill, and then the parties can slog it out over the deficit reduction later. The biggest help would be putting most of the unemployed and underemployed back to work, that will whittle down the problem nicely!

Robert: Cut enough to get the deal done . . . there is plenty that could be reduced in our bloated budget. Deal with tax overhauls separately, you don't have enough time to broadly revamp that end of the business in a few days. The Pres needs to drop his politically motivated insistence that the ceiling is raised high enough to avoid dealing with this again until after the election. And would someone please read the 14th Amendment and set clear there is nothing to invoke? It is sad to hear ``CNN sound bite'' educated numbskulls calling for something they have never read and have no context about how it originally came to be, or what it was trying to address (Civil War era history is apparently not a deeply taught subject in this country . . .). GET 'ER DONE George!

Ulrich: Stop the WARs!

Nic: Social Security should be self-sustaining and not redistribute wealth. The average American should recieve benefits equal to their inflation adjusted contributions, regardless of income. Same with Medicare. The tax code should be simplified. Annual budgets should not run deficits. And don't raise taxes--cut non-essencial services. That's it.

Ted: Save money and lives get out of the wars now!! I don't understand the Republicans, they won a huge victory in this debate, no new taxes, no shared responsibility. The Tea party Republicans, are making a mess of this. The President has been very reasonable and willing to comromise. I hope he will use the 14th amendment, section 4 to save our economy and raise the debt c. That's my opinion!!

Maureen: The President is trying to deal with people who do not know or respect the meaning of the word ``compromise.'' For the moment, use the 14th Amendment option. For the long term, raise upper income tax rates, close corporate tax loopholes, decrease defense budget (reduce our overseas presence and military ops). Social Security (insurance, not entitlement!) is not a part of this equation, but what is the big deal about simply raising the ceiling on the FICA-taxable compensation?

Tyson: It's obvious we have a revenue problem as well as a spending problem. Put out a message and scream it louder than the GOP. You have the facts to back it up.

Toni: A bi-partisan compromise. Raise taxes on the wealthiest. Cut what we have to, a bit from everywhere, raise the debt ceiling as there is no alternative apparently. How about for a year rather than six months or two years? In other words, give for the greater good.

Rick: It's time for the Democrats to show some courage in this . . . time for a compromise and to ignore the fundamentalist purity of the freshman Republicans.

Lori: I'm tired of the rhetoric. The solution is: A one page bill that will increase the debt limit. Then . . . a bi-partisan committee to review where Government waste is. I'm sick of the lobbying of the special interests that pay into the superpacs for their agendas. The people understand this and are tired of being condescended to. No elected representative . . . should be enticed with money and perks for their own purposes. George . . . I have LOTS of ideas . . . and you have probably received them all. Sorry you're not my Congressman anymore.

Dave: The president has already given away TOO MUCH, in the name of bi-partisanship! Any and all giveaways end up as bigger tax breaks for Republicans' Corporate friends anyway. Enough with ``compromising!'' Invoke the 14th and be done with it!

James: A bipartisan compromise on the debt ceiling would be a simple increase in it WITHOUT ANY STRINGS ATTACHED, just like the nearly trillion dollar bailout of the financial system in October of 2008!

Tom: Simplifying the tax code by eliminating some tax breaks might be good for the country. That might be part of a bill that both parties could accept. You're not really raising taxes that way, in some sense. Another problem is that large corporations that own a lot of land that they can sit on for a century are getting a free ride on some property taxes, due to assessed values lagging behind inflation, which is unsustainable in the long run. Cutting foreign aid when it isn't really in American interests might help reduce spending a little. We really don't get much appreciation from foreigners for all the help we give them, instead they seem to resent us. Probably we should disentangle ourselves from involvement in foreign affairs to some extent.

Keynes should be read in the original, it's perfectly clear from his books that government needs to be lender of last resort in an economic crisis, which he proved in the 1930s. There is some value in the Austrian school of economics, but their doctrines can lead to disaster, as proved by the Hoover policies that led to the Great Depression in the 1930s. Keynes showed the way out of that mess. Government spending on American infrastructure is absolutely necessary to get us out of the current crisis, even if we have to borrow money to do it.

Carol: A clean Debt Ceiling increase. A one pager.

Cathy: Compromise is what statesmen and stateswomen do! We must move forward with balanced cuts and revenue building that does not stop job growth or hurt the poor, elderly, our youth or our vets . . . it must be modest over decades--this is what makes sense. Close the IRS loopholes, cut waste, reform entitlements so they are healthy--these things can not be done overnight--there is no silver bullet--we must be adults and rebuild our economy intelligently and calmly.

Bonnie: I trust that you will represent us well on this issue! I'm so worried for those in our country who have the weakest voice.

Mike: Clean debt ceiling bill. Negotiate the rest in appropriations with an eye toward balancing cuts and revenue increases. No raising eligibility requirements. No benefit reductions. Means testing, possibly. Perhaps raise SS cap beyond $106,000 . . . .

Jean: Perhaps it would simply raise the debt ceiling, as has been done so many times in the past, without including the other crap that the Tea Party idiots are so against. Then work on THAT compromise, which will cut spending AND raise taxes . . . especially on the rich to add to their fair share. Or is that too easy?

Deborah: after the reports of multi billion dollar profits from big oil this week it is time to share with the government across the board . . . The timing of these earnings is not exactly ideal for the Republicans in Congress.

Debbie: What is the big deal on the debt ceiling, really? Why can't it be taken care of as it has been in the past? Yes, I know we are swimming in debt and yes, I know it has to be reined in, but please, please, please not on the backs of our elderly citizens. Does no one in the Tea Party have a mother or father who have social security and medicare as their only source of income and health care? I find the Tea Party's newly elected House members to be arrogant, self-serving and short-sighted. Also, is every wealthy American a job producer? The Republican party seems to think so, because to hear them tell it, raising taxes on the wealthy will limit job growth; there are so many loopholes for the wealthy, that they pay only a fraction of their assessed taxes as it is. Washington is broken and seems beyond fixing, short of ditching everybody up there and starting over again, and I know that's not a fix either.

Jane: There are not enough taxes that could possibly be collected to pay off our debt! Just stop the spending! Obama is running this country into the ground! Wake up people unless you like the idea of losing everything. Not hard to figure out.

Stacey: A bipartisan balanced budget would: (1) pass a clean increase to the debt ceiling (NO riders or deals attached). (2) Increase in revenues by increasing the tax brackets to pre-Reagan levels. OR by making a 9% flat tax for all Americans, no deductions. (3) Reduce spending by scaling back on foreign wars. (4) Reducing Washington waste, Senators and Representatives pay own way after leaving office like ordinary citizens (they'll collect SS and Medicare too. (5) Keep Social Security and Medicare intact, stop Gov't from borrowing from these programs. The Gov't MUST REPAY, all monies borrowed from SS since Reagan's tenure. (6) Stop subsidizing Big Oil or other conglomerates. (7) Follow California's lead and Congress and Senate does not get paid unless a balanced budget is passed into law by June 30th. Otherwise they work for free until the job is done. No back pay if budget passed after June 30th.