Floor Statements

I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in much of the history of the United States, and certainly in the most recent history of the United States, we have made a decision to build much of our economy on the backs of the best and the brightest that this country has to offer; to go to the research universities and to other universities and develop grants from Federal agencies to the National Science Foundation, from NIH and from the other agencies to do the research necessary to drive basic discovery, and to drive from that discovery innovation, and from that innovation economic growth. And its served this economy and it's served this Nation very, very well over the last 50 years.

But we have a problem here. We have a situation where the best and the brightest people, among the most talented, a select group of people, the postdoctoral individuals, people who've had their master's degrees and their Ph.D.'s in sciences and engineering and mathematics and a whole range of fields participate in that research. They, in many instances, write the grants for that research. The grants are awarded to the universities based upon their work. Those grants provide for escalators so that the principal investigator and the postdocs that he hires, those very bright graduates of our university system to run the labs, to do the research, to assist that individual, that they be provided for.

And yet we find out that in many instances, universities are withholding information that these students have an absolute right under State law to have. And that right is to understand how they are paid and the availability of money in these grants for their increases.

In most of these grants, the Federal institutions and others require that escalators be built into. The universities require when the postdocs and the principal investigators write these grants to submit to the Federal Government and to the agencies that they include an escalator.

And what are the universities doing? In the case of University of California, Berkeley, they withhold. They then take 53 percent in overhead charges. So in a $1 million grant, they get an additional over $500,000 to administer that grant. They take that share of the escalators for themselves, but they don't pass it on to these brilliant young people who are also now--because they've postponed, in many instances, having a family and buying a home, they now become among the lowest-paid people in the region.

All this amendment says is, if they are entitled to the information under the law, that the university should have to provide it. The University of California has been telling these postdocs and telling the Congress of the United States for over a year that they would provide this information, and they have failed to do that.

So what we're saying is that these students are entitled to the law, to that information. It creates no new right. It creates nothing new in collective bargaining. This is not the purpose. The purpose is to--the information that they are entitled to under the law they have.

This is really about the very contracts that the university is administering. And yet a year later after the request by both Members of Congress and the postdoc graduates, they're told that the information is not available. If the information isn't available, it raises questions about the overhead, the $850 million that the University of California took for the purposes of administering these grants.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this has really nothing to do with labor law. The question is whether the postdoctorate employees of the university who are involved in running these very sophisticated labs and experiments and research, whether or not they get the information that they are entitled to under the law. It only applies in those areas where there is an agreement. Many universities don't have this, some do.

But the point of the matter is that if these young people are not able to provide for themselves, we are going to take talented people and they are going to leave the scientific field. They were given these grants because they are among the best grants in the country. They were peer-reviewed. A decision was made that this is the science that is worth pursuing in the interest of this country in a whole range of fields, whether it is in space or energy or food, whatever it is. That is the point. Yet these people are among the lowest-paid people in the country, with the most education, with the most talent.

All we are saying is give them the information so they can see if there is any restrictions on passing through a

portion of, or whatever they can agree to, of the escalators that are built into these agreements. The university is taking its cut off the top without asking anybody, but somehow the postdocs aren't even entitled to that information or the graduate students aren't entitled to that information under the current policy.

It is simply not fair, and it is going to be very discouraging to extremely talented people that we have placed a bet on. This legislation places a bet on the intellectual talent and the curiosity and the skills of these individuals to drive the next generation of innovation, to drive the next generation of economic growth, to drive the next generation of discovery. That is what this is about. That is what it should be about. But we can't do that by mistreating the very talent pool that is so critical to our success.

This is just a simple request for information. It does not provide any additional rights to anyone that don't exist today. And I think it is time that we recognize the needs of these individuals, of their families, if we are going to retain them in the scientific endeavor of which they have spent most of their life pursuing, and they are obviously very accomplished at this and they are a vital, vital asset to this Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Walter J. Bishop on the occasion of his retirement after 18 years as the general manager of the Contra Costa Water District in California.

Wally Bishop has served as the general manager for the Contra Costa Water District, which supplies water to 550,000 people, during some very important and critical periods. Over this time, he has been a tireless--some might even say relentless--leader for the Contra Costa Water District, making significant contributions not only at the local and regional level but to statewide and national water policy as well.

He has worked throughout his tenure to improve our region's drinking water quality, to secure a sustainable water supply, and to restore and protect the Bay-Delta ecosystem. I am pleased to be able to say that I have worked with him on many of his successes, and as some of my colleagues know, he can be a formidable adversary as well.

Although nothing comes easily in California water, Mr. Bishop has succeeded in putting Contra Costa Water District at the forefront of responsible and sustainable water management in the State. Under his direction, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project was the first major reservoir to be permitted and constructed in California in more than a decade, and the water district's ongoing reservoir expansion project, intake relocation, and screening efforts will not only improve Contra Costa's water supply but provide important statewide economic and environmental benefits as well.

A registered civil engineer, Wally Bishop has been honored many times by his profession and by the larger water and engineering communities. In addition to the awards presented to Contra Costa Water District under his leadership, he has personally been honored with the American Society of Civil Engineer's Award for Achievement in Environmental Engineering/Government Service and the American Public Works Association's Charles Nichols Award for Leadership and Innovative Management.

He has also served with distinction in national leadership roles, including as the chair of the Water Research Foundation and on the

board of directors of the American Water Works Association, and he has been appointed to two terms on the Environmental Protection Agency's National Drinking Water Advisory Council.

Thanks in large part to Wally Bishop's leadership, the Contra Costa Water District is today in an excellent position to face the challenges of the 21st century. This is no accident: He is one of the true innovators and strategic thinkers in California water matters, and he and his staff have worked tirelessly throughout his tenure.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Wally Bishop on his retirement, and to thank him for his many years of public service. He is leaving big shoes to fill, and I hope that in addition to spending more time with his wife Patty, he will continue to contribute his energy and his ideas to the world of California water.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Pierluisi.

Many of us on the Natural Resources Committee, including myself, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Young, have been grappling with this issue of political status for Puerto Rico for decades, and we each have the scars to prove it. We have held numerous hearings over the years in Washington and in Puerto Rico. We have listened to the representatives of not only the political parties, but the citizens of Puerto Rico, and we've heard testimony from across the spectrum, including the representatives of each of the political parties in Puerto Rico. In light of all that experience, I am convinced that Congress must provide the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to voice their preferences. That is what today's legislation would do, a fair opportunity for a self- determination process.

Puerto Rico has been a territory for 112 years, and it has been an important part of this country in peacetime and in war. Four million residents of Puerto Rico are American citizens and they are bound by Federal law, and yet Congress has never asked Puerto Ricans to officially express their views on the island's political status.

This legislation does not bind future Congresses. H.R. 2499 doesn't require the Federal Government to create a Puerto Rican state, nor does it force us to work toward Puerto Rican independence. This bill simply asks the citizens of Puerto Rico whether they want to remain a U.S. territory in their current status or whether they would prefer another political status. And if it turns out they favor another political status, another vote would then be authorized to determine which status option they prefer.

Considering the context and the history wrapped up in this issue, this legislation is as fair as you can possibly expect. I would hope that this House would respond by passing this legislation and sending the message to the people of Puerto Rico that Congress would welcome their telling us what they prefer their status to be. That is a choice that they will make in a free and open process, and they can proceed to the second question or not. But we will have asked them, instead of what we've seen in the past is people scrambling, depending upon political advantage in Puerto Rico, one particular time trying to rush to get a vote or get a statement or get a plebiscite. This is a process that's set out, it's fair, and we should support it.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I thank the subcommittee chair for all of her work on behalf of workers in our country and her leadership on not only worker issues but also family issues as workers struggle to keep family and the workplace together and in sync from time to time.

I also want to thank Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson for her introduction of this resolution for Workers' Memorial Day and to all of the members of the committee who have supported it, to Mr. Petri for his support.

This is the 21st annual Workers' Memorial Day, a day to honor workers who have lost their lives or become sick or injured because of the unsafe and unhealthy workplaces in the past year.

Our Nation's workers have had a tough year. Last Sunday, our Nation paused to remember 29 fallen miners in the Upper Big Branch mine, the worst U.S. coal mining accident since 1970. Upper Big Branch was not the only horrific workplace catastrophe this year. Last week 11 workers died in an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

Three days before the blast at Upper Big Branch, seven workers perished in an explosion at a refinery near Seattle. This comes after a devastating explosion at a power plant under construction in Connecticut, which cost six workers their lives. These explosions are a reminder that while we have made some strides in workplace safety, unacceptable risks still remain for our workers. Fourteen workers die on the job every day. We have to do better.

Take the Upper Big Branch mine: 2 months ago, my committee learned about how many mine operators managed to avoid some of the tougher sanctions implemented after the Sago mine explosion. While some have made safety a priority, others have responded by indiscriminately challenging nearly every safety citation. By flooding the system with unwarranted appeals, these companies have been able to avoid full accountability for their actions. The consequences of these delays can be deadly.

Last August, the Mine Safety and Health Administration identified 48 mines that were able to escape the possibility of tougher scrutiny because of these unresolved appeals. Upper Big Branch mine was one of them. So was the nearby Pocahontas mine, where a worker was killed last week.

Loopholes in our safety laws aren't exclusive to mining. Sadly, penalties for companies that violate health and safety laws are woefully outdated. Multimillion-dollar corporations often face little more than a slap on the wrist for potentially fatal violations. Without effective enforcement, it's easy for bad actors to become repeat offenders. Without adequate whistleblower protections, workers who want to report hazards often live in fear of retribution. According to the New York Times, one Upper Big Branch foreman recalled, ``I have had guys come to me and cry,'' because they were too afraid to report concerns about high methane levels in the mine. Workers shouldn't have to choose between losing their lives and losing their jobs.

These tragedies call for immediate reforms that will make all workplaces safer. First, we must allocate funding that will start to clear the backlog of the mine safety appeals. Second, we need to look at outdated and ineffective laws that continue to allow companies to put workers in harm's way. In 2008, I authored legislation that would have strengthened the mine disaster prevention efforts, improved emergency responses, and reduced long-term health risks to miners. The S-MINER Act passed the House, but died in the Senate because of a veto threat. We don't know yet if it would have prevented the Upper Big Branch tragedy, but it certainly could have helped.

Finally, Congress should pass the Protecting America's Workers Act. This bill will modernize safety protections for workers across all industries through stronger penalties, effective whistleblower protections, and meaningful accountability when employers break the law.

Four years ago, I made a promise to the families who lost a loved one in the Sago, Darby, and Aracoma Alma mine disasters. I told them we would do everything we could to heed the lessons of those disasters and keep miners safe. Unfortunately, I've had to make the same promise to families at the Crandall Canyon mine disaster and now the Upper Big Branch mine disaster. This has got to stop.

On this Workers' Memorial Day, it's time to live up to this promise for all the families of workers who have lost their lives on the job-- and all working men and women across this country. We cannot afford to let another year go by without meaningful reform.

Madam Speaker, I rose on February 3rd to pay tribute to Arthur H. Rosenfeld for his lifetime of service and leadership on energy conservation, on behalf of myself and the following members: Representatives Henry Waxman, Lois Capps, Grace Napolitano, Laura Richardson, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Jackie Speier, Jane Harman, Doris Matsui, Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, John Garamendi, Michael M. Honda, Bob Filner, and Zoe Lofgren. I would like to submit for the Record a letter sent by members of the California congressional delegation to Mr. Rosenfeld on the occasion of his retirement as a member of the California Energy Commission.

Dear Art:

Please accept our good wishes on your retirement as a

member of the California Energy Commission.

For over half a century, you have led the energy efficiency

movement in California and nationally. As a result of your

inspiration and innovative leadership, offices and homes

throughout California, and the appliances our residents

purchase, are more energy efficient than ever before.

Californians today use no more energy than they did three

decades ago. New energy efficiency mandates you have

sponsored are expected to deliver energy dividends of $8

billion or more over the next decade.

As you have often said, ``the cheapest energy is what you

don't use.'' California's economy is more productive and

efficient, our air is cleaner, and our energy industries and

research centers are more dynamic because of your work.

You have changed the thinking of industry and government,

and changed the habits of Californians from all walks of life

in terms of how we think about and use energy on a daily

basis.

These are exceptional achievements, and they are a lasting

legacy of an exemplary career in public service. Your work

has dramatically improved our public policy--not only in

California but across the nation.

Accordingly, as members of the California Congressional

delegation, we want to take public note of your work, to

thank you for your unstinting public service, and to express

our appreciation for all you have done to benefit our State,

to promote America's energy security, and to shine a light

that will help lead the way to a clean energy future for our

country in the 21st century.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to thank both of my colleagues from Oklahoma for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honor of working with Chief Wilma Mankiller in my service on the Resources Committee and as Chair of that committee. She was a magnificent person, and we honor her as one of the great women in American history. She was all of the things that my colleagues have said, but when she came through your door, you knew you were about to do business. She was also very quick to humor and very often would use humor as well as she would use knowledge in disarming those who opposed her.

I had a real opportunity to work integrally with her on the issues of sovereignty at a time when the Supreme Court was attacking at that moment some very essential parts of tribal sovereignty.

I am sorry to hear of her passing; but I have great, great memories of working with her, of her leadership, of her advocacy, of her passion, and of her running so true to her values no matter what the situation. If she couldn't succeed today, she'd be back tomorrow. Very often, she was.

Thank you again so very much for this resolution, which recognizes the contributions of this outstanding woman to the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1236) honoring the coal miners who perished in the Upper Big Branch Mine-South in Raleigh County, West Virginia, extending condolences to their families and recognizing the valiant efforts of emergency response workers at the mine disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 1236 into the Record.

At this time, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

As my colleagues have recounted, on Monday, April 5, an explosion rocked the Upper Big Branch Coal Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia, killing 29 miners and injuring others. This was the worst mine disaster in the United States in almost four decades. For over two centuries, millions of West Virginians' livelihoods have depended on extracting the State's richest coal deposits.

Coal has left an indelible mark on the communities throughout West Virginia and Appalachia. For many of these communities, the mine may be the only way to earn a decent living. These miners are proud of their work and their contribution to the American economy. Coal is in their blood, it is in their tradition, and it is their career.

But we also know that underground mining is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Every day miners show up for their shift knowing that there is a chance that they may not return to their families, yet they show up every day. At 3:30 p.m., during the shift change, a massive explosion ripped through the Upper Big Branch Mine and took the lives of 29 miners and sent others to the hospital. While the cause of this tragedy is still under investigation, today we memorialize those 29 miners who perished.

Our Nation sends our deepest condolences to those who have suffered this terrible loss. We extend our heartfelt sympathies to families who have lost a husband, a father, a brother, a son, or more. Those thoughts are with you and your communities in your suffering these devastating losses. These losses will remain long after the headlines fade from national attention.

Today we also recognize the valiant efforts of the many rescue teams, who in many cases traveled long distances and risked their lives in hopes of saving their fellow miners. Many rescuers had to evacuate the mine at least four times as a result of explosive levels of methane gas. These brave men and women, who worked around the clock day after day, have the appreciation of this Congress and this Nation for their selfless efforts.

I would also like to recognize Congressman Nick Rahall, who grew up in Beckley, West Virginia, only a few miles south of the mine. Congressman Rahall sponsored this resolution and provided the much- needed rock of support for his constituents during this disaster. Reports have come back to me of his consoling and listening to families, neighbors, and friends in his community. I know how much these families appreciate his support and those efforts.

Over the last few years I have met many families who have suffered similar tragic losses in mining disasters. And what I have learned is that the impacts of these disasters far range what we see in the general society because of the history of these communities, the culture of these communities, the work ethic in these communities. These tragedies spread across in an indelible way with the loss of a single miner.

In the face of these overwhelming tragedies, these families are showing incredible strength and determination. I made a promise to the families of Sago, to Aracoma Alma, to Darby, to Crandall Canyon that we would do everything in our power to uncover the cause of these tragedies and do everything possible to prevent other miners from suffering these similar fates. I want to extend that same promise to these families of Upper Big Branch Mine and to the miners in the community, that we will continue that promise and to get to the bottom of this tragic incident.

They paid the ultimate price in doing the job our Nation depends upon. Every miner who goes to work every day must be able to return home safely to their families at the end of that shift. And Congress has an obligation to ensure that that remains the case.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), subcommittee chairman of Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). But, tragically, we have been through this before. It's clearly the intent of the chair to work with the entire delegation. I tried to state it, maybe not as articulately as I had hoped to, but we fully understand that these tragedies in the mining community are felt across the State. They are felt across the region. The deaths may be isolated, but because of the history and the culture and the economy of these regions, we know that they are felt across the region, and we expect to work with the entire delegation and with the Senate delegation as we try to uncover what has taken place here with the tragedy that existed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the gentlewoman for her presentation of this resolution, and for all of those who participated in the debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1225, I call up the bill (H.R. 4872) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13), with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4872.

Mr. Speaker, at this time 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, the last leg of a long journey to bring historic health insurance and student loan reforms to the American people.

Two days ago President Obama made our first piece of groundbreaking health reforms the law of the land, a remarkable moment that will benefit millions of American families and small businesses. Our health insurance reforms and student loan reforms are truly historic.

But the benefits for Americans start right now. And with this law, we make college more affordable and health care available to all Americans. That's what we promised we would do, and that's what we did.

We voted to do what's right for the American people, not for the insurance companies. Our reforms responded directly to what we have been hearing from families and small businesses who are getting crushed by today's broken and unsustainable health insurance system.

Our reforms respond to what we've been hearing from millions of students and families, working very, very hard to try and pay for college. And that's what we're voting on today. We're voting to make student loan payments more manageable for new borrowers, to strengthen community colleges, to invest in minority-serving institutions, to embolden the programs to help students succeed at gaining a college degree, and to reduce the deficit by $10 billion.

We're voting to restore faith in the American Dream, to ensure quality affordable insurance for all Americans, and to invest in students and in our economy's future strength. That's what Democrats in Congress and President Obama are doing for the American people this year.

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Majority Whip Clyburn, and our entire leadership team for their tremendous work on this matter.

I want to thank Chairmen Waxman, Levin, and Slaughter; the Dean of the House, John Dingell; Representatives Rangel, Andrews, Pallone, and Stark for their outstanding contributions to this effort. And I want to thank my counterpart in the Senate, Senator Tom Harkin, for joining me on insisting on doing what's right for our families and our students.

Tonight we have the ability to put in the hands of every American family health security and a more affordable opportunity to have their children achieve a college education. That's the road to prosperity. That's the road to freedom for America's families, for our students, for our economy, and for the future of this country.

Join me tonight to vote ``aye'' for our families, for our small businesses, and for America. Vote ``aye'' tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

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

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I recognize the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a member of the committee, for 1 minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the Chair of the Higher Ed Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this truly historic and great legislation that addresses two of America's greatest troubles: the crushing cost and high obstacles of obtaining both quality health care and a quality college education. Our Nation has suffered from our longstanding failure to make health care and college accessible to all American people. Americans have waited a long time for health insurance reform, nearly a hundred years.

Today, Congress and President Obama will deliver on a central promise, a dream deferred, and on a crucial demand. Because of this legislation, for the first time in America's history, never again will Americans have to worry about losing their health insurance if they change or lose their job. The insurance companies will not be able to jack up premiums or deny coverage because of preexisting conditions. They will not be able to drop people's coverage when they get sick-- when they need it the most. Our reforms will improve the lives of every single American, those with insurance today and those without.

We're also pairing this historic health reform with another opportunity that cannot be missed, the chance to make the single largest investment in college affordability ever, at no cost to the taxpayers. We're going to take $61 billion of wasteful subsidies that have gone to the banks and student lenders and instead recycle that money on behalf of students, their families who are trying to pay for education, to make that education more affordable and pay down the deficit of this country.

We now face a very simple choice. We can side with America's families and make health insurance and college more affordable and accessible while creating millions of jobs and reducing the deficit, or we can side with the insurance companies and the banks. It's a very simple choice. One is to stand with the families and the students of this country, to stand with our future, to modernize our education system, to make it more affordable, and to modernize and make more affordable our health care system.

I suggest all my colleagues should stand with American families in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this truly historic legislation that addresses two of America's greatest troubles--the crushing costs and high obstacles of obtaining both quality health care and a college education.

Our Nation and its economy have suffered from our longstanding failure to make health care and college accessible and affordable to all of the American people.

Americans have waited a long time for health insurance reform--nearly 100 years.

Today, Congress and President Obama will deliver on a central promise, on a dream deferred, on a crucial demand.

Because of this legislation, for the first time in America's history, never again will Americans have to worry about losing their health insurance if they change or lose their job.

Insurance companies will not be able to jack up premiums or deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

They will not be able to drop people's coverage when they get sick-- and need it most.

There is no other plan on the table today that offers Americans these vital assurances.

Our reforms will improve the lives of every single American--those with insurance today and those without it.

They will improve our economy by reducing the deficit, creating up to 4 million jobs over the next decade, and unshackling innovative business decisions from crippling health insurance costs.

Our legislation offers families and employees of small businesses access to choices of affordable health plans; security and control over their health care; vital federal and state consumer protections; accountability for insurance companies; and coverage for 32 million Americans who don't have insurance today.

This legislation also intends to lessen and eventually eliminate the loopholes and inconsistencies in our current system. More specifically, it seeks to begin the creation of a joint national and state health care system. Currently, we have a fragmented and unfair set of rules.

If you are poor you may or may not be covered by Medicaid and your benefits will vary depending on the state you live in.

If you are employed, you may or may not be offered benefits by your employer and those benefits vary from employer to employer. As providers continue to increase costs year after year, insurers, employers and states have been unable to effectively negotiate and responded by cutting benefits and increasing costs for individuals and families.

This bill will help change this unsustainable and unfair dynamic. Under this legislation, every American will have an obligation and an opportunity to enjoy meaningful health benefits. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish an essential benefits package that will provide a basic but comprehensive set of benefits for all Americans. Although existing employer plans are not required to provide this level of benefits, it is our hope that employers will meet or exceed this standard. However, the bill does end a wide series of abuses that all health plans, including employer provided plans, must comply with.

These include an end to all pre-existing condition exclusions, limits on waiting periods for coverage, and elimination of annual and lifetime caps on benefits.

In order to make health care more affordable for workers and employers, the bill establishes exchanges that will negotiate with insurers to offer health coverage to individuals in a given area or state. These government-sponsored exchanges will establish a level playing field market place that will make health benefits fairer to all parties.

Insurers will get organized access to large pools of individuals who are required to purchase insurance with lower income individuals receiving federal subsidies to afford essential benefits. Employers will be relieved of their current burdens of designing and negotiating for health benefits under this new health system. Employers will simply facilitate the enrollment and payroll deduction of their employees in exchange health plans with no other responsibilities. Employers may select a plan level to which any employer contribution will be limited, but employees are free to choose plans in that or a more favorable level.

The health plans offered through the exchange are state licensed (with the exception of the national plans) and are not ERISA plans. States have full authority to protect their residents and enrolled individuals have state law rights and consumer protections. There is no federal preemption of any state law that does not prevent the application of any of the rights and responsibilities included in Title I of this bill.

Small employers that choose to offer health coverage may be eligible for tax credits and cannot offer health benefits that discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. For employers who use employee payroll and similar organizations (i.e. Professional Employee Organizations), I expect that the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue rules to make clear the circumstances by which the small employer may take the tax credit and satisfy the prohibition against discrimination.

The bill contains an individual mandate to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. This provision is grounded in Congress's taxing power but is also necessary and proper--indeed, a critical linchpin--to the overall effort to reform the health care market and bring associated costs under control throughout interstate commerce. For example, without this requirement, some reforms may create the opportunity for moral hazards, such as the prohibition on pre-existing conditions.

Without an individual mandate, individuals could wait to purchase health insurance until they are sick--thereby driving up insurance costs and undermining the bill's efforts to bring health care costs and costs to the broader economy under control. This requirement spreads risk to ensure lower costs for everyone, prevents adverse selection, helps end overpayment by the government and other consumers for the uninsured, and makes health care reform overall sustainable.

I also would like to address a few other important provisions in the bill:

I am pleased that the essential benefits in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act include rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, as these benefits are of particular importance to people with disabilities and chronic conditions.

The term ``rehabilitative and habilitative services'' includes items and services used to restore functional capacity, minimize limitations on physical and cognitive functions, and maintain or prevent deterioration of functioning. Such services also include training of individuals with mental and physical disabilities to enhance functional development.

The term ``rehabilitative and habilitative devices'' includes durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and related supplies. It is my understanding that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop, through regulation, standard definitions of many terms for purposes of comparing benefit categories from one private health plan to another. It is my expectation ``prosthetics, orthotics, and related supplies'' will be defined separately from ``durable medical equipment.'' I also expect that durable medical equipment will not be limited to ``in- home'' use only.

Pursuant to employer requests, this bill codifies the use of wellness programs. Wellness programs are proving to be an emerging area of health care reform that holds both great promise and potential for abuse. The Departments of HHS and Labor will need to issue regulations to assure that employer wellness programs meet established standards of medical treatment and patient protection. It is my understanding from discussions with my colleagues in both the House and Senate that the design and implementation of voluntary wellness programs, including the issuance of policies and procedures and the adoption of practices and methods of administration, shall not have the purpose or effect of mandating participation in such programs or punishing, denying, limiting or curtailing any rights, privileges, and protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In order to ensure existing civil rights and privacy protections, regulations related to wellness programs promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services should include standards and criteria developed and certified by the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I expect that nothing in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shall limit the independent authority of the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue regulations, interpretations, and guidance regarding the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the design and implementation of wellness programs. I urge the Department of Labor and other agencies to monitor and ensure that health plans properly comply with the standards established by this Act. I also urge the Congress to continue to review and revisit this developing area of health care.

The Senate bill includes provisions that would provide for a ``level playing field'' between private health insurance issuers and a competing Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (``CO-OP''), a community health insurance option, or a nationwide qualified health plan. These provisions would prevent unfair competition within a state where these plans compete.

For example, if a CO-OP is established in New York State, it would have to be subject to all the same federal and state laws enumerated in these level playing field provisions as private health insurance issuers in New York

State are. Or, for example, if a CO-OP were established in Florida and was exempted from a state law relating to licensure, private health insurance issuers in Florida would also have to be exempted from the same state law.

The bill we are passing contains protections for employees who are retaliated against for reporting violations involving health insurance regulation and the operation of exchanges, and provides recourse for workers who are fired or otherwise discriminated against because they participate in the exchange and the employee receives a tax credit or a subsidy to purchase health insurance through an exchange. Under this legislation such employees can bring a complaint to and receive assistance from the Department of Labor.

Section 2951 of H.R. 3590 makes an amendment to section 511 of Title V of the Social Security Act to require states to conduct statewide needs assessment and to coordinate such assessment with other appropriate assessments, and cross-references section 640(g)(1)(C) of the Head Start Act. This should not be interpreted to provide states with any new authority over Head Start grantees or entities applying for Head Start funds.

Now, we're pairing these truly historic health insurance reforms with another opportunity that cannot be missed: The chance to make the single largest investment in college affordability ever--and at no cost to taxpayers.

We are going to take tens of billions of dollars that for decades has gone to banks in the student loan program and instead give that money to students and to pay down the deficit.

For decades, banks have enjoyed a sweetheart deal: They receive taxpayer money to make virtually risk-free loans to students.

As we speak, the federal government is now funding 88 percent of all federal student loan volume.

It has proven to be a more stable lender for students through shaky financial markets and a more cost-effective lender for taxpayers.

Ending these subsidies is not a radical idea.

President Clinton first identified these subsidies as wasteful in the 1990s.

President Bush eyed them in three of his budgets.

And President Obama has correctly proposed ending this boondoggle once and for all by originating all loans through the federal direct lending program--saving taxpayers $61 billion over 10 years.

And that's what our legislation accomplishes.

Our reforms are good for students, taxpayers and American jobs.

We will help low and middle-income students pay for college and invest in the support they need to graduate.

We will be more responsible with taxpayer dollars by using $10 billion of these savings for deficit reduction.

And we will end the practice of banks shipping lending jobs offshore.

This bill makes unprecedented investments to expand high-quality educational opportunities to all Americans. It invests in the Pell Grant scholarship award, strengthens Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority serving institutions, and provides more resources to states for college access and completion efforts through the College Access Challenge Grant program.

Further, these investments are paid for without increasing our nation's deficit, through key reforms in the federal student loan programs designed to provide a stronger, more reliable, and more efficient student loan system. The legislation directs $10 billion of the savings generated under this legislation to paying down the country's deficit.

The education provisions of this legislation will convert all new federal student loans to the Direct Loan program starting in July 2010, saving $61 billion over the next 10 years. These changes will also upgrade the customer service borrowers receive when repaying their loans and promote jobs. The legislation will maintain jobs by maintaining a robust role for the private sector, allowing lenders and non-profits to get contracts with the Department of Education to service Direct Loans.

These education provisions will convert all new federal student loans to the Direct Loan program starting in July 2010, saving $61 billion over the next 10 years. These changes will also upgrade the customer service borrowers receive when repaying their loans and promote jobs. The legislation will maintain jobs by maintaining a robust role for the private sector, allowing lenders and non-profits to get contracts with the Department of Education to service Direct Loans.

The legislation significantly increases the federal Pell Grant award; the cornerstone of need-based federal student assistance since its creation in 1972. Investments in this program are essential to ensuring educational access and making college more affordable for students and families. Both the House and Senate authorizing and appropriating committees have made significant investments in increasing the maximum Pell Grant award in the past few years--32 percent since 2006. The investments in this legislation build on these commitments by indexing the maximum Pell Grant award to the Consumer Price Index beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year, to reach an estimated maximum of $5,975 in the 2017-2018 academic year.

The legislation invests additional resources in the College Access Challenge Grant program created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 to assist states working in partnership with institutions of higher education, non-profit philanthropic organizations, and other organizations with experience in college access, to ensure that students have access to high-quality, affordable higher education.

It is the intent of Congress that states receiving grants under the College Access Challenge Grant program should partner with entities, including guaranty agencies (including their non-profit subsidiaries), to provide financial literacy, delinquency and default aversion activities, and other loan counseling activities for borrowers.

While this legislation seeks to ensure increased access and success for all students, we intend for the Secretary to work with states to address the unique access issues faced by underserved communities, including: low-income individuals, individuals with disabilities, homeless and foster care youth, disconnected youth, nontraditional students, members of groups that are traditionally underrepresented in higher education, individuals with limited English proficiency, veterans (including those just returning from active duty), and dislocated workers.

The legislation also includes a continuation of funding for investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic- Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, Alaska and Hawaiian Native, Predominantly Black Institutions, institutions serving Asian American and Pacific Islanders, and institutions serving Native Americans, first made under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, recognizing the critical role these institutions play in serving the nation's emerging majority populations.

Concerning the servicing contracts with eligible not-for-profit servicers, this legislation recognizes that not-for-profit servicers play a unique and valuable role in helping students in their states succeed in postsecondary education and that students should continue to benefit from the assistance provided by not-for-profit servicers, including customer service, financial counseling, and college access and success programs.

In addition, by including more high-quality servicers in the contracting process, competition will be increased thereby delivering better quality for student borrowers. Under the bill, not-for-profit servicers will be allocated a minimum of 100,000 borrower loan accounts. With sufficient loan volume and competitive servicing rates, eligible not-for-profit servicers can individually or collectively generate sufficient revenue to continue the valuable services they provide to borrowers. Because of the significant increase in loan volume as all federal loans are moved to the Direct Loan program, additional servicing capacity will be needed and is provided for through the contracts provision. I encourage the Secretary to implement these provisions so that many local not-for-profit servicers will continue to play a role in the student loan program.

As more students become increasingly dependent on loans, the Department of Education must increasingly focus on the assistance, information, and repayment tools that assist students in successful loan repayment. When evaluating the resources and services available to student borrowers and schools under the Direct Loan program, I encourage the Secretary to use existing contracting authority to contract, when appropriate, with state-designated guaranty agencies for the delivery of services that increase student loan repayment and decrease default. Such agencies shall include those non-profit subsidiaries of guaranty agencies that were established, pursuant to State law, on or before January 1, 1998.

Community colleges serve an instrumental role in both our educational and workforce systems, providing post-secondary education and job training, particularly to individuals and families hardest hit by difficult economic times. This includes workers eligible for training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for communities and for individuals who are, or may become eligible for unemployment compensation. To ensure that these institutions have access to the resources they need to develop and improve educational and career training programs designed to meet the needs of these communities, the legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to award Community College Career Training Grants especially to struggling 2-year public community colleges, (as defined in Section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965). As the legislation ensures that all States benefit from these resources with the inclusion of a state minimum, I also encourage that the Secretary strive to

ensure a diverse geographical representation of community colleges in both urban and rural areas.

I'd like to thank Ruben Hinojosa, our higher education subcommittee chair, Tim Bishop, and all of our committee members for their tireless work on student loan reform.

Along with all the members of our committee, I'd like to especially thank Rob Andrews, our health subcommittee chair, for his backbreaking work over the last year on health reform.

And I would like to thank the many members of my staff for their long hours and tremendous work over the last year on these two pieces of reform: Mark Zuckerman, Danny Weiss, Alex Nock, Michele Varnhagen, Jody Calemine, Denise Forte, Ruth Friedman, Megan O'Reilly, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Ajita Talwalker, Celine McNicholas, Meredith Regine, Lillian Pace, Kara Marchione, Helen Pacjic, Rachel Racusen, Aaron Albright, Melissa Salmanowitz, Andra Belknap, Betsy Kittredge, Mike Kruger, Amy Peake and Courtney Rochelle.

Their commitment and expertise has been invaluable.

We almost didn't get here today. You know that.

Opponents of health care reform have said anything and done everything to distort the facts, delay the process, and try to put off what Americans have asked for and needed for generations. They have tried to sow fear into the American people.

They cannot win on the merits. And they will continue to lie and distort the facts going forward. But we have made it to the final step in this process--despite all that noise.

And now we face a simple choice.

We can side with America's families and college students and make health insurance and college more affordable and accessible--while creating millions of jobs and reducing the deficit.

Or, we can side with insurance companies and banks.

That's it.

That's the choice.

I'm siding with the American people.

I urge each of my colleagues to join me.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California and the Rules Committee for reporting this rule that will allow us for the first time to have Federal guidelines for the protection of children while they are in school. It is important that we strive to keep all children safe while they are in school. I am honored to have worked with and thank her so much for her cooperation, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who was so instrumental in bringing this bill together and bringing all various parts of the discussion on this legislation together to help us draft the legislation.

Not everybody agrees with it, but we have had wonderful cooperation and support from many parts of the educational community, recognizing the danger for the actions to continue that have put so many children in danger and have harmed so many children, without having an accurate reporting system, without having the proper training of teachers.

Teachers are very often put in a very, very difficult position with respect to what to do, but we cannot have children being taped to their chairs, children having duct tape put around their mouth, children being locked into dark closets or even smaller spaces for multiple hours of the day, for multiple days of the week, so they can establish the comfort in the classroom. That is not the right treatment of that child. And if you are doing it over and over

and over again and you are not changing the behavior, you are not getting the outcomes, you might want to rethink that policy. But, tragically, that is not happening in too many areas.

Yes, there are some State regulations in this area, but they are very incomplete. They are spotty. Some only address one school population, one particular disability maybe, or a particular age group, but not others. But we cannot have, and as the GAO tragically made so graphic to our committee, you cannot have very young children treated in this way. We were presented with the most graphic case of students who died while they were placed in seclusion, while they were placed in improper uses of restraint.

We met with the parents and the caregivers of those children. And here is the final touch, that in many instances, these children were treated this way over and over and over again, and their parents, guardians were never notified.

In many instances, the first time they realized what was going on is when the child, in a very traumatic way, refused to go back to school, was frightened to go back to school. Some of these children never have really been able to return to a regular school setting. They have lost trust in people in those settings. Or a teacher might venture out and quietly tell a parent that something is wrong in your child's classroom or the way your child is being behaviored.

That is not the kind of notification that parents are entitled to, and it is not the kind of notification that people believe gives them the authority to engage in this abusive behavior.

Also, we know that in a number of instances, medications were used without the involvement of a doctor, without the okay of the parent, without checking with the authorities prior to that.

We do recognize that in particular cases a child may be a threat to him- or herself, may be a threat to another student or to a teacher or to other school personnel, and we do allow them to take actions in that particular case.

But the idea that this ad hoc theory of locking kids in closets while they soil themselves, while they are denied food, while they are denied water, let's look at what this bill does. It says you can't deny water; you can't deny food; you can't deny them access to bathroom facilities. That is kind of basic, isn't it, in the treatment of a child? And think of what happens to a child when that is done. We are not always talking somehow about a worldly teenager here. We are talking about, in many instances, very young children, children in many, many instances with disabilities who may not be able to communicate clearly.

We cannot allow us to proceed against those children without a policy being in place that protects the children and notifies the parents.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman and the Rules Committee for reporting this rule.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1126, I call up the bill (H.R. 4247) to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4247.

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan legislation that will make our classrooms safer for our children and our teachers. But first I would like to tell the story of Cedric. This is a picture of Cedric, who was a young man from Killeen, Texas, who died in his classroom when he was just 14 years of age.

Cedric was living with a foster family after an early childhood filled with abuse. Among other things, his biological family had neglected him by denying him food. Despite knowing this, on the morning he died, Cedric's teacher punished him for refusing to do his work by delaying his lunch for hours. When Cedric tried to leave his classroom to find food, his teacher put him face down in restraint and sat on him in front of his classmates. He repeatedly cried out that he could not breathe. He died minutes later on the classroom floor.

Now I would like to tell you the story of Paige. Paige was a bright, energetic, and happy young girl who started a new school in Cupertino, California. But Paige, who has Asperger's Syndrome, came home from her school the first week with bruises complaining that her teacher hurt her.

Paige's parents confronted the teacher, who denied causing the bruising. She did admit to restraining Paige for simply wiggling a loose tooth. Her parents were shocked to learn later that the teacher had lied and that she had actually held Paige face down and sat on her. Sitting on a 7-year-old for wiggling a loose tooth. Paige barely weighed 40 pounds.

Over the course of many months, Paige was repeatedly abused and injured during restraint incidents until her parents finally pulled her out of the school. She survived, but she still bears the emotional scars of this abuse.

Cedric's and Paige's stories are not isolated incidents in America's schools today. Last May, the Government Accountability Office told our committee about the shocking wave of abuse of children in our public and private schools. This abuse was happening at the hands of untrained school staff who were misusing restraint and seclusion.

Hundreds of students across the U.S. have been victims of this abuse. These victims include students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Many of these victims were children as young as 3 and 4 years of age. In some cases, children died.

Restraint and seclusion are complicated practices. They are emergency interventions that should be used only as a last resort and only by trained professionals. But GAO found that too often these techniques are being used in schools under the guise of discipline or convenience.

Last year, in my home State of California, there were more than 14,300 cases of seclusion, restraint, and other ``emergency interventions.'' We don't know how many of these cases were actual emergencies.

We have Federal laws in place to prevent these types of abuses from happening in hospitals and other community-based facilities that receive Federal funding, but currently there are no Federal laws on the books to protect children from these abuses in the schools, where they spend most of their time.

Without a Federal standard, State policies and oversight, they vary widely, leaving children vulnerable. Of the 31 States that have established some law or regulation, many are not comprehensive in approach and several only address restraint or address seclusion, not necessarily both.

For example, in one State there are rules only for children enrolled in pre-K. In another, only children with autism are protected. In yet another example, only residential schools are covered. Many States allow restraints or seclusion in nonemergency situations, simply to protect property or to maintain order. No child should be subject to these extreme interventions for simple noncompliance, like the 7-year- old who died after being restrained for blowing bubbles in her milk.

Mr. Speaker, when these abuses occur, it isn't just the individual victim who suffers. It hurts their classmates who witness these traumatizing events. It undermines the vast majority of teachers and staff who are trying to give students a quality education. It's a nightmare for everyone involved. We are here today to try and end this nightmare. We are here today to make sure that no other children suffer the same fate as Cedric and Paige. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will ensure that all children are safe and protected in schools.

This bill takes a balanced approach to addressing a very serious problem. For the first time, it will establish minimum safety standards for schools, similar to Federal protections in place for children in other facilities. Under this legislation, physical restraint and seclusion can only be used to stop imminent danger of injury. The bill prohibits mechanical restraints, such as strapping children to their chairs or duct-taping parts of their bodies, and any restraint that restricts their breathing. It also prohibits chemical restraints, using medication to control behavior without a doctor's prescription. The bill also will require students to notify parents after a restraint or seclusion incident so that parents don't learn about these abuses from whistle-blowing teachers or from their own children's bruises.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that teachers play the single most important role in helping students grow, thrive, and succeed. Teachers support this bill because it focuses on keeping both students and staff safe, giving teachers the support they need do their jobs. It asks States to ensure that enough personnel are properly trained to keep both students and staff safe and encourages the schools to implement positive approaches to managing these behavioral issues.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud that we worked on this legislation in a bipartisan way. I want to thank Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers for her leadership, her diligence, her persuasion, and her hard work in fashioning this legislation. I would also like to thank the National Disability Rights Network for bringing this abuse to our attention; the National School Boards Association; and more than a hundred other organizations for their support.

Everyone in this Chamber can agree that nothing is more important than keeping our children safe. It's time to try to end this abuse. I believe that this legislation will go a long way in setting the standard and showing States the way, and hopefully in the next 2 years the States will develop their own standards that at least meet these minimum standards of not depriving these children of the cushion of safety that they are entitled to and that their parents and family expect when they go to school on a daily basis.

So I would like to once again remind us of what happened to Cedric and to Paige at their age; their vulnerabilities, their history, and what happened to them one day when they went to school.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I thank the gentlewoman from Washington. I don't believe she was in the Chamber at that time, but I want to again thank her, while she is here, for all of her work and all of her effort to bring this bill to the floor. I enjoyed working with her.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

If I might just yield to myself to respond to the inquiry. We have Mr. Langevin who is waiting to speak, and I think Mrs. McCarthy is on her way.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the argument against this legislation is that somehow 31 States have taken care of this problem and that we all share the concern. The facts are that 31 States have not taken care of this problem. As we pointed out, in a number of States, it only goes to one particular population in that school, in that setting, or to an age bracket, or to just reporting, what have you. These are not laws that are designed to protect these children in this situation.

Illinois has been cited. Illinois is very close to what you would like to see have happen, and they have spent a lot of effort trying to do that.

But in my own State, we talk about the 14,000. When you ask the person responsible for this, they say, We don't use the data. So is that sufficient for Members of Congress? California has ``addressed the problem''? Yes, they collect data that they refuse to characterize or do anything else with.

Paige could have been in that data. She could have been one of those 14,000.

So I think we have to understand. I appreciate there is a difference here about the approach. But as Mr. Courtney pointed out, in 1998 we had a national discussion, an expose of many of the same behaviors that are going on today, it is 12 years later, and children are still being abused, dramatically abused. Restraint and seclusion is being dramatically misused. It is being used by people who don't know what to do in that situation. They have not been trained.

I find it interesting that the school boards who have to live with this problem on an everyday basis support this legislation. The classroom teachers who have to live with this on an everyday basis support this legislation. People who are on the front lines want this legislation passed because it will bring them greater understanding, greater knowledge, greater skill, and greater training to deal in these situations. An understanding, yes, there are situations where, in an emergency case, where there is a danger to the individual student or to others, that this may be proper. But it also takes training to understand that and how you use it.

I refuse to believe that was the 14,000 incidents in California, that each one of those was an emergency, dangerous

situation. They may say it is an emergency, but in California they don't describe what an emergency is. So compliance with current law all across this country is not a big deal. It is not doing much for the families of these children. It is not doing much to protect these children.

That is why we move. We move with some minimum standards about taping children, mechanical restraints of children, about secluding very young children in darkness for hours at a time, maybe repeatedly for days on end. You should not be able to do that.

We have other investigations in the committee where the simple withdrawal of water has killed children because of dehydration. So we ought not to withdraw water here. We ought to not withdraw food as a means of punishment. We ought not deny them the use of the bathroom facilities. We ought not have them in a situation where they are soiling themselves in front of their classmates, where they are humiliated, where circles are drawn around their chair and they sit in the classroom tied down by duct tape, while they are humiliated and pointed at by the teacher. These are 4- and 5- and 6-year-old kids. None of us would stand for this with our children or our grandchildren, not for a minute. But many of these parents are never notified that this is happening to their children. Many of the grandparents are never notified that this is happening to a child that they were caring for. Many of the foster parents are never notified that their children are in danger, in peril. Think about it. Just put the vision of your child, your grandchild, your next-door neighbor child in this picture.

And you want to say, We have addressed it; the States have addressed it; there is no role for the Federal Government. Well, who the hell is going to step in and protect these children? They can't do it themselves.

This may not be perfect, but we ought to take this step to put us on record that we are prepared to do something to end this practice, this abuse, this torture, of very young children, in many instances children with disabilities, children who are unable to communicate in an effective fashion. Just think about that. Think about your family. You don't have to take this to the abstract. These children cannot defend themselves against this practice, and their parents can't speak for them if they don't know. These children can't control themselves if they are denied the use of a bathroom facility.

That is what this legislation is about. It is about whether or not we are going to take this step, whether or not this step is important, and I do not believe that you can nullify this by suggesting that somehow because 31 States have done something, that this problem need not be addressed, need not have our attention. We cannot do this to these children and these families.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The manager's amendment makes minor technical corrections and clarifications. It renames the bill Keeping All Students Safe Act. The amendment adds clarifying language to the definition of ``chemical restraint'' to exclude medications prescribed and administered by qualified health professionals acting under State law. It fixes the definition of ``school'' to include all schools and programs under the jurisdiction of the local educational agency. It clarifies language describing ``State-approved crisis intervention training program,'' and the amendment requires States to consult with private school officials on determining that a sufficient number of personnel are trained to meet the needs of the student population.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment. Obviously, I am a very strong believer in this legislation and the terrible situation that we are trying to rectify, and I would hope and I think with the gentleman's language we can hopefully be assured that these grants would be based upon a healthy competition and would be based upon the request of the States for technical assistance and for other assistance in dealing with this legislation. So I support the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues from the California congressional delegation today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the California State University system.

The state's individual State Colleges were incorporated into what is today known as the California State University system by the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, designed as part of the California Master Plan for Higher Education to meet the future needs of a growing state. That bill was authored by my father, George Miller, Jr., who served in the State Senate for many years.

Today, the campuses of the Cal State system can be found throughout California, and they make up the country's largest and most diverse university system. In my district's backyard, CSU East Bay is providing opportunities for young people from around the Bay Area, preparing them for the future.

I am pleased to recognize the 50th anniversary of the California State University system, and I look forward to working with the CSU system and others in California and across the country to make college more affordable and accessible for students today and for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Transportation Trades Department (TTD), AFL-CIO on its twentieth anniversary as an invaluable advocate for our nation's transportation workers. As the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, I have seen the critical role that TTD plays in making heard the voices of those on the front lines of our nation's transit system.

TTD is a leader in ensuring that an industry as safety- and customer service-intensive as transportation has the most well-trained and experienced workforce possible. TTD has enabled employees in this industry to present a unified and effective voice, one that helps make policymakers aware of the needs and concerns of the people who form the backbone of the industry. TTD serves as an important check and balance guaranteeing that financial pressures do not lead to cutting corners on safety and security and ensuring that those in government carry out their vital oversight responsibilities in a thorough and effective manner. Our nation owes transportation workers and their representatives a debt of gratitude on these issues.

TTD's fight for workplace fairness has most recently turned to a proposed rule change at the National Mediation Board (NMB) which would allow a majority of voting employees to prevail in a union election under the Railway Labor Act. Currently, the NMB treats non- participating voters as opponents of forming a union. This current rule clearly contradicts the standards under which elections are conducted in this country. It is a matter of basic fairness that workers covered under this Act not have lesser rights than employees in other industries. With the transportation industry facing great uncertainty and change, it is more important than ever that workers have a fair and full voice in the workplace.

TTD serves an essential role in our nation's labor and transportation policy debates. In a responsible and effective manner, they help policymakers remember the needs and concerns of the women and men whose work contributes so much to our national economy. I congratulate the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO on its many accomplishments over the past 20 years, and look forward to continuing to work with them on

issues of profound public interest, ranging from safety to rebuilding and strengthening our nation's middle class.

I find it interesting that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, say that this is a sham. You know what? It was the law for a decade under the Clinton administration, and I guess it wasn't a sham because the first thing the Republicans did was to repeal PAYGO so that they could run up the massive deficits of the Bush years. We're asking to put this back in place because this is how we cleaned up the unsustainable deficits of the Reagan years. This is how we got, for the first time, a surplus for this country that evaporated in the Republican irresponsibility. PAYGO's not a sham. There's no more sacred cows.

The fact of the matter is, you'll have to choose your priorities. Our priorities may be different, but you don't get to charge them off to the future. You're either going to pay for them, you're going to raise revenues, or you're going to cut something else. The fact is it worked and it worked and it worked and it worked and the deficit came down. And the fact of the matter is, I offered this in 1983, but it couldn't get to Congress because they thought it was too tough. Finally, under President Clinton we did it and the deficits came down, and we left you with an inheritance of $5 trillion that you squandered, you wasted. And now you want not to play by the rules. The rules are you should pay as you go.

I'll be happy to respond because those were some of the same exemptions that existed in the law, and the fact is the deficit came down. We erased the $300 billion annual deficits of the Reagan administration. We did it over time, and we left you $5 trillion that you squandered.

It's the same law we had before.

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer the following statement, in recognition of Patrick W. Henning upon his retirement, on behalf of myself and the following members of the California congressional delegation: Representatives Pete Stark, Howard Berman, Sam Farr, Lynn Woolsey, Zoe Lofgren, Anna Eshoo, Henry Waxman, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney, Jim Costa, Barbara Lee, Grace Napolitano, Laura Richardson, Brad Sherman, Mike Honda, Linda Sanchez, Joe Baca, and other colleagues.

We rise in honor of Patrick Henning, upon his retirement from public service as the director of California's Employment Development Department, EDD. With nearly 40 years of experience in the field of labor, Mr. Henning brought to his office a deep and unmatched commitment to strengthening California's workforce.

Throughout his career, Mr. Henning has worked to improve the lives of California's workers--from his early days as a union organizer to his appointment to one of the state's largest Departments.

Prior to joining the Employment Development Department, Mr. Henning served the California Legislature for 17 years as a key labor policy consultant--first in the Assembly, and then in the Senate's Labor and Industrial Relations Committee headed by now-Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. In the early 1980s, Mr. Henning served as California Labor Commissioner, and later as a member of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. As a union representative in Southern California in the 1970s, Mr. Henning helped hundreds of workers bargain for improved wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Other major achievements include his tenure as chair of the state Developmental Disabilities Area Board for Los Angeles County. He also served several years in the United States Marine Corps Reserve.

Without a doubt, California's working families have benefited from Mr. Henning's life- long contributions to the labor field. We would like to thank Mr. Henning for everything he has achieved for California's workers, and we give him our very warmest wishes for many happy years of retirement.