Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, with respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements of 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on Education and Labor received, subsequent to the filing of the Committee report, the following estimate for H.R. 5715 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, April 15, 2008.

Hon. George Miller,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5715, the

Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah

Kalcevic.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Sunshine,

(For Peter R. Orszag, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 5715--Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of

2008

Summary: H.R. 5715 would:

Alter repayment and eligibility terms on parent Loans for

Undergraduate Students (PLUS),

Increase the annual and aggregate borrowing limits on

unsubsidized loans,

Give the Department of Education temporary authority to

purchase guaranteed loans from private lenders, and

Clarify provisions relating to the lender-of-last-resort

program.

On balance, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would

increase direct spending by $320 million over the 2008-2013

period and by $390 million over the 2008-2018 period. The

bill would have no impact on revenues. CBO has not yet

completed an estimate of the impact of H.R. 5715 on

discretionary spending: implementing the bill would probably

increase costs for administering the federal student loan

programs.

H.R. 5715 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal

governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary impact of H.R. 5715 is shown in the following

table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget

function 500 (education, training, employment, and social

services).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, April 9, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 166. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, as the Chinese Government was repressing peaceful Tibetan protests last month, I visited Dharamshala, India--the recognized home of Tibetans in exile-- with Speaker Pelosi and several of my colleagues.

I had the honor and privilege to meet His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and I was moved by the infinite patience and courage he exudes in the face of overwhelming odds. I was touched by the large population of Tibetans in exile who worry about family members they have left behind. These are people who left their homeland due to repression of religion and language by the Chinese Government and the constant violations of basic human rights and dignity in their own land.

The Speaker, along with everyone else on our trip, was incensed at the atrocities conducted by China. Our first order of business upon returning to the United States was to draft this important resolution before the House today.

Through this resolution, we call on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown on nonviolent Tibetan protestors and its continuing cultural, religious, economic, and linguistic repression inside Tibet and to begin a dialogue directly with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The freedom of press is something we take for granted in the United States but Tibetans unfortunately do not enjoy this privilege, as all press inside Tibet, and all of China in fact, is closely monitored and controlled by the state. This resolution calls on the Chinese Government to allow independent international monitors and journalists, free and unfettered access to Tibet.

It is clear by the conviction and sentencing of human rights activist Hu Jia, who has been an outspoken critic of the human rights record of the Chinese Government and called on the international community to hold Beijing responsible for the promises it made when bidding to host the Olympic games, that China has no intention of unilaterally changing it's human rights record. The government of China has been and continues to be an abuser of basic human rights despite the State Department decision to not include China in a list of countries that most systemically violate human rights. This resolution asks the United States Department of State to publicly issue a statement reconsidering its decision.

The cause of the Tibetan people is a desire for freedom of religion, freedom to speak their own language, and to express their unique identity. It is a cause every American can relate to. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution--to vote in support of Tibet.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, next week the administration is poised to give us and the American people a rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq. They are going to suggest that in fact there has been no escalation in Iraq, and that everything is just fine. Well, everything isn't just fine, and there is in fact an escalation going on in the violence all over Iraq. What the President's policy is is a bait-and-switch policy.

The American troops were sent to Iraq to fight al Qaeda, to fight terrorists. Now we see American troops inserted into combat, coming under fire, dying, and being wounded for the sake of one Shia political party that is afraid that it might lose an election in October. What are the American troops doing fighting for the electoral advantage of one Shia party over another?

Recently, the Pentagon suggested that this was all a sign of success of the surge. I think we should watch those words closely; you may miss something. This administration earlier told the people that the troop surge was for the purposes of decreasing the violence and creating an environment of political reconciliation. The people who were supposed to create political reconciliation are now shooting at one another because they think they might lose an election in October, and they want us to sacrifice American lives to impose the majority that they hope to have in that election.

Members of the House, this country has given the best of its young men and women in the battle in the war in Iraq and much of its treasure on the theory that we were fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we would be safer at home, on the theory that we were fighting terrorists in Iraq to eradicate them. We have lost over 4,000 young men and women in that battle, and tens of thousands of more seriously wounded, and almost $1 trillion of our treasure. Yet, this last week we saw our troops were not called upon to go against insurgents, to go against al Qaeda. They were called upon to enforce one side of an election battle of Shias against another band of Shias.

Our troops were put into battle over this last week because there was a fear by the Maliki government that the Supreme Council of Iraq would lose an election in Bosra. So they declared a battle against Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters in Bosra. They were unable to do it. They were unable to effectively carry it out. And they didn't force American troops into that battle.

Our troops should not be engaged in trying to square the field for the election advantage of one group of Iraqis over another. That is what elections are about, that is what democracy is about. But it should not be with the lives of our troops and the treasure of this country.

Madam Speaker, tonight many of Tom Graff's friends and associates will be honoring his career and accomplishments at a dinner in California. Because I can't make it to Sacramento for tonight's dinner, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the great leaders, strategists, and intellectual engines of the environmental movement of the last several decades.

Tom Graff founded Environmental Defense Fund's California office in 1971, and he has been one of the most influential, effective, and important voices in California environmental policy--and especially in the water world--ever since. Indeed, Tom has been deeply involved in the messy and fascinating world of water politics and policy since before I came to Congress. Not many people can say that.

Over our decades of friendship, Tom has frequently been a lifesaver to me, to my staff, and frankly to the people of California. He always looks for solutions, even to the most intractable problems, and whenever we've needed to get the latest thinking on environmental policy water policy, the first call we make is to Tom.

Now, despite his genius, he hasn't always seen the wisdom of my approach to every specific issue, so from time to time, I have been on the receiving end of his strong--even passionate--views. But every interaction with Tom is educational, and leaves you wiser at the end of the day.

Among many other accomplishments, Tom's negotiating prowess and his wisdom were critical to the passage of legislation that I authored in 1992 to protect the Bay-Delta of California: the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.

The CVPIA took us many years to put together, and Tom's hard work is visible throughout the statute. One of Tom's great insights was in advocating for, and helping to

develop, the water-marketing agreements that helped bring the business world and the urban water community on board. His work on water marketing has always been ahead of his time: he was early to the idea that market forces can be brought to bear on conservation and the protection of water and other public goods.

This is a great example of Tom's ability to look at new ideas and adapt them to environmental improvements, which has always been an incredible strength, one matched by very few people--too few, really-- in the world of environmental policymaking.

Nothing in California water politics is easy, as the people gathered in Sacramento tonight can attest, and Tom is one of the very few people who can broker an agreement between the north and the south, between State and Federal politicians, between Democrats and Republicans, and of course, between Democrats and other Democrats.

Tom is a great friend, and a great ally. I have relied on his counsel for 30 years, and whenever a new issue crops up that requires an innovative strategy, I turn to him--and so do many, many others.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of myself, my staff, and all of our colleagues in Congress who have benefited from his guidance and advice, it is my honor to recognize Tom Graff.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5563) to reauthorize and reform the national service laws.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5563, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, the first reauthorization of the national and community service laws and program since 1993.

The legislation we are considering today includes all of the amendments approved last week by voice vote. It also includes the provision on background checks from the Republican motion to recommit. This bill is a bipartisan product.

Through volunteer and community service programs, tens of millions of Americans of different generations have become inspired to build stronger, more vibrant communities to help children succeed in school and rebuild cities in times of disaster.

In 2006, more than 61 million Americans gave back to their communities through service. The GIVE Act recognizes this growing service movement that is taking place across the Nation. It builds upon the successful work being done by members of AmeriCorps, of Vista, of Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America.

The GIVE Act would put us on a path to increasing the number of AmeriCorps members from 75,000 to 100,000 by 2012, with a focus on engaging low-income, disadvantaged, and at-risk young people.

The GIVE Act would also help AmeriCorps members pay for college by increasing the scholarship they earn in exchange for their service from $4,725 to $5,255 by 2012.

This bill would introduce young people to community service by creating a new Summer of Service initiative that will offer middle school and high school students the opportunity to spend a summer working to improve the communities while earning $500 toward college or college preparation.

Alumni of service programs remain a valuable resource to our communities. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast communities, AmeriCorps alumni played a key role in relief, recovery, and rebuilding efforts on the gulf coast.

To help tap into these resources in times of emergency, this bill would create an Alumni Reserve Corps to service alumni with previous disaster relief experience.

Each year, nearly a half a million older Americans participate in the Senior Corps programs, mentoring children of prisoners, providing independent living services to seniors, assisting victims of natural disaster, and mobilizing other volunteers.

The GIVE Act would expand the purpose of the Senior Corps programs by adding an emphasis on recruiting retired science, technology, health care, law enforcement, and military professionals to help with education, after-school, public safety, and technology needs.

I want to thank the many Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this bill, in particular, Representative McCarthy on our side of the aisle, Representative McKeon and Mr. Platts on the other side, who is handling the bill today for their leadership, as well as the Service Caucus for its support.

Let me also thank the Voices of Service and its member organizations which have been invaluable in helping us develop this legislation.

Service and volunteerism have played an important role in our Nation's history and will continue to help us meet the challenges and the needs of our communities. This legislation reflects the important role and builds upon it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a major champion of this legislation.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say in the two programs the gentleman from Arizona raised, it's exactly why we have the reauthorization so we can go back through those programs and, in fact, as a result of those reviews, the administration has insisted upon substantial changes in those programs which have been carried out and that is why the administration now supports this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the

gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to sit here and be lectured to by somebody from the other party that ran up an $8 trillion deficit in a matter of 8 years, about $1 trillion a year they succeeded in running up the deficit. But more importantly, I don't know if the gentleman from Illinois was absent last week or he doesn't remember, I don't know which, but we were here last Thursday considering this bill under the rules of the House, under essentially an open rule where every Republican amendment and every Democratic amendment that was requested, I believe, was offered.

The new programs were subjected to a vote of the House because we thought that was fair. They prevailed. We finished the business of this bill last week, and then people decided they wanted to play some games on the motions to recommit, and so that forced us to bring the bill up again this week.

We cannot go back to committee; that would be even more expensive, more time-consuming, and bring back the bill, so we have chosen to do it under suspension. But that's after all of the amendments have been given full consideration. That's why the administration supported the legislation. That's why it has bipartisan support, because it was bipartisan in the committee. I think it was 44-0 that it came out of the committee. It was bipartisan in the Rules Committee. It was bipartisan on the floor until the gentleman's party decided at the last minute that they wanted to try to somehow incorporate the FISA discussion into national service. That was out of order. That was not allowed.

And then Mr. Kuhl decided to offer an amendment, which we asked unanimous consent to accept at that time and we were not allowed to accept it. So, we're back here today. And we're trying to do it in the most expeditious fashion because it costs something to run the House. We shouldn't be back here today. But that's the history, in case the gentleman was absent last week.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to, before we close debate, thank Mr. Platts and Mrs. McCarthy for all of their hard work. They were really the engines behind this legislation and getting it through the subcommittees and the committees for our consideration here on the floor. I want to thank them very much for that effort.

A couple of speakers suggested that somehow Americans volunteer, so we don't need this act. The fact of the matter is this act builds much more than just volunteers. I volunteer for the Habitat for Humanity. I volunteer in the schools in my district. I volunteer in Coastal Cleanup. I volunteer in community Weed and Seed programs. I volunteer in a lot of efforts. This is also about taking people who would never think of volunteering, young people who come from neighborhoods where that's not an opportunity that they may have necessarily. And it not only gets them into volunteering, but also builds skills. What people really like to have volunteer are people with skills come and volunteer.

It also builds leadership skills, so that those young people can either incorporate their skills in additional volunteering or organize other people to volunteer as they leave these programs. Many of these young people graduate and go into public service. In California, we will find people who will go from one of these programs to the California Conservation Corps to maybe the national parks program, where they end up working and rebuilding the infrastructure of our national parks or public lands or coastal areas of these States.

And when you ask the young people, when you run across them, where did they get their start, they got their start in AmeriCorps or the VISTA program or something like that. They end up maybe later, after they go to school, they come back and they work in the community. That's why one of the things that this legislation does is try to reach out to the alumni of this program, because we now realize how valuable they are to our communities and we want them to continue to participate and continue to organize people who have been the beneficiaries of this program and those who have participated in it as leaders and as participants so that we can build that core.

It's very interesting now, there's a number of people discussing the national defense level of this country, that one of the things we failed to do after 9/11 was build in a resiliency of this country in the event of other another attack. Tragically, after 9/11 the President told the country they didn't have to do anything, if they would just go shopping.

But now what we see is we still don't have the basic infrastructure in our communities to deal with natural disasters, to deal with possible terrorist attacks, to deal with regional-wide problems, whether they be fires, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, or any of that. In fact, what we need is we need volunteers and people with volunteer experience, people with organizing volunteers to start to come together to think about how a community would respond, whether it's a chemical spill, whether it's a chemical plant explosion, whether it's an earthquake or a fire, to respond to help those people, to help those first responders. We've never organized that. But we would like to start thinking about organizing that, and I'm sure when we do, we will be calling upon the professionals that were in VISTA, that were in AmeriCorps, that were in the Senior Corps, that have connections through their business connections, through their community involvement.

So, this program pays many dividends way beyond the idea that this is just about volunteering on a Saturday morning or a Sunday morning with your church. We all do that. But there has to be more. And there has to be avenues for people who aren't encouraged to volunteer, that we can provide that encouragement and we can encourage people to participate with populations that need that kind of assistance. That's the importance of this legislation.

It's unfortunate it has taken so long for us to reauthorize this bill. But what we know is Americans all across this country in every region of this country want to see a greater sense of people giving back to their communities, people volunteering in their communities, organizing people to volunteer, to provide services to their communities. That's what this legislation responds to.

It's been incredibly successful, when you meet the graduates of these programs, when you meet the alumni of these programs. They don't stop there. It becomes part of the ethic of their life. And they continue it in their business, in their professions. They continue that kind of activity because they see the value of it, they've participated in it. And I would hope that my colleagues would give this legislation overwhelming bipartisan support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and to insert extraneous materials in the Record on H.R. 5563 and on S. 2733.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2733) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2733, a bill to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Last month, we took the next step toward reauthorizing the Higher Education Act by passing H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, in the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. That bill builds on the law Congress enacted last year that put $20 billion in Federal student aid in the hands of those in most need, low- and middle-income students and families working hard to pay for the cost of college.

Now, as we work with the Senate towards the conference report to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we are close to providing students and families with additional reforms needed to truly ensure that the doors of college remain open to all qualified students.

It is our goal to ensure that the final bill include vital provisions of H.R. 4137 that address the major obstacle families face in the path to college, from skyrocketing college tuition prices, to the needlessly complicated student aid application process, to predatory tactics by student lenders.

It has been nearly 10 years since the Higher Education Act last reauthorized, and I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers are eager to complete the work on a compromise bill this Congress.

This bipartisan reauthorization presents the best opportunity that we had to bring our higher education system into the 21st century.

The bill under consideration today, S. 2733, will extend the programs under the current Higher Education Act until April 30, 2008, to allow sufficient time for further deliberations to continue on the two bills passed in the House and Senate. And while that process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act may be coming to a close, I would like to underscore that it does not mean that we will complete work on higher education altogether. The Education and Labor Committee will continue our efforts to ensure our higher education programs operate in the best interests of students and families, which include overseeing the proper implementation of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act and other provisions of the Higher Education Act. We will also examine how we can best ensure the availability of Federal student loans in the midst of volatility in our Nation's credit markets.

I look forward to completing this work with the respective Members so that we can continue to make college more affordable and accessible for our Nation's students and families.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I join Mr. Platts in urging a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2857, into the Record.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2857, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, the first reauthorization of national and community service laws and programs since 1993. I am pleased that today this House is taking up this important measure that will take volunteerism and service into the 21st century.

It was in March of 1961 that President John F. Kennedy first challenged a generations of Americans to ask ``not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'' By establishing the Peace Corps and the Volunteers in Service to America programs, he inspired millions of Americans to make a difference here at home and around the globe. He created a powerful legacy of hope and service that connects us as Americans.

Almost 50 years later, we should be very proud that volunteering in America is at a 30-year high. Through AmeriCorps and other service programs, new generations of Americans have become inspired to build stronger, more vibrant communities, help children succeed in schools, and rebuild cities in times of disaster.

In fact, in 2006, more than 61 million Americans gave back to their communities through service. That same year, volunteers in my home State of California contributed more than 858 million hours of service to our State economy, a value of more than $17 billion. In the 15 years since AmeriCorps was enacted into law, more than 500,000 Americans of all ages and backgrounds have participated in this program.

Our current and future generations of volunteers deserve our renewed support for their programs, just as President Kennedy first provided decades ago. The GIVE Act, this legislation, recognizes this growing service movement that is taking place across the Nation. It builds upon the successful work being done in communities across by members of AmeriCorps, VISTA, Senior Corps and Learn and Serve America.

AmeriCorps has become a successful model for public-private partnerships. Last year, the AmeriCorps program leveraged more than $200 million in matching funds, mobilized more than 1.4 million volunteers, and worked with 2,000 small and large faith-based and community-based organizations across the country.

The GIVE Act would strengthen the AmeriCorps service model by putting us on the path to increasing the number of AmeriCorps members from 75,000 to 100,000 by 2012 with a focus of engaging low-income, disadvantaged, and at-risk youth.

With soaring tuition prices making it more difficult for many students to get a college degree, the GIVE Act would help AmeriCorps members pay for college by increasing the scholarship that they earn in exchange for their service from $4,725 to $5,255 by 2012.

This bill would also introduce young people to community service by creating a new Summer of Service initiative that will offer middle school and high school students the opportunity to spend the summer working to improve their communities while earning a $500 education award that can be used for college or for college preparation.

Alumni of these programs remain valuable resources to our communities. More than 72 percent of AmeriCorps members continue to volunteer in their communities after their term of service ends. After Hurricane Katrina devastated gulf coast communities, AmeriCorps alumni played a key role in relief, recovery, and rebuilding efforts.

To help tap into these resources in times of emergency, this bill would expand the number of volunteers ready to respond by creating an Alumni Reserve Corps of service alumni with previous experience serving during disasters.

Volunteering also provides critical opportunities for older Americans to make a difference in their communities. Each year, nearly half a million older Americans participate in the Senior Corps programs, mentoring children of prisoners, providing independent living services to seniors, assisting victims of natural disasters, and mobilizing other volunteers.

The GIVE Act would expand the purpose of Senior Corps programs by adding an emphasis on recruiting retired STEM, health care, law enforcement and military professionals to help with education, after- school, public safety and technology needs.

In addition, it would phase in the competition for the Retired and Senior Volunteer Programs, an important part of the Senior Corps by 2013, allowing new grantees and volunteers to join the service movement and encouraging innovation and evolution among high-performing programs. I also want to thank the RSVP program for working with us to ensure a responsible transition.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle, in particular Representatives McCarthy, McKeon and Platts, for their leadership, as well as the Service Caucus for their support.

I also want to thank our committee staff for their hard work on this bill, including Alex Ceja, Denise Forte, Stephanie Moore, Deborah Koolbeck with Mrs. McCarthy, Brad Thomas with Mr. McKeon, and Becky Wolfkiel with Mr. Platts.

Let me also thank Voices of Services and its member organizations, who were invaluable in helping us develop this legislation.

It is clear that service has played an important role in this country's history and will continue to help us meet the challenges and needs of our communities. It is clear that the interest in volunteering reaches across all generations: our young people, retiring baby boomers, and older Americans. The GIVE Act reflects their commitment, and our commitment, to building a stronger country through service. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort by supporting this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that the motion to recommit contains nongermane instructions in violation of clause 7, rule XVI. The instructions in the motion to recommit address an unrelated matter within the jurisdiction of a committee not represented in the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, the scheduling of the House is not the subject of this point of order. I raised a point of order that the motion addresses the jurisdiction of committees not represented in the underlying bill. Neither the Judiciary Committee or the Intelligence Committee is represented in the underlying bill, not the schedule of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order. The gentleman again is speaking to the scheduling of the floor of the House. The bill, in its entirety, speaks to national voluntary service. The gentleman, I guess, is talking about the intelligence service. And the fact of the matter is, under the point of order there is nothing in this legislation within the jurisdiction of the committees, for the motion to recommit, of the Intelligence Committee or the Judiciary Committee, and I insist upon my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order. Again, had we been involved with the committees of jurisdiction that the gentleman is referring to, the bill would have been referred by the Parliamentarian to those committees, and it was not. And let me just inform the gentleman. I know he's been out for a couple of days and he comes back with great vigor, and I admire his arguments. But there is nothing within the programs of Teach for America or the Boys and Girls Club of America or the Big Brothers Big Sisters program or the YouthBuild or the National Council on Aging or the Senior Citizen Nutrition Program or the American Red Cross, there is nothing in those programs that require that they eavesdrop or wiretap anybody's phones before they can deliver their services. And there is nothing within the jurisdiction of this legislation or of this committee that deals with those matters, and there is nothing in this bill that deals with the matters within the jurisdiction of those committees. And I insist upon my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is required to speak to the point of order.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman must speak to the point of order which has been made with respect to the fact that there is nothing in this committee speaking to those jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my point of order.

And I appreciate that perhaps there's some confusion on the other side of the aisle between the Big Brothers of this program and Big Brother that you're thinking about.

I insist upon my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion.

As I understand the motion, Mr. Speaker, it is to codify the regulations that were finalized in November of last year that the Department has proposed for background checks and protection of the programs; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we agree with you, and I would ask if the gentleman would accept a unanimous consent request to change ``promptly'' to ``forthwith'' so we could vote on it now and report the bill out.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

I just want to say that this is unfortunate, because this is an amendment that we would agree to. It embodies the regulations supported by the Bush administration. It affects a program that has huge bipartisan support in all of our communities, that the President is in support of and is looking for the opportunity to sign this bill. But the gentleman insists upon making his motion in the form of ``promptly,'' so that the bill has to go back to committee, which makes everything much more complicated in terms of the passage of this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I reclaim my time and would just say that this amendment was never offered in committee, it was never taken to the Rules Committee. This is sort of a ``gotcha.'' But, unfortunately, it dramatically impacts the timetable for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, named in honor of the late Paul Wellstone, who fought vigorously for better treatment for mental illness.

We in the Congress have known for many, many years, and so many of our constituents in our communities that we represent have known for so many years, the need for coverage for those individuals who need mental health treatment, whether it is for themselves or members of their family, and the difficulty in not only having coverage, but providing that care and to make sure that some form of that care is reimbursed. This has been a struggle for many years.

Today we address that struggle head-on with the consideration of this legislation, but we would not be standing here today without the efforts of Paul Wellstone and all of his efforts to rule out the discrimination against individuals in need of mental health services. He is joined in that fight, and they have led that fight, by Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Congressman Jim Ramstad. Again, we would not be here today debating this legislation and hopefully later this evening passing this legislation so that we can, for the first time, offer as a matter of national policy the idea that there would be parity in the coverage between physical illnesses and mental illnesses, to make sure that those people can get that coverage, can get the treatment that is necessary, can get the care that is necessary for them and for their families.

Yes, the fact is that a number of States have laws governing this treatment for mental illness and the reimbursement for those services, but Federal law still hampers the reach of many of those laws. And as a result, many of the people who would be otherwise covered are not covered, and they continue to suffer under those discriminatory practices, and they fail to

get the services that they need so they can live a better life and so their families can live a better life.

Today we get an opportunity because of the hard work, the efforts that Congressman Ramstad and Congressman Kennedy have made to travel this country, to talk in communities all across the country, to inform them and to discuss with them the possibilities of this legislation, what it would mean to individuals, what it would mean to families, what it would mean to the general health care in this country. They have taken on that mission, and they have convinced, I think, the vast majority of the country, and they have certainly enlisted those who understood the problem before their appearances that this is a problem that we need to address and we need to address now and we need to address in the most comprehensive fashion that we can.

This legislation doesn't do all that I would like to see it do. It doesn't do all that Congressman Kennedy or Congressman Ramstad would hope that it would do. And it doesn't do all that Paul Wellstone wanted us to do in terms of eliminating all of those discriminatory provisions. But it is a magnificent start, and we should begin by passing this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Andrews of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act, a bill that ensures that the stories of Port Chicago will be preserved and that the site will be properly maintained for generations to come. This bill will increase the National Memorial's accessibility, provide additional visitor services, and help ensure long-term preservation of the site.

The legislation before us today is the result of months of diligent and collaborative effort, for which I want to thank: Chairman Nick Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee, and ranking member Don Young; Chairman Raul Grijalva of the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, and ranking member Rob Bishop; Chairman Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee, and ranking member Duncan Hunter; and the

thoughtful and hard-working staff for the two committees, including Meghan Conklin, Dave Watkins, and David Sienicki, and my own legislative director, Ben Miller.

The Port Chicago memorial, which is in my district, commemorates a very important story in American history.

The deadly munitions explosion there on the night of July 17, 1944, killed more than 300 people--the worst homefront disaster of World War

Madam Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Louis B. Burgelin, of Vallejo, California, for his many accomplishments and contributions to our community. Louis has provided remarkable leadership to countless organizations during his lifetime and the good citizens of our community have been the beneficiaries.

Louis Brosnahan Burgelin was born in Vallejo, California, on January 20, 1916, to Otto and Frances Burgelin. One of three children, Lou started his education at St. Vincent's Elementary School at the tender age of 4. During his years at Vallejo High School he studied hard but also spent a good deal of time playing football and tennis and perfecting his ability as a track sprinter. Following his high school graduation in 1932, Lou entered UC Berkeley for 2 years of study before transferring to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard Apprentice School. Lou graduated as a Marine Machinist and began an illustrious career. Quickly rising to management positions, Lou's leadership was instrumental in the success of several of our country's shipyards. At Hunter's Point in San Francisco, Lou served as both Head Progressman, and Labor Relations Superintendent. During his time at Mare Island in Vallejo, he served as Chief Progressman, Workload and Scheduling Manager, as well as the Production Equipment and Construction Manager. At Norfolk Naval Shipyard Lou was the Production Control Manager.

After retiring from the Federal Service in 1972, Lou served for 19 years as the Executive Secretary of the Armed Services Committee of the Vallejo Chamber of Commerce. He participated in the acquisition of more than $200 million in project authorizations for Mare Island. He was also instrumental in maintaining the dredging operations so necessary for shipyard operations.

Over the years, Lou Burgelin has also donated his time and talent to countless professional and community organizations. He is a Charter member of the Naval Civilian Manager's Association and served as both local and national President. He also served as President of the Navy Yard Association of Mare Island and the Council of Naval Employee Groups, representing all of the employees of the West Coast Naval Shipyards. He has been elected National Vice President of the Retirement Federation of Civil Service Employees, the first Chairman of the Combined Federal Campaign for Napa and Solano Counties, the first Chairman of the Vallejo Senior Citizens Council and the President of the Vallejo-Napa United Way. Lou has served as President of the Vallejo Chapter 16 of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) and he is a long-standing member of the Vallejo Salvation Army.

Among his many civic activities, Lou is an active member of the Vallejo Elks Club having served as Exalted Ruler, a National Officer, and as the Elks National Ritual Judge, has served as Foreman of the Solano Grand Jury and is one of the founders of the Vallejo Naval and Historical Museum.

Lou has received a Public Service Medal from the Navy's Chief of Naval Operations, the prestigious ``Others'' designation from the Salvation Army, and the Man of the Year award presented by the Vallejo Chamber of Commerce.

And it pleases me to report that Lou Burgelin is still active in the community. He serves on the Vallejo Council of the Navy League, he's Secretary of the Tobacco Fund Advisory Board for Solano County, Tresurer for the Salvation Army, volunteers at St. Vincent's Church, Past Big SIR and Chaplain for Branch 88 and he is National Legislative Chair for Vallejo NARFE. Lou has been happily married to Betty Greenwell Bergelin for almost 69 years. They have three children, three grandchildren and five great-grand children.

Madam Speaker, recognition of Mr. Burgelin's devotion to his family, his community, and his country, it is my honor to recognize him today.