Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 493.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1156, I call up the bill (H.R. 493) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield my 10 minutes to the Chair of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the subcommittee Chair of Ways and Means, Mr. Stark.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Allyson Schwartz.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a subcommittee Chair in the Committee on Education and Labor.

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

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the Education Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak), a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating, or we will shortly with a vote on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, known as GINA. And today we celebrate it with a great sense of unanimity and agreement about this legislation. But that clearly was not always true over more than the past decade.

This legislation has been controversial to some. It has had a shifting body of opponents to it over those many years. There are many who tried to ascribe attributes to this legislation that either wasn't intended to address or didn't exist at all. But the opposition was formidable.

But when we celebrate the passage of this legislation today, we must also celebrate the spirit of two women in the House of Representatives that persevered through all of the political debate, as hot it was from time to time, through all of the controversy, through much of the ignorance and misinformation about the legislation, but who, throughout that entire decade, understood the promise of this legislation,

both to those who would not be discriminated against in the future, but also the promise in terms of medical research and information that would become available to promote, not only cures and treatment, but greater scientific understanding of the genome and our make-ups and its impact on our health.

And those two women were Congresswoman Louise Slaughter from New York, and our colleague who is with us in the Chamber today, Judy Biggert from Illinois.

It's one thing to stand here and say we all agree today. But that wasn't the case, and that was what they kept pushing against year after year to get the Congress to understand the importance of this legislation. We come to that understanding rather late, when you consider that many of the States have taken the steps, many Nations have taken this step, but it's terribly important that we do it so people will be assured that no worker will be discriminated against because of his or her genetic information.

As I mentioned, 41 States have already led the way in passing laws to prohibit discrimination to individual health insurance markets. 34 States have passed laws to prohibit employers from discriminating in the workplace. And the Federal Government has banned discrimination against Federal Government employees. Every American deserves this protection.

In the last two decades we've seen incredible scientific advances in the diagnosis and the treatment of once untreatable, undetectable conditions. Scientists now have the incredible ability to identify genetic markers for disease that could and may never occur. Genetic testing can also help prevent diseases by identifying them early.

Despite this amazing potential of genetic testing, advancements have been stifled out of fear of what some may do with the results of those tests. Many Americans forego testing because of that fear, the fear of losing their jobs, the fear of losing their health insurance.

We pit that against the knowledge, the discovery and the treatment that would have been possible to those individuals, but the fear prevented them from coming forward. And this is not an isolated fear.

A 2006 research study showed that 85 percent of the respondents believe that without protections, employers would use genetic information to discriminate. 64 percent believe that insurers would use the information to deny critical coverage.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is clear. Title I of the bill prohibits group health plans and insurers from collecting or requesting genetic information with narrow exceptions. It also protects the privacy of this personal information.

Title II of the bill prohibits employers from collecting or using their employees' genetic information. It also prohibits employers from discriminating against employees in hiring, firing and other terms of conditions of employment based upon the genetic information.

This final bill makes it clear that, even though employers may not be held accountable for violations committed by health plans under title I, employers remain fully liable for any violations of title II, including violations involving health benefits.

It is well settled in this country's employment discrimination laws, such as title VII, the Age Discrimination Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, that it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees in their health benefits.

We intend for the courts to continue to interpret employer obligations under GINA similarly to all other civil rights laws. GINA will protect workers like David Escher, a former worker at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, who discovered his employer was trying to prove his injury was caused by a genetic disorder rather than work-related injury. This is precisely the type of discrimination and misuse of genetic information that we seek to prohibit in this bill.

The protections provided by GINA are long overdue, and Representatives Slaughter and Biggert have fought, over this last decade, for these important changes, these important provisions in the law. And I want to thank them for all of their hard work.

I also want to take a moment to thank the members of my staff, Michelle Varnhagen, Mark Zuckerman, Brian Kennedy, Jody Calemine and Michael Gaffin for all of their efforts.

From Congressman Andrews' staff, Carlos Fenwick.

Congresswoman Slaughter's staff, Michelle Adams, Cindy Pelligrini.

From Congresswoman Biggert's staff, Brian Petersen, Jaime Vickery.

And from Congressman McKeon's staff, Ed Gilroy and Jim Paretti.

From Congressman Dingell's staff, Pete Goodloe, Jeanne Ireland, Jessica McNiece, Gregg Rothchild, and John Ford.

From Congressman Frank Pallone's staff, Bobby Clark.

From Congressman Rangel's and Stark's staff, Cybele Bjorklund and Deb Mizeur for all of their assistance.

And in the Senate, from Senator Kennedy's staff, Dave Bowen, Portia Wu and Lauren McFerren.

And from Senator Snowe's staff, Bill Pewen.

And from Senator Enzi's staff, Ilyse Schuman and Keith Flannagan. And legislative counsel, Ed Grossman, Larry Johnson and Henry Christrup, for all of their assistance and all of the effort that they put in to making the changes and the distinctions between the actions in the House and the Senate, and all of the controversy that this brought with them.

With that, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time so that Ms. Biggert may make her closing remarks. And again, I want to thank her so much. Her membership on our committee makes us very proud. And her political toughness to see this through to the end, along with Louise Slaughter, is a wonderful story that we celebrate also with the passage of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I also would be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Francis Collins for all of his work and assistance and guidance to the Congress on this matter and for everything else he does in such a wonderful fashion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 340) to make technical corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 493.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 340 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

This concurrent resolution makes two technical corrections to the GINA legislation just passed. First, with respect to the Department of Defense Labs, in our current bill, section 202(b)(6) and section 205(b)(6) of H.R. 493 provides an exclusion for an employer to conduct DNA analysis for law enforcement purposes as a forensic laboratory, which submits analyses to the Combined DNA Index System, known as CODIS, if the employer only uses that analysis of DNA identification markers for quality control to detect sample contamination.

However, we recently learned that the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, AFDIL, of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, which identifies soldiers' remains, would not be included in this exclusion because it does not submit DNA to the CODIS system.

It was not our intent to prevent the Armed Forces, AFDIL, from using DNA analysis for human remains identification. This technical change would allow them to continue their mission.

With respect to NAIC, the other change is a very minor one. Section 104 of the bill, dealing with Medigap, requires the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to modify their regulations to conform to GINA. The deadline for NAIC to make these modifications is June 30, 2008. If NAIC does not make these modifications by this timeframe, HHS would be required to make the modifications by October 1, 2008.

When this bill moved through the House last April, these deadlines were not a problem. However, with today being May 1, NAIC will not be able to meet the June deadline. Thus, the other change to this bill pushes back the NAIC and HHS deadlines until October 30, 2008, and July 1, 2009.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 5715) to ensure continued availability of access to the Federal student loan program for students and families.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days in which Members may insert extraneous material on H.R. 5715 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, as amended by the Senate. Earlier this month the House acted swiftly to pass this bipartisan legislation to ensure that students and families will be able to continue to access Federal loans they need to pay for college, regardless of what happens in the Nation's credit markets.

Over the past few weeks, the President has also voiced his support for this legislation. I am glad that the President has recognized the importance of this legislation, and am very pleased that with today's vote, we will have an opportunity to send to him this bill for his signature.

The bill we are considering today now includes some of the amendments added by the Senate to strengthen the purpose of the legislation. I want to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for all of their support for this legislation and all of their efforts to get it through the Senate on a timely basis.

Because today's vote is timely, the sooner we get this legislation to the President's desk, the sooner it can be implemented by the Department of Education. This week, many incoming freshmen will be reviewing their financial aid packages and making decisions on where they plan to attend college this fall. For many of these students, their families are already worried about paying bills in today's economy. They shouldn't also have to worry about whether Federal aid they depend on to pay for college will actually be there this fall when they need it.

Over the past few months, we have been closely monitoring what has been happening in the financial markets, and we have heard from stakeholders across the political and economic spectrum: The Department of Education, college financial aid officers, lenders, financial analysts, and students. Not surprising, we have heard varying predictions. Some believe that the lenders will continue to face trouble accessing capital for loans, and others believe that the markets will ease up.

Fortunately so far, the credit crunch has not prevented any student parent from getting the Federal loans for which they are eligible. But we believe that it is only prudent to prepare for the possibility that the ongoing stress in the Nation's financial markets could jeopardize access to student loans.

In addition to the provisions already passed overwhelmingly by the House

earlier this month, the legislation before us today includes additional measures approved by the Senate amendments. This amended legislation assures that loans made through the lender-of-last-resort program are made with similar terms and conditions as other FFELP loans.

It makes the Secretary's authority to designate entire institutions as a lender-of-last-resort program temporary. It ensures that guaranty agencies and lenders operating under the lender-of-last-resort program are subject to the same rules regarding inducements and conflicts of interest that other FFELP lenders are subject to.

It safeguards the lender-of-last-resort program from abuses by requiring guaranty agencies and lenders acting as lenders of last resort to report on loans made through the program. It protects taxpayers by requiring reporting on the cost of the lender-of-last- resort program as compared to the current loan program. Finally, the amended legislation reduces low-income students' reliance on Federal student loans by directing all loans generated by this legislation into the Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants.

I believe that these additions will enhance this bill by providing further protection for parent borrowers, boosting aid to low-income students, increasing accountability in the lender-of-last-resort program.

Now more than ever, families deserve every assurance that we are doing all that we can to make sure that they will continue to be able to finance their children's education. I am confident that our efforts, coupled with proper planning in the Department of Education, will help ensure that students are able to get the financial assistance they need to attend college this fall.

I would like to thank Mr. McKeon, our committee's senior Republican, Mr. Hinojosa, the subcommittee Chair, Mr. Keller, the senior Republican on the subcommittee, and all of their staff and all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their commitment to acting promptly on behalf of America's students and families. Again, thank you to Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their support.

I urge my colleagues to join us in swiftly passing this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the chairman of the subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5522.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008.

On February 7 of this year, a huge explosion ripped through the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Eight workers died instantly, and five more have died in the months since the explosion from the horrific

burns that they suffered. More than sixty workers were injured, some so seriously that they will never fully recover. This was a terrible disaster, one of our Nation's worst workplace tragedies of the past decade.

The cause of the explosion was combustible sugar dust. It may surprise many of us that sugar dust can explode with such violence. But it can, and so can many other dusts that are commonly found in U.S. industrial sites.

In 2003, three fatal dust explosions occurred in the United States, killing 14 workers. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigated these incidents. The board examined whether these tragedies were just coincidences or a major national problem. The Chemical Safety Board also examined whether there were adequate laws to protect workers or whether new protections were needed. The Chemical Safety Board found that these explosions were not coincidences. In fact, between 1980 and 2005, 119 workers had been killed and 718 injured in dust explosions that had also extensively damaged the industrial facilities. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents. Let me repeat that. The Chemical Safety Board also found that there were no enforceable national regulations to prevent combustible dust incidents.

The Chemical Safety Board concluded that controlling combustible dust explosions isn't a mystery. In fact, the first National Fire Protection Association standards to prevent combustible dust explosions were issued in 1923. In November of 2006, the Chemical Safety Board, an independent Federal agency whose members were all appointed by President George W. Bush, concluded that the only way to prevent more worker deaths was for OSHA to issue a comprehensive standard covering combustible dust. That was in November of 2006. But to this day, OSHA has taken no action to issue a standard. In fact, OSHA has refused to act despite the fact that 70 more combustible dust explosions have occurred since 2006.

Even now, after 13 needless deaths in Georgia, OSHA demonstrates no understanding of the urgency of this problem. This is a shocking failure by the very governmental agency responsible for keeping workers safe.

Sadly, this isn't the only time that OSHA has failed to act on a Chemical Safety Board recommendation, and it's not the only time where the result of that inaction has been the death of American workers. The Chemical Safety Board warned OSHA in 2002 that new rules were needed to prevent reactive chemical explosions, but OSHA refused to act. Then last December a reactive chemical explosion in Jacksonville, Florida, killed four workers.

Because OSHA refused to act, Congress must now act. Congressman John Barrow and I have introduced H.R. 5522 to force OSHA to do the job it should have done on its own. The legislation will require OSHA to issue an interim standard on combustible dust within 90 days and a permanent standard within 18 months. It would require OSHA to base the new standard on the National Fire Protection Association standards.

OSHA says that the combustible dust hazards are already covered by numerous existing regulations. But that simply is not true. Most of the existing standards do not even mention the word ``dust'' and do nothing to educate or inform employers and employees how to prevent combustible dust explosions. Existing OSHA standards also do not address what levels of dust are safe, how to clean the dust safely, or how to prevent dust from accumulating to unsafe levels.

And it is not true, as opponents of this bill say, that we don't allow for public input. In fact, OSHA would have to conduct full public hearings and a small business review but to do so on an expedited basis that reflects the life-or-death urgency of this issue.

Because of the serious hazards imposed by combustible dust, because OSHA has issued no major standard during this administration except under pressure of the courts or the Congress, and because OSHA is unable to meet the regulatory deadlines it sets for itself, it is necessary to set some tight deadlines for action.

It is also not true that this bill requires OSHA to adopt the National Fire Protection Association standards. The bill requires OSHA to include only the relevant and appropriate provisions of the National Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards. While the National Fire Protection Association standards have proven to be effective, OSHA should use its discretion, after full public hearings and comments, to determine how the National Fire Protection Association guidelines should be used in a final standard.

You will hear opponents of this measure say we should wait until the OSHA investigation is completed and the results of OSHA's current National Emphasis Program are in. But we have waited long enough. And, in fact, again, the Chemical Safety Board recommendations predate that accident based upon the urgent need for these regulations to save American workers' lives and to prevent their injuries prior to that time.

Again, if OSHA doesn't act, we must. We know that most businesses are doing the best they can to make their workplace safe. But it is also clear that other businesses may not be doing enough to ensure the safety of their employees. The bottom line is that workers need protection and the agency established by Congress 37 years ago to protect workers has once again failed in that duty.

The goal today is to protect workers from those preventable explosions, and we believe that this legislation accomplishes that goal without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers.

I want to leave the House with the closing words of a witness who appeared before the Education and Labor Committee, Tammy Miser. Tammy Miser's brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in a combustible dust explosion in 2003. Tammy recounted the terrible suffering that her brother went through before he died, her hopes that something would happen after the Chemical Safety Board recommendations were issued, and her disappointment that OSHA has yet to act, even after the Imperial Sugar explosion.

Tammy left us with this one request: ``that you not let our loved ones die in vain and help us keep other families safe from the dangers of combustible dust.''

It's the least we can do for Shawn Boone, the workers in Port Wentworth, and the many other workers who have needlessly lost their lives.

Madam Chairman, I strongly urge that all of my colleagues will support H.R. 5522.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the Chair of the subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the cosponsor of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

This manager's amendment is offered because during the drafting and the refining of this bill we have had numerous extensive conversations with OSHA, with its technical staff and with affected industry associations about problematic issues. Our goal is to save workers lives, but also make these OSHA standards workable for businesses who need to implement them. To that end, the manager's amendment makes four adjustments to the bill:

One, several industry associations were concerned that the short 1- month effective date on the interim standards was too short to make some of the capital improvements that may be needed for engineering controls. The manager's amendment therefore provides for engineering controls required by

the interim standards shall be effective 6 months after the issuance of the standard, rather than 30 days.

Because emphasizing specific National Fire Protection Association standards was seen as putting more emphasis on some than on others that were not mentioned, the manager's amendment maintains the provisions that OSHA shall include appropriate and relevant National Fire Protection Association standards in its final standards, but eliminates reference to specific National Fire Protection Association standards.

Then, because we want to make perfectly clear that OSHA is expected to conduct a full review of small business impacts of this standard, the manager's amendment clarifies that the final standard shall be conducted in accordance with the usual rulemaking procedural requirements, including those that provide for a small business review.

Finally, it changes the title to ``The Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act.''

I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is an attempt to gut this legislation. This amendment would have OSHA not only wait for the outcome of the Imperial Sugar investigation, but also from findings from the combustible dust National Emphasis Program before deciding on whether or not to move forward. The National Emphasis Program could go on for years before there are findings. In fact, at the end of the day, OSHA could decide to do nothing.

To do nothing has turned out to be very expensive for the American workers in those workplaces where there is combustible dust. The track record is horrible with respect to OSHA preventing these dust explosions from taking place. That is the reason that prior to the most recent explosion that Mr. Barrow and I are trying to address, prior to that, the Chemical Safety Board made a recommendation to OSHA that they should promulgate these enforceable regulations, because there are no enforceable regulations with respect to dust currently in effect, except for what we did years ago in the grain industry.

Except for what we did years ago in the grain industry, and that dramatically reduced the number of incidents that took place. So to adopt the Wilson amendment is to adopt a position to do nothing, and to take an agency that has chosen time and again to do nothing in this field that any way provides for enforceable regulations of this most dangerous material when the workplace is not properly maintained and preventible actions are taken. That is just not acceptable. That is not acceptable in the name of the workers who died in the Port Wentworth plant. It is unacceptable to the workers who died earlier from the explosions.

OSHA has refused to act. They have not acted on a single standard in the entire last 8 years unless they were prodded by the Congress or the courts. So to now say that you are going to take the lives of American workers and you are going to give those lives again back to OSHA, where they have not seen any hazard, they have not seen any danger in spite of the explosions is just the height of irresponsibility by this Congress. And I would hope that the Congress would overwhelmingly reject this amendment that allows OSHA to continue the status quo that allows OSHA to continue its irresponsible position.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

I thank the gentleman. I think the gentleman has the right to close on his amendment.

Could the Chair advise me of the time I have remaining.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just note that a significant number of the signatories to the letter that was referred to by my colleague on the other side of the aisle really have little or nothing to do with these standards or are impacted by them. And this is the same coalition that continues to call for no action with respect to actions by OSHA, and it is that approach to the protection of American workers and to the safety of those workers that has led to the tragedy that we witnessed at the Imperial Sugar facility. And, clearly, these are accidents that we know are preventable, that we know we can dramatically reduce because we have the experience from the grain dust standards.

This legislation is designed to be workable. It was worked, as I pointed out, with numerous conversations with the technical staff of OSHA, with the affected industries and the trade associations that are involved with this.

I would note that the National Fire Protection Association, when we tell OSHA that they should select the ones that are relevant to the standards and the ones that are meaningful to this effort, we are talking about standards in which a consensus has been arrived at within the industries. These are consensus regulations that are put out there, but they are not required. And we think that in our discussions again with the OSHA staff and with the associations this is a good place to start because of the consensus. There may have to be additions and subtractions, and that is within the discretion of OSHA during the process that is anticipated under this legislation.

So I would hope that we would reject this amendment by Mr. Wilson and that we would pass the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just say that the problem with home building is not explosions, it is implosions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would hope that people would vote against the Wilson amendment. The people who are truly impacted by combustible dust are the workers who have been killed in the past and the workers that will be killed and injured in the future if we do not have an enforceable standard. I appreciate you have 17 regulations and all these things that OSHA is yakking about now, after years of doing nothing. The fact of the matter is, according to the Chemical Safety Board, they are not enforceable standards with respect to dust.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this is a very serious piece of legislation and a very important piece of legislation. The idea that we would delay this until some time that the Secretary of Labor could make some certification about its impact on food costs is really unacceptable.

Let's look at the record of the Secretary of Labor. Since January 1980 until 2006, there were 281 explosions in these kinds of facilities due to dust. Seven hundred eighteen people were injured and 119 died in those explosions. One hundred nineteen bread-winners were killed in those explosions. That's the result of a study from the Chemical Safety Board of whose members are all appointed by President George W. Bush, an independent agency that may be the gold standard in terms of independent review of accidents.

They then recommended that OSHA adopt dust standards. OSHA did nothing. Did nothing. No enforceable standards were adopted by that point. No enforceable standards at all. And then in February 2008, the Imperial Sugar plant exploded.

In the meantime, 67 explosions took place since the Chemical Safety Board recommended the standard. Five hundred seventy-five injuries and 14 deaths took place before OSHA did anything. And the Chemical Safety Board recommendations continue to say there are no enforceable standards with respect to dust. Not only does it devastate the lives of these individuals and their families and the community, it devastates the facility, a facility here that is key to the commerce of that area. So talk about an impact on price in a tight market when these facilities start pumping up.

The feed and grain people, they're under their own standards. And what is their analysis of that standard? That it drove technologies, it drove better design, and better productivity in their markets. That's their findings. They're not implicated in these standards. What happened there? Eight people were killed in the explosion, 20 were put into medically induced comas for a number of weeks, 5 of those died, and 3 are still in the hospital.

Since the Chemical Safety Board made its recommendation, there have been 67 explosions, and OSHA never found the urgency to protect these workers. Now to come along and to be so cynical as to suggest that if we could just keep killing the workers, the price of food will stay down.

You know, it's funny. I read the papers, read the business journal, read The Wall Street Journal, and they're talking about how the price of food has driven the profits of the grain companies; but when they talk about why it's gone up, it says, ``The crisis stems from a combination of heightened demand for food from fast-growing developing countries like China and India, low grain stockpiles caused by bad weather, rising fuel prices and the increasing amount of land used to grow crops for ethanol'' and others.

Some people say it's because Zimbabwe has quit producing food under the corrupt regime of Mr. Mugabe, so Africa has a double problem. I see the Governor of Texas, Mr. Rick Perry, thinks we ought to cut back on ethanol production. He doesn't think we ought to keep killing American workers. Nowhere in this paper, The Wall Street Journal mind you, nowhere in this paper, when you read about food prices, do you see any mention that we ought to continue to subsidize food prices by blowing up processing plants and killing and injuring workers. Nowhere do you see that except, perhaps, in this amendment.

We ought not to accept this amendment. These workers and this critical industry are entitled to this protection. And the facts on the ground are: The last time we put in a standard was for the feed and grain industry, and it has turned out to be wildly successful. Why is it wildly successful? Because injuries went down 40 percent, fatalities went down 60 percent, explosions went down 60 percent.

Don't you think we know enough now to think that these other workers in this industry are entitled to this protection? But OSHA has done nothing. OSHA has done nothing. And if OSHA is not going to act, we must. In this administration, OSHA has only acted when prodded by the courts or the Congress, never on their own. Never on their own have they suggested that they were going to go out and do this. Even after the recommendation of a presidentially appointed commission to look at these kinds of accidents, appointed by this President, they've chosen to do nothing. And it's important; it's important to these workers, it's important to the Congress.

John Barrow and I have put together legislation that works for the industry. We've consulted with the industry. We've sat down with the industry. We've sat down with OSHA. And we ought to oppose this motion to recommit in the name of the workers, in the name of their families, in the name of our Nation, we owe it to protect these workers.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5522, the Clerk be authorized to correct the table of contents, section numbers, punctuation, citations, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate to reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, today, on Equal Pay Day, Americans are reminded of how far we have to go in order to eliminate pay inequity between men and women in the United States. While our Nation has made many strides in the fight against discrimination, the struggle for equal pay for equal work continues. On this day, we remind ourselves that much more work needs to be done.

Women have seen recent success shattering a number of glass ceilings within the ranks of corporate and government leadership. Yet the fact is that American women are still only being paid 77 cents for every dollar that their male counterparts earn with the same education, training, and experience. Any wage gap based on sex is unacceptable. The current one is staggering. As pay equity advocate Evelyn Murphy has calculated, the current wage gap means a woman with a high school education will lose $700,000 over her lifetime. A woman with a college education will lose $1.2 million over her lifetime. And a woman with a professional degree will lose $2 million over her lifetime.

But unequal pay not only surfaces in workers' weekly paychecks, it also harms workers' retirement and health care security. Its sheer irrationality hinders the American economy as a whole. In the new global economy, those who stand in the way of equal pay are tying one hand behind America's back. Holding women back not only hurts workers, it's bad for business.

And even where progress is made on the most insidious forms of intentional discrimination, reactionaries are still trying to roll back these protections. Just last year, the Supreme Court did precisely that in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly two decades at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Alabama. She sued the company soon after learning that she was paid less than her male counterparts. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex.

But, five members of the United States Supreme Court rejected longstanding law and said that Lilly Ledbetter did not file a complaint quickly enough, nullifying the jury's verdict. In fact, Ms. Ledbetter filed her complaint as soon as she learned of the pay discrepancy through an anonymous note in her mailbox.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the clock on filing started to run when the employer made its discriminatory pay decisions, decisions which the employer effectively hid by explicitly forbidding anyone to discuss their pay. So despite finding that Ms. Ledbetter was unlawfully paid less than her male counterparts, she could not recover anything. The company that paid her less just because she was a woman owed her nothing. A slim majority of the Supreme Court shunned reason in order to satisfy its own narrow ideological agenda.

I am proud to say that just months after the ruling the House of Representatives repudiated the Supreme Court's decision by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would restore workers' right to challenge discriminatory paychecks.

Today should serve as a call to action to end the pay inequity that half of our country's workforce continues to endure. The Senate should pass and the President should sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And the Congress should take up additional legislation to strengthen the Equal Pay Act.

I urge my colleagues to recommit themselves to the fight for equal pay. The wage gap between men and women must disappear. And the Congress has a very clear role to play in that effort.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Teaching and Research Assistant Collective Bargaining Rights Act. This legislation will restore the right of graduate assistants to organize and bargain for better wages and working conditions under the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA.

Graduate assistants across this country have seen their workloads dramatically increase in recent years. As many colleges and universities try to cut costs they have relied on graduate students to take on a larger role and more responsibility: They teach classes, develop course curriculum, grade student papers, and provide counseling. One reason for this trend is simple--graduate student teachers are paid a fraction of what faculty earn. Confronted with this economic reality, graduate assistants, many of whom have families to support, have sought to exercise their right to organize and bargain collectively for a better deal.

Right on cue, as it has done with millions of other workers, the Bush NLRB quickly stripped away the right of graduate teaching students to join a union and have a voice at the bargaining table. The National Labor Relations Board's, NLRB, 2004 decision in Brown University overturned prior precedent and found that graduate assistants are not employees under the NLRA and therefore not afforded the rights and protections of the Act. This decision has stripped away the right of over 51,000 teaching assistants, research assistants and proctors to bargain for better wages and working conditions at 1.561 private universities.

Thousands of graduate assistants continue to light for the right to join a union. At public universities in 14 States, graduate assistants are already afforded the right to join unions. According to the Coalition of Graduate Employee Unions, there are approximately 23 unions on more than 60 campuses in the United States, including the University of Michigan, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of California.

The Teaching and Research Assistant Collective Bargaining Rights Act is simple. It will amend Section 2(3) of the NLRA to clarify that the term ``employee'' includes any graduate student who is performing work for compensation at the direction of the institution. As employees, these workers would have the right to organize and bargain collectively under the NLRA. This bill restores prior precedent. As the NLRA covers only private sector workers, State schools are not affected by the Brown University decision or this legislation.

The Teaching and Research Assistant Collective Bargaining Rights is about fundamental fairness and justice. It will restore the right to thousands of hardworking graduate employees to bargain for better wages and working conditions. I urge all of my colleagues to support this country's graduate teaching assistants and support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5715, into the Record.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, Members of the House, today we continue the consideration of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. This is legislation that was reported from the Committee on Education and Labor with unanimous bipartisan support. Once again today, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle and the staff on both sides of the committee for working in a manner which allowed us to report this bill in very short order to the House for its consideration, and on working with the Department of Education, the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, for her cooperation in helping us with this legislation so that we can assure the parents, families, and students of this country that there will be no interruption in their access to student loans.

As the lending season starts to progress now, as students are getting their letters of acceptance, thinking about the next semesters of education and next year's education, as that lending season comes into its fullness, we want to make sure that there is no disruption.

We are concerned about a disruption because of the general disruption that is taking place in the Nation's credit markets, and specifically, concern about whether or not there will be a spillover onto the student loan markets so that students will have difficulty finding those loans.

We have worked with the Department of Education, we have worked with the administration, we have worked with the Republican members of the committee and our own caucus to devise a system of relief that is available to the Secretary and to the administration in the event that that should happen. And really what we're doing is three things: One, we're making sure that the existing law and the existing program for such an emergency, the Lender of Last Resort program, is functioning, that agreements are reached between the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Treasury, and we've been told by the Secretary of Education that she has informed the members of the committee that that has been done, that the Secretary meet with the guarantee agencies that might stand in the stead of those lenders that cannot make those loans to make sure that there is a smooth transition between them and the universities and colleges, and that that program is in place.

Also, that schools are aware that they can apply to qualify for the Direct Lending program. Many colleges and universities use that today. They may want to consider that so, again, there is smooth transition should the private lending market not be able to come forward with the student loans, they could direct their students to either of those two programs.

And, finally, to try and help the private sector credit markets for student loans, as this bill does, to give standby

authority to the Secretary to purchase those government loans from the traditional lenders in the student loan field so that we might develop some liquidity in that market so that they can then take the money they receive from the Secretary and make a new tranche of student loans. If she purchases those loans, that money could only be used to provide a new set of student loans for the students for the coming year.

And we also raised the loan limit for students, for undergraduates, because we understand that the private student loan market is in very rough shape, and there are some students who use private loans to fill a small gap between the total cost of their education and what they were able to borrow. We think by raising the limit, we will be able to help most of those students in that situation.

So this is an important piece of legislation. It's legislation that we look to be acted upon in the Senate in a very timely fashion and then to be sent to the President, we believe, for his signature. And then we will have completed a series of standby authorities and a series of processes that we should be able to assure families and students that there will be no major interruption in the student lending for the remainder of this year and next year.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

If I might, I have one additional speaker, but the speaker is on his way to the floor. If you want to go ahead, then we will have that speaker, and I think we will yield back our time.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank Mr. McKeon for mentioning my staff and to Julie Radocchia and also that I failed to mention her birthday yesterday when I recognized her service.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. The amendment was done on a bipartisan basis with the input of the senior Republican member, Mr. McKeon. The manager's amendment we are considering here today makes various technical changes to the legislation and additional substantive changes to ensure continued access to Federal student loans.

Specifically, the amendment makes the following changes: It targets loan limit increases to undergraduate students and families. It clarifies that only eligible students as defined under section 435(a) may qualify for these loans as with all other Federal student aid. It clarifies that at the discretion of the Secretary, a loan may continue to be serviced by the current lender. And in regard to school-wide Lender of Last Resort eligibility, it specifies that the Secretary of Education shall determine whether a school qualifies and provides criteria for the Secretary to consider in making the determination. It specifies that funds received by lenders from loan sales will be used to originate new loans. And it clarifies that, at the discretion of the Secretary, a loan purchased by the Secretary may continue to be serviced by the current lender.

Now more than ever, families deserve every assurance that we are doing all that we can to make sure that they will continue to be able to access the low-cost loans they need to pay for college, regardless of what happens in the credit markets. I am confident that our efforts, coupled with the proper planning by the Federal Government, will provide them with that guarantee.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not expect to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I commend Mr. Petri for this amendment. He addresses an oversight in the legislation in making sure that the Secretary has the ability to review and revise the regulations concerning prohibited guaranty agency inducements to ensure that agencies do not engage in improper inducements. We don't think this is a problem, but we had a problem in the past in the rest of the program, and we passed on a bipartisan basis, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, and I think this amendment is an important part of keeping the integrity of that act and the continuity within the student loan program so that all participants in that program understand that we cannot condone even an appearance of improper relationships. When students and families are borrowing money and making sacrifices for that money, we want to make sure that they get the best deal available and they get the best facts available to them.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not expect to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, Members of the House, this is an important amendment.

This committee, on a bipartisan basis, has struggled with trying to get a good handle, if you will, an understandable handle on the cost of education and the reasons for the increases in the cost of education, as we watched the cost spiral up in higher education much faster than the general inflation index. And it is a rising concern in families. As their budgets compete with fuel, food and mortgage payments, this obviously becomes a very serious matter.

Congressman McKeon and Congressman Castle have been on this watch

for many years in this committee trying to help us come to grips with this problem and trying to carry on a positive conversation with the universities and colleges so that we can better define those costs that they control, the costs that they don't control, and certainly the actions of the States in their support for the public institutions. I think this amendment is very helpful.

Congressman Welch has spoken to me about this during our deliberations of the higher education bill and of the college loan reduction bill that we passed last year.

This is an issue that continues to nag at us. I think providing some good guidance to GAO, with their expertise, we have an opportunity to really take a good look at a cross-section of institutions, what is properly driving the increases in cost and what maybe is improperly driving the increase in cost, and those things that can possibly be brought under control and be reduced by cooperative actions between the institutions, the States, and the Federal Government.

So I strongly support this amendment, and I want to thank Congressman Castle and Congressman Welch for offering this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for introducing this amendment. She had talked to me about this early on, and it was an oversight. But she has raised the issue that for families that have engaged in serious medical encounters, the question of what the real bill is becomes a matter of serious negotiations that can take over a period of time.

You get your bill. It says you owe $65,000. And then it says, but the real cost was $45,000, and somebody will pay $20,000, and you owe whatever is in between. And then you find out that is really not true, that was the initial billing, and you back over a period of months. Those negotiations, because of an unexpected serious medical encounter within a family, should not bar, in these times, those individuals from being able to access student loans. It doesn't mean they've lost their incomes. It doesn't mean any of that at that point.

I think it is a very important addition to this legislation as we are trying to weave together a support system for families that must rely on loans for the education of their children.

I want to thank you very much for offering this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill H.R. 5715, the Clerk be authorized to correct the table of contents, section numbers, punctuation, citations, and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming

changes as may be appropriate to reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I thank the Rules Committee for bringing this rule to the floor that will enable us to consider the Continued Access to Student Loans Act to help families and students who are struggling to pay for the cost of education.

One of the more successful programs in this country has been the system of student loans that we provide under Federal guarantees to families and to students to pay for those educations. That program now has been caught up

in the decline and the seizing of the American credit markets, and therefore, we're worried that there will not be loans available to families and students who are applying for school this coming fall.

As a result of that, we have been working with the Secretary of Education and with the entire committee on the Republican side and the Democratic side of the aisle to make sure that we have in place a number of provisions that will allow, if necessary, the Federal Government to step in and assure those families that they will have access to those loans so they will not have to miss classes that they need, miss a semester that they need, and compound their problems by extending the time that they will have to remain in college before they graduate.

We have been meeting with the traditional lending community within the student loan community, and many of them have told us that they expect to participate in the student loans for the coming year, but they also believe that there will be a gap, that the supply of those loans will not meet the demands because of the seizing of the credit market, that the credit markets have failed to function over the last many weeks not only for student loans, but for the municipal bond market, for various joint agencies of the government that have very high credit ratings.

In the case of student loans, these are government-backed loans, but the markets are not purchasing the old loans as they were in the past. For that reason, we are seeking to activate and have on standby authority the lender of last resort authority that the Secretary of Education has under current law where if, in fact, the money is not available for those loans, she will be able to go to the Secretary of Treasury and make a demand to fund those loans.

There will also be available the direct lending program that currently exists. Many universities and students use that program today. We have been talking with them and making sure that they would be able to expand the capacity. Should the universities decide to direct a number of the students to the direct lending program, they have assured us they that could clearly double their capacity and in a short time be able to go beyond that.

So we have the lender of last resort program in place because there is not enough money in the banks to provide for student loans. We have the direct lending program in place for those who choose to go there so they can keep their eligibility for school.

And then we also, in this legislation, provide for the Secretary to purchase existing loans from those lenders so that they can recapitalize their liquidity situation and be able to make new loans to students and to families seeking those loans.

Those three tools should, in fact, provide a seamless system so if the private credit markets fail to provide the necessary resources, or the credit markets fail to provide the liquidity that's necessary, we will be able to stand in their place for a temporary period of time until the credit markets sort it out.

We also make provisions in this legislation to increase the amount of money that undergraduates can borrow in the program so that those students who have been using the private loan markets, which are in complete shambles, will be able to increase the amount of money that they may need to borrow for tuition and for school expenses and be able to continue their education.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that we've made provisions in here so that temporary problems that families may be having with home payments or with health care payments, those would be considered as exigent circumstances so that they can continue to be eligible for the loans under the government guaranteed program. Ms. Castor will be offering that amendment. And the gentleman from Vermont will be offering an amendment to really look at this link between increased tuition and increased resources made available to students.

This is an important package. It's a timely package. We hope that it won't be necessary to be used, but we need to have it in place so that we can backstop the failures of the credit market that are currently existing as an outflow of the subprime mortgage problem that is affecting the entire economy of this country and many other countries around the world.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I want to thank the Rules Committee for recommending this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008.

I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. It was reported by the Committee on Education and Labor with unanimous bipartisan support, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for all of the effort they put into this legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation.

At a time when the turmoil in the Nation's credit markets has made it difficult for some lenders to access the capital they need to finance their student lending activity, this bipartisan bill will ensure that students and parents are able to continue to access the federal loans they need to pay for college.

For quite some time now, the worsening economic downturn has made life more difficult for many of America's families. But this downturn has its root in the housing crisis, which has led to significant tightening in the credit markets. What began as a challenge for home loan borrowers has now become a challenge for other borrowers, like those with credit card debt and automobile loans.

And in recent months, we have now seen questions raised about the availability of student loans for the coming year, especially when those who finance their loans through the auction rate securities, that system has ceased to function.

As a result, some lenders are reducing their lending activity in the federally guaranteed student loan programs, while other lenders are anticipating increasing their market share.

And while the stress in the credit markets is taking a toll on some lenders, students so far have not encountered serious difficulties in getting federal loans they need to pay for college. That's the good news.

But as we have seen too often, the shocks in the financial markets come as a surprise leaving those affected with little time to react. There is emergency authority already built into the current law which would maintain access to federal loans for families in the event of any of these surprises.

It is critical to make sure that this authority is ready to be implemented to ensure America's families can continue to access the federal college loans they are eligible for, regardless of what's happening in the credit markets.

As we work with Secretary Spellings to make sure these safeguards are ready to become operational at a moment's notice, we must also take additional steps on behalf of students and their families.

This legislation provides new protections, in addition to those in current law, to ensure that families can continue to access the loans they need to pay for college.

The bill reduces borrowers' reliance on costlier private loans while encouraging responsible borrowing by increasing the annual student loan limits for federal student loans by $2,000 for all students. It also increases the total amount of Federal loans students can borrow to $31,000 for dependent undergraduates and to $57,500 for independent undergraduates.

H.R. 5715 gives parent borrowers more time to pay off their federal parent PLUS loans by allowing families to delay entering repayment for up to 6 months after a student leaves school. It helps struggling home owners pay

for college by making sure that short-term delinquencies in mortgage payments don't prohibit otherwise eligible parents from being able to pay their PLUS loans.

It clarifies that existing law gives the Secretary of Education the authority to advance federal funds to guaranty agencies in the event that they do not have sufficient capital to originate new loans. It allows guaranty agencies to make lender-of-last-resort loans on a school-wide basis.

And the bill ensures that lenders can continue to access capital to originate new student loans by giving the Secretary of Education the temporary authority to purchase federally guaranteed student loans from lenders, if needed.

Finally, this legislation carries no new costs for taxpayers.

Especially in light of today's economic conditions, the high cost of a college education continues to be one of the primary worries facing American families. A recent poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News found that 70 percent of the parents surveyed said they were ``very concerned'' about how they would finance their kids' college education.

Over the past year and a half, this Congress has worked vigorously to make college more affordable and accessible for students and families. Last year, we took the historic step towards this goal by providing more than $20 billion in financial assistance to low- and middle-income families over the next 5 years.

In February, the House passed bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and we will soon be prepared to conclude the conference committee and bring that to the floor.

Now more than ever, families deserve every assurance that we are doing all that we can to make sure that they can continue to be able to finance their children's college education, regardless of what happens in the credit markets.

And I want to again thank Congressman Buck McKeon, Congressman Ruben Hinojosa and Congressman Ric Keller, the Chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee, and all of the staff for all of the work they have put into this legislation. This has been a very fast turnaround. It could not have happened without the bipartisan cooperation of all of those involved.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee Chair, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I thank the gentleman.

I want to thank all my colleagues who participated in the debate this evening. We will have some time for additional debate tomorrow, but I was also remiss in not thanking Amy Jones of Congressman McKeon's staff for all of her hard work on this bill, and the individuals on my staff, Denise Forte, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Stephanie Moore, Brian Kennedy, Joe Novotny, Lamont Ivey, and Margaret Young for all their assistance in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.