Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Fred Davis Jackson of Richmond, California, for his lifetime commitment to serving his community.

Fred Jackson has lived and worked in my congressional district since 1950, a veteran, having moved to Richmond from his home in Mississippi. He was born on February 6, 1938 as the eldest son of devoted and hard working parents, the late Leo Marvis Jackson, who was a seasonal construction and shipyard worker, and the late Idella Villon Jackson. Mrs. Jackson would eventually become single and took on domestic jobs to care for Fred and his three sisters and five brothers. Fred Jackson is a peacemaker, an educator, a song writer and a true community- builder, and each and every day since arriving in the Bay Area, Fred has made a decided difference in the lives of our residents.

Early on in his life, Fred Jackson recognized and celebrated the personal dignity in each individual. His work crossed all race and ethnic lines, all faiths and all ages. As a peace and social justice activist, Fred sat in at lunch counters in the South during the 1960's Civil Rights Movement and worked for peace even as he served our country in combat duty during the Vietnam War.

Fred Jackson is known throughout Contra Costa County as a dedicated advocate for our

families and children. He participated in the walk from San Pablo to Sacramento with the March4Education and then fasted for 19 days with Fast4Education for more equitable school funding. Fred has been a constant anti-death penalty advocate and his work in the community on violence prevention resulted in being awarded the 2000 Peacemaker Award in Contra Costa County. Fred has also taken an active and very personal role in bettering the lives of our senior citizens. He formed critical partnerships in the community, and personally donated the land that allowed the City of Richmond to build the Trinity Plaza Housing complex for low income senior citizens.

Fred Jackson's passion for writing and poetry has led him to express his personal philosophy through the arts. As a writer, he wrote, directed and produced the play Brother Dap at the Richmond auditorium in 1994, wrote a novel An Evolution in Black and White, wrote his soon to be published reflections, Thoughts Set Free on the Wings of Expression, and has written and performed numerous songs, including ``One Step at a Time,'' ``Too Early Too Young,'' and ``When the Ozone is Gone.''

As an educator, Fred Jackson has worked for many years at Neighborhood House of North Richmond on lead abatement, HIV education, the (Healthy Eating Active Living HEAL) collaborative. Fred volunteered as a trainer of the Peace Empowerment Process for the World Wall for Peace at Helms Middle School, Crescent Park Multicultural Center, and Chris Adams Center and this year introduced a Health Covenant uniting the community and church in a fight against diabetes.

Therefore, it was without hesitation that because of Fred Jackson's commitment to social justice, I selected him to cast the December 2008 electoral vote for the 7th Congressional District certifying the election of Barack Obama as president. He was also nominated for the Sergeant Shriver Achievement Award in 2010 for his work on behalf of low income residents in North Richmond.

Fred Davis Jackson has spent his life making life better for others and he has called on us all to do the same. I invite my colleagues to stand with me and salute the work of a quiet man working tirelessly for justice and thank him for the change he has brought to our community.

This Congress is entering its fifth month without bringing a single jobs bill to the House floor, and there are no jobs bills in sight. But we do hear calls for a series of trade agreements, including ones with Colombia and Korea.

At a time when millions of Americans are still looking for work, the House will be spending time protecting corporate investments in foreign countries and not jobs here at home. At a time when multinational corporations have fired 2.9 million American workers, they will be hiring 2.4 million workers overseas. The House will be spending time shoring up corporate overseas investments rather than encouraging investments here at home. And at a time when so many in the Middle East are rising up for democracy and human rights and are receiving support from the United States for those efforts, the House is taking up trade agreements with Colombia that fails to live up to those very values.

One of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote and to protect American jobs. We do this by trying to ensure that American workers do not face unfair competition with countries that keep wages low by repressing essential democratic rights. These are important rights, the right to speak out, the right to protest, the right to organize unions, the right to bargain collectively and directly with their employers, and to support political efforts to improve their economic conditions without reprisals.

But reprisals are what you get in China. Thousands of strikes last year were met not by their employers but by the police and the army, beating up on the workers who were seeking better wages and better working conditions in plants all across China.

What do you get when you protest your rights in Colombia? You get assassinations. You get death squads against union members, union leaders, members of union families all across the country. The American worker can compete; but you can't compete against the Colombian Army, the Colombian death squads, the Chinese Army. That's not fair competition. But that's what's protected in these trade agreements.

Tragically, Colombia stands out as a country where wages are kept low and workers are repressed through widespread violence and other human rights violations. Colombia has earned the reputation as the most dangerous country on Earth for workers trying to build a better life. During the last Colombian President's 8 years in office, 570 union members were assassinated--149 in the last 3 years--and the violence hasn't stopped with the election of the new President.

Reports of assassinations against union members and leaders keep coming. The two most recent ones include the April 8 assassination of Ramiro Sanchez. He was shot repeatedly as he left a union meeting. Mr. Sanchez had received death threats after organizing workers to demand local hiring at an oil company. And the March 30 assassination of Hector Orozco, who was an official with the peasant farmers' union. He and his colleague Gildardo Garcia were found murdered. Days earlier, Mr. Orozco reported that he and other peasants were threatened by an army officer.

On top of the violence is the problem of impunity. Authorities have only investigated a quarter of the union killings since 1986. No one has been held accountable for 98 percent of the crimes against unionists. The violence and impunity came together in another recent case. A few weeks ago, Judge Gloria Gaono was shot in the head in broad daylight. At the time, she was presiding over a politically sensitive case of a military officer accused of murdering three children, one of whom he apparently admitted to raping.

Now Colombia has a new President who says he wants to turn the page on Colombia's past. But these murders and human rights violations are not the past. They are happening today. Before we consider any agreement with Colombia on free trade, real changes must come to Colombia. That is why I

have joined with colleagues to lay out a series of benchmarks that should be met by Colombia before the Obama administration sends Congress any trade agreement with that country. These benchmarks are designed to reduce the violence, to protect human rights, and to end the impunity of the death squads and the army, and the actions they take against these families. They require on-the-ground results and verification.

The administration, however, has adopted an action plan for Colombia that does not demand the results on the ground. I appreciate that U.S. and Colombia finally are bringing labor rights into the equation, but their plan only demands results on paper. Under their plan, nothing really needs to actually change in Colombia. Colombia could have a record year of assassinations and still meet the requirements of the plan. Indeed, before the action plan has been fully implemented, the administration is already preparing the way with Congress to implement this trade agreement. If this action plan were made fully enforceable under the agreement and into the future, we could have something more than just results on paper. Unless it is enforceable, this is less than a serious commitment. It is not fair to Colombians, and it's not fair to the American workers, and it's not fair to our national values and does not reflect our national values.

The American worker can compete with any worker in the world. They're rated time and again the most productive workers in the world. But they cannot compete against currency manipulation in China. They cannot compete against the Chinese Army that breaks up the rights of workers to protest, and they cannot compete against the death squads that have been assigned to assassinate union members, union leaders, and union families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman John Garamendi, to recognize the tremendous work of the Contra Costa Child Care Council as the organization celebrates its 35th anniversary of invaluable service to our communities.

With its inception on August 11, 1976, the Contra Costa Child Care Council began to develop and promote quality child care through a multitude of nonprofit programs and services. Over the years, the Council has increased public awareness of the benefits and significant impact of early care and education to the success of our children, the economic vitality and well being of families and neighborhoods, and the future promise for California.

This organization reflects the well known fact that early childhood education and quality run child care are important and integral parts of Contra Costa's economy, contributing at least $2.66 billion value added to the gross product of the County and generating $225 million in direct tax revenues, as well as supporting 35,600 jobs. This service has also been proven to be an essential component of the infrastructure of the entire State of California.

Since its inception, the Child Care Council has been true to its mission to ``Help Parents Put the Pieces Together''. Over 265,000 parents have accessed the free referral service of the Council to find care that meets the specific needs of their families and tens of thousands of Contra Costa early educators and child care providers have received free training, technical assistance and support through the Council's

many programs. Throughout the county, thousands of low income families have received financial assistance from the Council to pay for child care so parents can work, knowing their children are not only in good hands but are truly thriving.

We salute the tireless work of the members of the Council's Board of Directors, Administration, and staff, both past and present and thank them for the enormous contribution to our community their efforts have made.

Today, we invite our colleagues to join us in honoring the Contra Costa Child Care Council on its 35th anniversary and on behalf of our children, families and communities, wish all continued success.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1230.

It appears to me that the Republican energy plan is higher gas prices and lower safety standards. This fits nicely with their overall agenda for the 111th Congress: end Medicare to pay for tax breaks for Big Oil.

Yesterday, the Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked my amendment that would require oil and gas companies to publicly disclose their environmental and worker safety record before drilling on the Outer continental shelf.

Earlier this year, Republicans voted to gut the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--the consumer watchdog agency charged with overseeing oil speculators.

And earlier today, even though BP is now reporting $7.1 billion in quarterly profits--17 percent increase--every Republican in the House voted to block consideration of our Democratic bill, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2011, to stop the billions of dollars in tax giveaways to the biggest oil companies who don't need taxpayer help to get their job done.

Under the Republican budget that the House approved earlier this year, people in their 40s and 50s now will be forced to pay more for health care when they retire than under current law--at least $6,400 per year more.

But consider this: in the past three months, the top five oil companies made $30 billion in profits and Republicans in Congress want to give them billions more in tax benefits and subsidies. The same Republicans who voted to end Medicare are now refusing to hold a vote on repealing the generous tax breaks for the largest and most profitable corporations in world history.

Make no mistake about it. Their bill on the floor today won't bring down the price at the pump. It won't end the massive taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil. It won't lead to more fuel-efficient cars. It won't crack down on oil speculators. And it won't improve the safety of offshore drilling--and in fact it will require the Interior Department to accept the very same flawed NEPA documents that helped lead to the BP spill in the Gulf.

I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1230 because it ignores the lessons of the BP spill and it does nothing to help families or consumers. I don't think Americans want Congress to take money away from seniors only to give that very same money to oil giants.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by joining my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in praising President Obama and our military and our intelligence teams for their extraordinary work in the culmination of the killing of Osama bin Laden. His death is a very positive step for U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Bin Laden's death will not erase the pain he caused by his evil acts, nor does it mean that Americans are not still the targets of others bent on doing us harm, but hopefully his elimination will offer some comfort to the grieving families all over the world who have suffered at his hand and will diminish the capacity of his network to do us harm.

Mr. Speaker, while Americans are expressing their appreciation over the death of bin Laden, they remain deeply anxious about our economy. They are suffering from high unemployment and high gas prices and they expect and need relief. That is why Americans must be really scratching their heads in disbelief over the choices being made here in the House of Representatives.

While Americans remain focused on jobs and the economy, the tea party Republican majority has voted to end Medicare and to cut taxes for the richest Americans and the largest oil companies. And this week they will vote to make it harder for students and low-income workers across the country to have access to health care by bringing up two bills to end the funding for new school-based health care centers and for State- based exchanges where workers and small business employees who cannot get insurance through their jobs will be able to look for health care benefits.

Mr. Speaker, they are also bringing up a third bill, a sweeping measure that would, in effect, make abortion inaccessible to most women, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that women in the United States of America have a constitutional right to receive an abortion if they so choose.

With sky-high gas prices and continued high unemployment, the Republicans must wake up in the morning and think the most important thing to do today is to take away health care from kids and hardworking Americans and trample on women's rights.

Really? Time out, America. Time out.

This Congress, under the control of the tea party, is making the wrong choices for our economy and for our future. They have accomplished nothing for the American people in more than 3 months that they have been in charge. No bill to help create jobs. Not one. Instead, what have they done? They voted to end Medicare. That is right. They voted to end Medicare and shift the cost of health care of current and future seniors onto seniors themselves, in some cases adding nearly $7,000 more in costs per senior starting in the year 2022. They voted to reduce nursing home care for seniors and for the disabled. And they voted to make prescription drugs for senior citizens more expensive.

To make it all worse, at the same time they voted to end Medicare, they voted to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires and give tax breaks to the largest oil companies and to extend tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas and in fact pay no taxes to the American people, no sense of patriotism for the benefit these companies receive by being American corporations. They chose to give them additional tax breaks, even though they pay no taxes under current law.

Their choices are clear--dangerously clear. End Medicare and make seniors pay more for health care, but give giant oil companies and the wealthiest in our country more tax breaks.

One of the bills that they will bring up this week will eliminate the ability of Americans without insurance, including small business employees, to shop and to compare health plans in the State-based exchanges. They have determined to pursue policies to harm working families in order to cater to their insurance industry friends and radical right-wing supporters. They don't believe that every American should have access to affordable health coverage.

Health exchanges are one of the most popular and important provisions of the health care law. They are vital for families and small businesses to be able to have access to affordable health care. These exchanges are market based, they foster competition, they reduce costs, and they provide access to health insurance for millions of Americans.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, Americans must scratch their heads every day and wonder why the priorities of the tea party Republicans are not consistent with the needs of their families, their children, their job opportunities, their small businesses' vitality. They must wonder every day: Why can't this Congress start serving the American public?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What is it about the Republican Party that insists that its mandate in Washington, D.C. is to keep the American public away from affordable health care? First, they start by ending Medicare so that senior citizens who retire will have to pay much more for their health care than they would otherwise. Those on Medicare, because they'll be closed in, an aging population, their health care costs will continue to go up in the future far beyond their ability to pay.

They have decided that they're going to raise the price of prescription drugs to senior citizens. They have decided that they're going to decrease the access of young people to health care by not providing for school-based clinics, health care clinics. They've decided they'll roll back preexisting conditions to prevent women from getting coverage of health care, young children from getting coverage of health care from life-threatening diseases that they were born with.

What is it about the Republican Party that they don't want people to have access to health care in this country that's affordable? They don't mind them being in the lottery. If they can find it and afford it, maybe they can have it. But if they can't, it's tough.

So now we come to a time when they said they don't want one-size- fits-all in Washington. The States should have a right to set up the exchanges. The States have an option: they can set up an exchange or not set up an exchange. Some 49 States have stepped forward and said, We want a right to customize the exchange for the purposes of the people we represent, the nature of our State, the economy of our State, the age of our State. We want to do this.

And now they're saying, well, that's good, but we're not going to give you any money to plan to do that. So what are they doing, according to CBO? They're now threatening, once again, the access to affordable health care for 50,000 or more Americans.

So they've threatened the access to health care for women. They've threatened the access to health care for children. They've threatened the access to health care for seniors. They've threatened the access to health care for those who are about to become seniors. They just can't stop doing this.

They want to say they're just repealing the health care bill that was passed. They're just repealing that.

No, what they are doing is they're standing in the way, the very same

rights that they have as Members of Congress to have a federally setup exchange for Federal employees where policies pass muster, that you get real value if you buy one. Whether you buy a health savings account or whether you buy a plan for your family or for an individual, you get real value. You get access. The rights they have as Members of Congress, once again they're stepping into the breach to make sure that their constituents won't have that right at the State level because when there are no State exchanges, they won't have that right.

It's a really strange view of their obligations to the American public, to working families, to children, and to seniors. And it's a real strange view about their position of privilege that they would have all of this for themselves but not for their constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1214 and its impact on our Nation's schoolchildren.

School-based health centers have enjoyed wide bipartisan support because they ensure students are healthy. Healthy students are ready to learn, and in these centers, children can get health services when they need them. Children can't learn when they're chronically sick, when they have a toothache, when they suffer from other dental diseases or when they suffer from chronic health problems. For too many children, a school-based health center may be the only opportunity to receive needed care. This is particularly the case with oral health. Tooth decay is the most common disease among schoolchildren, and 80 percent of the time this disease occurs in children who have problems accessing care. That's why school-based health programs are so important, and that's why the American Dental Association is a strong supporter of this program.

States also believe that these centers are critically needed. Indiana's Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction recently testified before the Education and the Workforce Committee that districts are prioritizing school-based health centers because ``they have made a difference in the lives of those children.'' Schools in Indiana are not alone in realizing the need and value of school- based health centers.

In my district, West Contra Costa Unified has two operational school- based health centers and four in development. The legislation before us today could essentially halt the development of these health centers by repealing the critical construction and renovation funding made available by the Affordable Health Care Act. This funding is critically important to these schools so that they can provide these centers. The Federal Government shouldn't randomly yank the support for school-based health centers. It should be letting the school districts make the decisions based upon their identified needs.

This bill is nothing more than a continuation of the attack against the beneficiaries of the Affordable Health Care Act. Whether the beneficiaries are senior citizens or whether they're young children, we ought not to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform my colleagues that Abraham Breehey, Director of Legislative Affairs and Special Assistant to the International President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, passed away yesterday, Thursday, April 14, 2011 at INOVA Fairfax Hospital, in Falls Church, Virginia, from complications related to a brain tumor and subsequent stroke.

Abe, only 34 years old, was born in 1976 in Binghamton, New York. He is survived by his wife, Sonya and beloved young daughter, Abigail, his father Ray, his mother Carol, his sister Rachel, 3 nieces, a nephew and, of course, his dog Kesey.

His death is a tragedy for his family and a loss for the working men and women of America on whose behalf he was so deeply committed.

Abe received his Bachelor's Degree from Sienna College in Loudonville, NY and Master's Degree in Public Policy from the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany. Prior to joining the Boilermakers in 2004, he served as Legislative Assistant for Representative Lloyd Doggett (TX-25).

Abe was a leading voice in the labor movement, representing the Boilermakers on issues related to energy policy and climate change, and their impact on workers. He was widely respected for his passion, intellect, and ability to build consensus across ideological and political lines.

Abe has testified in front of multiple U.S. Senate Committees and represented the Boilermakers in international negotiations regarding the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Abe also advised the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department as Chairman of the Department's Legislative Task Force.

And Abe is a graduate of the Trade Union Program at Harvard Law School.

A staunch advocate on behalf of every Boilermaker member, Abe was a colleague and a friend to each of us.

My thoughts and prayers are with the entire Breehey family. I hope they receive a small degree of comfort in knowing that Abe was so well liked and so well respected in his professional world.

Mr. Chairman, we've been hearing for days about how the House Republican budget is courageous and bold. But this budget is neither courageous nor bold. It's not courageous to throw poor kids out of their Head Start classrooms but continue subsidies to Big Oil and their record profits.

It's not bold to slash Pell Grant scholarships to millions of students and to keep the incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas.

It's not bold nor smart to slash funds for new clean energy research and make future generations of Americans more dependent, not less, on dictators and dangerous fossil fuels.

And it's neither bold nor courageous to end Medicare for seniors, shifting thousands of dollars of costs onto the backs of the elderly to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

For 45 years, seniors have relied on Medicare to provide health care during their retirement years. The Republican budget would end that guarantee. Seniors would no longer be guaranteed the coverage for basic health services like diabetes and cancer screenings. Instead, seniors would have to scrounge to find higher cost private health policies. What insurance company is going to write an individual policy for a 70- year-old that is even remotely affordable?

Because of these high costs, more and more seniors will go into debt under this plan. They will be forced to sell their homes and rely on their children to pay for basic medical costs. That is not a dignified retirement. That is not America.

Yes, we need to ensure that Medicare is sustainable for seniors and sustainable for the taxpayers. But one thing is certain--the Republican budget does not save Medicare; it ends it.

Mr. Chairman, this budget is not bold, and it's not courageous. It might be easy for the Republicans to make cuts on the backs of those who can't afford high-priced lobbyists. But it is not easy for the middle class working people and seniors on whose back the burden is being placed.

The Democratic budget is a fair and balanced approach, and it asks all Americans to share in the burdens in reducing the deficit and the debt and strengthening our economy.

I urge my colleagues to vote down the Republican budget to end Medicare and to vote for the Democratic budget that is fair and balanced.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this House overwhelmingly passed bipartisan legislation that would have prevented children from being abused in classrooms; but, unfortunately, it never became the law. In the year since then, children have suffered and have been abused in school, and parents have felt completely helpless.

In 2009, the Government Accountability Office told our committee of the shocking wave of abuse by untrained school staff who were misusing emergency interventions. Most of these victims were children with disabilities. Some were 3 and 4 years old. In some cases, children died.

Restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort and by trained professionals, but the GAO found that was not the case. This is unacceptable, and yet it is a reality for too many children across the country.

A media report out yesterday highlights that these horrific abuses continued through this past year. In Chicago, a 4-year-old boy's wrists were taped together with painter's tape and then duct tape because he refused to take a nap and he didn't wash his hands. In Fayetteville, North Carolina, a 5-year-old student's arm was broken when a teacher held him down. In New Orleans, a teacher handcuffed a male student by his ankle to a chair because

he didn't follow the teacher's instructions.

This abuse of children and the death of children has got to stop.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, a massive explosion ripped through the 2-mile area of the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia. The explosion bent railroad tracks like pretzels and killed 29 miners.

This disaster laid bare the loopholes that riddle our mine safety laws. These loopholes allowed dubious mine operators, like Massey Energy, to violate mine safety rules repeatedly and with impunity. In fact, the Upper Big Branch Mine was allowed to remain open even though it had been ordered to stop operations 51 times in the previous year because of severe safety hazards.

After the disaster, there were proclamations made from both sides of the aisle about taking meaningful action to honor the victims so that something like this would never happen again. However, standing here a year later, miners still face many of the same dangers as they did the morning before the tragedy in West Virginia.

Unscrupulous mine operators are still gaming the system by clogging it with thousands of appeals as a way to avoid paying strong penalties. Miners are still paralyzed with the fear of being fired for speaking out because of weak whistleblower protections. Decisions made in the boardrooms to maximize coal production at the expense of miners' safety remain unchallenged. Management practices of illegally giving advance warning of pending inspections are still a mere misdemeanor.

Shortly after the Upper Big Branch tragedy, the Education and Labor Committee held the only hearings where Congress heard from families and miners affected by this tragedy. Many were reluctant to testify because they feared retaliation. For others, there was a strong desire to tell their stories to prevent another tragedy in the coal mines of America.

Eddie Cook told us about the dangerous practices he heard from the miners at the Upper Big Branch Mine after the explosion. He lost his 21-year-old nephew, Adam Morgan.

Adam's father, Steve Morgan, said that when he spoke to his son about the unsafe conditions, management told him that he might just have to find another job. They did nothing about the unsafe conditions.

Gary Quarles lost his only son at Upper Big Branch. Gary asked us to make a commitment to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

Alice Peters testified about how her son-in-law, Dean Jones, was afraid to work in the mine because of the ventilation problems, but Dean needed the job in order to keep health insurance coverage for his special-needs son.

Clay Mullins lost his brother Rex at Upper Big Branch. Clay testified how the management would give advance warning of an impending mine safety inspection so that they could quickly cover up any violations before the Federal inspectors got to that part of the mine.

And Stanley ``Goose'' Stewart was working at the Upper Big Branch Mine the day it exploded. He testified twice before the committee about the persistent fear and intimidation faced by workers from Massey management.

Every mine law has been written with the blood of miners; and savvy political interests know that, as attention to the tragedy fades, so does the willingness of the Congress to act decisively. Families and miners also expressed their concern about this skepticism. Looking back now, a year later, their skepticism was entirely justified.

Congress has utterly failed to respond to the real problems that miners, themselves, have identified as safety hazards in their workplace. A toxic political environment has failed these families. The pay-to-play nature of our politics has failed these families.

While congressional action was stymied, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has been working hard to make adjustments in the limited ways it can to help prevent rogue mine operators from recklessly putting lives at risk; but even with these measures, we are hearing the familiar cries from Big Coal to maintain the status quo while they continue to game a legal system designed to protect the miners who go to work in those mines every day.

They cry about their so-called ``due process''; but what about the due process for the 29 miners who died in the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion--and their families? What about the miners who went to work today in the coal mines of America--and their families?

Is Congress just going to sit here and simply wait for the next explosion? the next tragedy? the next loss of life? Are we going to let the special interests continue to paralyze this institution?

These should not be hard questions for the Congress of the United States. Our ability to respond goes to the heart of who we are as a Nation. There are things that Congress can and must do right now--and that only Congress can do--to better ensure that every coal miner who goes to work is able to return safely to their families at the end of their shifts. Congress has an obligation to make sure that that is the case.

It is long overdue to honor our promises to the families of the 29 miners who perished a year ago for doing the job that our Nation relies on to provide its energy, and it is also long overdue to give the rest of our Nation's miners modern health and safety protections.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment really restores democracy to the American workplace, and it restores the American principle of majority vote and majority rule. The decision by the National Mediation Board to begin recognizing election results based upon who actually votes in the election is correct and a long time coming.

It was a fair and open process that included a 60-day comment period and public hearing with 34 witnesses, and their actions were upheld in court.

Think of this in our committee. Our rules are a majority of those present and voting. No committee in this Congress would operate under these rules because they would not be able to prevail on any of the votes because people could just stay away and they would be counted ``no.''

No PTA would operate under these rules. They may have a very large membership. So we ought to restore democracy, protect American workers and vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his discussion of this legislation on the floor.

I rise in opposition to this legislation because I don't believe that we can afford to spend $100 million on a program

that in fact, in spite of what has been said on the other side, has been proven time and again to be ineffective and inefficient.

Supporting our students, especially in poor minority communities, is the right thing to do, and particularly in this economy it is absolutely essential. But that is not what this bill does.

If you really care about school reform, you want to help our students, our future, you do it in a sustainable and systematic way. You can't arbitrarily throw money at a small group of students and just hope against overwhelming evidence that your ideology somehow will work this time. You can't decide that only a handful of students deserve special attention. You can't ask Congress to vote for programs that the citizens of D.C. and the elected officials and the Mayor have not asked for. You certainly can't decide to continue a program that does not help students succeed.

There are a number of concerns about this bill. First and most importantly, the program does not help the students succeed. Just 2 weeks ago, the Republicans made harmful cuts in proven programs based upon purported standards of inefficiency, seeking to get rid of inefficient programs. If this is the standard, the D.C. voucher program fails the test.

The D.C. voucher program does not increase student achievement or graduate students so they are prepared to go on to college or careers. In fact, four Department of Education studies over both administrations found that the voucher program has had no effect on the academic achievement of the voucher students.

These findings are consistent with other private school voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland. Just yesterday, the State test results showed that voucher students in Milwaukee's 20-year voucher program are actually performing similar or worse than other poor Milwaukee students. The study mandated by Congress about the D.C. voucher program says very clearly that the use of vouchers had no statistically significant impact on the overall student achievement in math or reading.

So what is the purpose of the expenditure of this money, other than to prop up an inefficient, an ineffective, ideological point of view about how these students might learn? These students are not going to the schools that will change the outcomes.

These students are not graduating with a set of skills that will allow them to succeed in college or a career. But the fact of the matter is there are many public schools in the District of Columbia that are in fact achieving those goals that are working for those parents and for those students.

The District of Columbia has open choice. Parents can go wherever. But we simply decided to take these Federal dollars and put it into a program on the belief that it works in spite of all of the evidence that it's not working for these students. So why are we paying a premium of another $100 million in taxpayers' money to pursue this effort when on its face it's not working? Yes, you've done telephone surveys of parents and they said, I think I made a good choice. Okay. You do telephone surveys of the students, Are you any safer? The answer is: No, we don't feel any safer.

A great deal is made about the choice of these parents. It's to be honored and respected. What about the choice of the parents of Head Start students that made a choice to put their children into Head Start, in an effective program that makes a difference when they leave that program on whether or not they are school ready, whether or not they're prepared to proceed at fourth grade and eighth grade and tenth grade, those critical points when a student decides to drop out of school. Those parents who are making the choice about effective education for their children, they get cut, a quarter of a million of them. But if you make an ineffective choice and it's consistent with the ideology, you get funded.

That's just not the way we should do business here, and that's not the way to do business in terms of school reform. That's not the way to help these children, and that's not the way to incentivize the other schools that are struggling to achieve better results, to achieve better success for their students.

If you're going to say, We'll fund them, whether it's successful or not, we'll put a $100 million into it because it comports with our view of the constellations, that's just the wrong way to proceed in this effort for these children and for other children who will follow them.

The point of this amendment is, if you're going to spend this money in violation of the rule and you're going to create additional deficit, you at least ought to spend it on something that's effective and that works for the children and improves their educational opportunity.

Investing in the D.C. voucher program that has now run over a period of years by every study that has been done on it says that these students are doing no better than when they left the school, but we're spending $100 million to educate them. They statistically are not improved over the performance of the school that they left, but we continue to spend the money on the myth that somehow this is a model program that you would replicate all over the country.

Why would you replicate a program that is so inefficient and does not provide an educational advantage for the students participating in it?

I understand their parents who chose them to participate in the voucher program feel they made a good decision, but that's not a mark of whether or not they're getting the educational opportunity that they're entitled to.

With Mr. Cummings' amendment, you can invest in what is working. You can invest in the public schools where African American high school students have seen double-digit gains in reading and math, and the percentage of high school students that have achieved advance status in reading and math has more than doubled. The percentage of special education students achieving proficient status has more than doubled. These schools, public and public charter schools, are working for the children of D.C.

But the Republicans would have you insist that what you really ought to do is take $100 billion in new deficit spending and park it in this voucher program because of their commitment on an ideological basis, but not on programs that work. We ought to choose the programs that work for the children of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Travis Credit Union on receiving the Desjardins Youth Financial Education Award earlier this month here in Washington, DC.

The Desjardins Youth Financial Education Award is given out by the Credit Union National Association to recognize excellent work done by a credit union to advance youth financial literacy. Especially given the current state of the economy, it is critically important that our young people learn the necessary skills to make wise financial decisions.

I am proud to say that Travis Credit Union, which is based in Vacaville, California, in my congressional district, is a most deserving recipient of this award. Travis Credit Union has worked with a number of other groups in our community to establish the Money Matters Program, which provides financial literacy education, custodial bank accounts, and personal financial mentors for foster youth ages 15 to 17. After completion of the Money Matters classes, the youths open Travis Credit Union savings accounts with a modest balance. This important program is of great benefit to these young people as they work to become successful, independent adults.

The Money Matters Program is just one of Travis Credit Union's many efforts to provide financial education to our community and its young people. The credit union has done an excellent job of ensuring that members of our community receive the financial knowledge that they need to make smart decisions and to avoid some of the pitfalls that have caused so much hardship through the ongoing financial crisis.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Travis Credit Union for receiving the Desjardins Youth Financial Education Award, and I urge financial institutions across the country to look to Travis Credit Union as an example.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret but with clear intent that I rise in opposition to continuing the Federal Home Affordable Modification Program, known as HAMP, without significant changes.

HAMP was designed to help millions of homeowners who had fallen victim to the financial crisis of 2008 and to the collapse of the housing market; but regrettably, at this time, it is not working under its current structure.

On behalf of struggling homeowners in my congressional district trying to avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes, I have gone to great lengths to encourage the Obama administration to recognize the serious shortcomings of the HAMP program, shortcomings that have been well documented by numerous independent and authoritative sources.

But the administration has been unable to successfully respond to the legitimate criticisms of HAMP and as a result the administration faces opposition to its program today on the floor of the House not only from those who oppose everything this administration does for purely partisan reasons but also from representatives like me who have genuinely sought to work with the administration to improve this program.

I hope that my vote today is understood clearly by the administration as one more effort on my part, on behalf of my desperate constituents, to get the administration to recognize the urgency of the housing crisis and

respond to it accordingly. I appreciate that much hard work has already been done. I know that many people are involved in this effort and many hours have been dedicated to the problem. But in the case of ongoing foreclosures nationwide and the abuses homeowners face from banks and mortgage servicers, all the hard work and effort has not been sufficient and more must be done.

Homeowners in my community and across the country are being lied to, chewed up, and abused by banks and servicers in an arbitrary and capricious system that has stripped them of their homes and their livelihoods. In my district, people who are in need of substantial help in their fights against the big banks are simply not getting it. Hard as I try with my staff, and hard as my colleagues try with their staff, we cannot do enough on our own.

Make no mistake--Republicans in Washington are not on the side of homeowners in this fight. They're using the problems with HAMP as an excuse to once again oppose the Obama administration, just as they have opposed the Obama administration on every step it has taken to rescue the economy, for purely partisan reasons. Regrettably, the Republican approach to the housing crisis is to cut and run, to starve the economy of the investments it needs to create jobs and get the economy--and the housing market--back on its feet. Their bill today does nothing to help the housing crisis and it would deprive the administration of funds that could be used to help homeowners. But their bill does one thing that I do support--it sends a message that homeowners are not getting the help they need from HAMP and that HAMP must be significantly improved or replaced in order to offer the kind of help distressed homeowners need.

So far, such improvements have not taken place. And I see no sign that they will. And left with no choice but to register one more complaint by voting to end HAMP.

I hope today's vote is understood clearly as a wake-up call to the administration that HAMP is not good enough today to earn my support and that it must be strengthened immediately or replaced by a program that does work. I hope my vote sends the message that banks and servicers are responsible for the abuse that is taking place in today's housing market and that we intend to hold them accountable for their behavior, and that we are committed to helping struggling homeowners survive and recover from this crisis.