Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, which was reported by the Committee on Education and Labor with unanimous bipartisan support. This legislation strengthens and reauthorizes our Nation's higher education program.

With our recent enactment of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, this Congress has already taken a historic step by providing the single largest increase in Federal student aid since the GI bill.

But we all know that there's still work to do to ensure that the doors of college are truly open to call qualified students. H.R. 4137 helps us reach this goal.

Today's students and families face a number of challenges on the path to college, from skyrocketing college prices, to needlessly complicated student aid application process, to predatory tactics by student lenders.

The College Opportunity and Affordability Act will address these challenges by reshaping our higher education system so that, once again, it operates in the best interest of students and families.

The bill will create a higher education system that is more affordable and fair and easier to navigate for consumers.

For years, prices have been skyrocketing at colleges and universities around the country, and we can all agree that the increase in college aid was vital. But there's no question we must also begin to address these rising tuition prices.

This legislation would create a new user-friendly Web site for families with helpful information on college pricing and the factors driving tuition increases.

The Web site would also publish lists of the most expensive schools, the least expensive schools, and schools with the largest percentage increase in tuition prices. Colleges with the largest increases in tuition prices would be required to report their reasons for these price hikes and to create a task force to examine how they can work to keep their prices lower.

The bill would also ensure the States would hold up their end of the bargaining by providing higher education, by establishing State maintenance-of-effort requirements. We cannot just keep putting in Federal taxpayer dollars at the top and having States take money out of the bottom.

The bill would restore trust and accountability to the student loan program. It would also provide students and families with better protections when it comes to the often murky world of college loans.

The protections for students and parent borrowers in our bill form a bill of rights for college consumers, including fair disclosure loan terms to borrowers of Federal and private loans.

In addition, the bill would simplify the Federal student aid application process and provide families with extra time to plan for their college expenses.

The bill would also:

Make the Pell Grant scholarship available year round for the first time and would increase the authorization for that program;

Strengthen the TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness and support programs that are helping so many students discover that they not only can attend college, they can succeed in college and graduate;

Expand the funding for graduate programs at the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-serving Institutions and minority serving schools;

Increase college aid and support programs for veterans and our men and women in uniform;

To ensure equal opportunities and a fair learning environment for students with disabilities;

And to make our college campuses safer. The bill does all of that, and it's an important change in the higher education responsibilities of the Federal Government and in the support for our higher education institutions and in our partnership with the States.

It has been a long time for this bill to come to the floor. It has been 10 years since we reauthorized this Act. And in recognizing that long time, I want to certainly point out the contributions made by Congressman Buck McKeon, the senior Republican on this committee; Ruben Hinojosa and Ric Keller of the subcommittee; and the Chairs and ranking members of the Higher Education Committee.

But I just want to say that much of this bill reflects a lot of work that was done by Mr. Keller, by Mr. McKeon. Certainly the provisions dealing with college costs reflect an awful lot of work that was done by Mr. McKeon when he was in the majority on the subcommittee and the full committee by Mr. Tierney, on our side of the committee, to bring this to fruition so finally we can start to not only make greater contributions in terms of assistance to families, but also help institutions rein in these costs, discuss these costs with parents and students so that they can make smart choices.

I would also like to thank my committee staff for helping us craft a strong bill, including Denise Forte, Stephanie Moore, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Sharon Lewis, Julia Martin, and Rachel Racusen.

I would also like to thank the many students across the country whose voices have been so helpful in helping us to understand the changes that needed to be made and also to voice support for this legislation and are a very important part of this process.

I think the entire House can be proud of this legislation, and I think it will help us build a better future for our students and for our economy and for our country, both in terms of our economic security and our national security. And I think it will help fulfill the vision that all American families have for the members of their family to be able to participate in a higher education, to graduate and to pursue their hopes and aspirations, in making full contributions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

I have 1 minute and I just have one speaker left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to thank Mr. McKeon and the minority for working on this manager's amendment. With this, it makes additional changes to the Pell Grant program, additional changes to strengthen the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, adds a master's program for the Historical Black Colleges and Universities, and includes changes to encourage colleges and universities to adopt energy efficient sustainable practices in their campuses, and it enhances teacher training and development so we can place qualified teachers in every classroom.

It is a bipartisan amendment that has been worked on by the staffs and Members on both sides of the aisle in the committee and Members of the House, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to say that we did respond in this manager's amendment by making this process more transparent, encouraging greater communication and cooperation between the students, faculty, college bookstores, and publishers in providing an accurate description of what the revisions in the textbooks, what the new edition really means.

Very often we have been told by students and faculty and those concerned with this, as you are, that sometimes these changes are de minimis, but you have to have the new textbook; you can't use a used textbook.

We think this will be an improvement, and I thank you so much for hounding the committee on this subject. I think this is the beginning of increased transparency and concentration on this problem of rising textbook and educational material cost increases.

Madam Chairman, I also rise in support of this amendment and commend Mr. McKeon. He has been working on this for a considerable period of time.

I think it makes sense even more so now, it was envisioned in an earlier reauthorization, because it will include the programs that survive the conference committee and become law. It will also compare those new programs against existing programs, and I ask our colleagues to support this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to rise and I think support this amendment. I think in the context of going to the conference committee, where we know the Senate has an auction provision, I think, well given even there, where we've done, we have this provision in the reconciliation bill to look at an auction to see whether we can do it and make it feasible, this may be helpful in us making some determinations about how we proceed on that effort and how the Department proceeds on that effort. So I would support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment. I think having these parallel audits, these are two programs that, for the sake of the taxpayer, compete with one another, and I think that that's important.

I was encouraged to see in the President's 2009 budget that, for the first time, the taxpayer costs for student borrowing through the FFEL program are closer to the more efficient direct loan programs, taking into account what we did in the reconciliation bill. I was also interested to see that still we see that it costs only one-fourth as much to make a direct loan as it does to make a FFEL loan program.

So I think that we should be encouraged and we should be prepared to have these audits, because I think the taxpayer is winning this discussion, thanks in large part to the efforts of Mr. Petri over many years, to have this kind of comparison, this kind of discussion. Many of the recommendations that we made in the reconciliation bill were, in fact, the recommendations of the Bush administration from the office of OMB about the cost of that program. We were able to take that money out, recycle it in favor of students and families borrowing the money to drive down the cost of borrowing that money and increase the Pell Grants. Now we see that we are still 25 percent cheaper for the taxpayers than the FFEL program.

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

Madam Chairman, I would simply rise in support of the amendment. I think that the effort that is being made here by Mr. Castle will, in fact, add to some understanding by the public and some transparency for those of us who have to make policy as to exactly what's going on with the increase in college costs. I think these kinds of explanations will be important for all of us, and we welcome the amendment.

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

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

We now see that, almost like the subprime home mortgages, that these private student loans have been offered to a great number of people who it's questionable about whether or not they can pay it back. And we now see these private lenders retreating from this market because they know they've now made loans that they're not going to be able to sell off to others. They've made questionable loans.

These loans look more and more like consumer loans because there's no requirement that the people who take out these loans in the direct marketing to students, a student signs up, gets a loan, they don't have to pay their tuition, they don't have to pay their books, they don't have to pay their dormitory fees. They're consumer loans. They can buy beer and pizza, they can buy flat screened TVs, and they ought to be treated like those consumer loans. That's why this amendment is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the United States Students Association, the U.S. Public Interest Groups, because they all recognize that this is far different than the public loans that families and students take out where there's arrangements to work out and help those students if they get into trouble. That's not the case with the private loans.

Let the marketplace work. They are now charging these students 18 and 20 percent, and we ought to understand what that means to the future of these students. We ought to support the Davis amendment.

I rise in support of Mr. Welch's amendment and thank Mr. Keller for his support of this amendment. Mr. Keller has laid it out quite correctly.

We have been struggling with this for a number of years. I think that this amendment helps with the transparency and with the information that we need to know as we continue to consider public policy. I say that because growing numbers of Members of Congress come up to me every week after they go home and talk about they have been asked the question about the increased costs of college. We know it is complex. We know it is difficult. And we know that it is not easily given to the idea that one policy fits all, one size fits all, whatever cliche you want to use.

But it must be addressed when we are asking the taxpayers to continue to step up and to provide the assistance to these families so that we can create a strong Nation and a strong economy and well-educated individuals that are critical to maintaining the democracy in a complex world. So I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this amendment to the attention of the committee. I think it is a very good amendment and it is the right thing for us to do with respect to these families that have paid such a high price for their service to our country. I thank the gentlewoman, and I urge our colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and join Mr. Keller in support of this amendment. I think this is an important amendment. As the gentleman pointed out, not only are these difficult positions, but they are becoming more and more difficult to fill with the wave of retirements and all the other impacts on schools. I want to thank him for bringing this to our attention and getting it included in the bill. I join in its support.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). Thank you so much for offering this amendment.

Madam Chairman, this is a critical amendment if we are, in fact, going to simplify the process of applying for student loans, if we are going to make it understandable to parents and to students who make these applications, and we are going to cut down the time that is required by them to do this.

This linking of the data between the IRS and the Department of Education, we have been given excuse after excuse after excuse why this couldn't be done. The Doggett-Hayes amendment allows this to happen, requires that it happen. It's very important that we support this amendment and that it be part of the final bill when it comes out of the conference committee.

I want to thank the gentlemen, Mr. Doggett from Texas and Mr. Hayes, for offering this amendment, a very, very important amendment if we are going to change the way we do business and do it on behalf of families and students to make their life easier and to save the Federal taxpayers a lot of money.

I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I think that this is a very important amendment. It starts to make the attempt to conform our policies with the make-up of the college population and the reasons that people go back to college, which are much more diverse today than they were 10, 15 years ago; and I want to thank him and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for offering this amendment. As has been pointed out, mentoring can be a very powerful force in students' lives as they struggle. To have mentoring by older students or older members of the community who have a grasp of the subject matter can really turn around their abilities to read and do math and comprehend so many other subjects and lead to improved performance in school or in other activities in the community.

I thank the gentleman for offering this and urge support of the amendment.

I just want to thank my colleagues for support of this amendment. I want to thank Mr. Van Hollen. He's been so persistent on this amendment.

Teach for America brings a lot of exciting new people to teaching, to join career teachers to rebuild our schools. And I know there's been some criticism of this program. I would just say, ask a principal who has Teach for America students in their schools. They're delighted. They would like more.

I also want to recognize, I see Mr. Regula sitting here, who's been a champion of this program year after year after year in the appropriations process.

Mr. Van Hollen, thank you for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) very much for offering this amendment. The question of student safety is something that the committee is hearing more and more about from not only schools but obviously from parents. Parents are asking these questions now as they seek to apply to different institutions, and I think this amendment will be very helpful to us.

I urge the support of the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for offering this amendment.

This information would be helpful to us. It would also give us the ability to determine whether we're putting our resources and our time and our talents in the right place with respect to properly preparing people for the workforce.

I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the great coalitions we have in the Congress of the United States, supported by every school board, every teacher organization, every educational group in the country was to fully fund IDEA. It was bipartisan; letters went down with 200, 300, 350, 375 Members of Congress saying fully fund

It is tough to do when I realize the substance of this amendment. It should be directed to the author of the amendment and to the party that supports it.

What about Teach for America? Have you talked to the principals in the school districts that have these magnificent young people who have come to this system to give us a couple of the best years of their life? It won't be allowed under this amendment.

Finally, what about the disabled kids that are in college where, for the first time, in the Higher Education Act, we speak to the needs of the disabled community that can thrive and do well in colleges but they need help. You pit them against their brothers and sisters.

Make your choice, ladies and gentlemen. You can vote for the past and a scandalous record and commitment on education, or you can vote for the future. How about some change?

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

Madam Speaker, I request 5 legislative days in which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the bill, H.R. 4137.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4137, 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 rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the birth of Father Angelo D'Agostino, SJ, MD. Father D'Ag, as he was called by all who knew and loved him, was born on January 26, 1926 in Providence, Rhode Island. Unfortunately, Father D'Ag was taken from us in 2006. However, his birth is a cause for continued celebration as he was a living testament to the principle that one person can indeed make a difference.

I have met many wonderful and inspiring people in my years of service in Congress, but there was clearly something very special about Father D'Ag, and I feel honored and, frankly, lucky to have had the opportunity to meet him in Kenya and in Washington. He made a lasting impression on me, just as he did on so many others throughout the world.

In 1992, at a time in Africa when so many lives were lost to the scourge of AIDS, Father D'Ag set up the first facility in Kenya to care for HIV infected children known as Nyumbani, Swahili for ``home''. These children were orphaned by the loss of a parent from the same affliction or who were abandoned by parents who could not or would not care for an HIV-positive child. His first three children soon blossomed into a community of children, but they were dying at an alarming rate. Through strong perseverance and advocacy on behalf of the children, Father D'Ag battled the drug companies for affordable anti-retroviral medicines. He also battled the Kenyan government to allow the children into the public primary schools.

Ultimate success on both fronts enabled him to manage the virus and start to chip away at the societal HIV stigma against these precious children. As a result, Nyumbani was transformed from a hospice into a program that nurtured the children's growth and development, thanks to the painstaking care and love that he and his staff gave to these kids. Nyumbani today has 107 bright children with loving hearts, beautiful smiles, and boundless energy on the soccer field.

Despite this monumental accomplishment at Nyumbani, Father D'Ag did not rest after providing a home for HIV-positive children without parents. He went on to develop another program: Lea Toto, Swahili for ``to raise the child'', to provide medical care and nutrition to HIV- positive children who have parents but live in poverty in the many slums in and around Nairobi. Today there are approximately 2,500 people who benefit from this community outreach program and stand a chance to survive under extreme hardship because of Father D'Ag.

However, Father D'Ag was not done. After reading the stories about abandoned street children that had been slain by police, Father D'Ag felt a need to expand his reach and protect the ever burgeoning number of street children in Kenya. He designed an additional program, one that pairs children and the elderly, the two groups most vulnerable to the ravages of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Father D'Ag designed this program in his mind, and through his perseverance and guile acquired a tract of land in Kitui that became his beloved Nyumbani Village. In this eco- friendly, self-sustaining village the grandparents care for their own grandchildren as well as other needy children in a house with a garden, access to the village school, and training in one of the many income- generating projects. While this village is still a work in progress, it already has 258 residents, 29 grandparents, and 229 children, with a capacity of 1,000 residents.

These achievements by Father D'Ag should serve as an inspiration to us all. He changed the world one child at a time, and he expanded his reach to do so much for so many people who are in desperate need of food, medical care and love. Even though he has departed from this world, he has left behind an enduring legacy through his programs for children. His passion and commitment are carried on through his incredible disciple and partner, Sister Mary Owens, who continues his work. She is joined by many other dedicated staff members and volunteers who will continue to nurture and protect Father D'Ag's children. No one can visit Nyumbani without being changed forever.

Today, Kenya, the home of Father D'Ag's work, is facing unusually difficult civil discord. This recent civil unrest reminds us how fragile life can be in a nation where so many people live in such quiet desperation. Hopefully, these tribal divisions will soon be healed. In the meantime, we must stop and take a moment to reflect upon one man--a Jesuit priest and medical doctor--who put his heart, soul and life into caring for those who could not care for themselves. It is an honor to rise today and call on all of my colleagues and people around the world to join in celebrating the great fortune that the birth and life of Father D'Agostino was for the children of Kenya and each of us who had the opportunity to know him.

Happy Birthday, Father D'Ag, and thank you for your enduring contributions.

Madam Speaker, the economy needs our help right now. And it will need our help in the long-term as well.

The American people don't need expert economic forecasts to tell them that our country and our economy are seriously off track. They experience it every day--when their paychecks shrink, when foreclosure signs go up in their neighborhoods or even on their own home, and when friends and family members receive pink slips.

It's clear that the economy needs help. The bill before us today, the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act, offers an urgently-needed first step to boost the economy and help save jobs.

The economy may be complicated, but the reasoning behind this bi- partisan bill is not. By putting money into the hands of low- and middle-income families who will spend it quickly, we will inject demand back into the economy. While we can't know for sure what the future holds for our economy, we know that we can make a difference if we pass this stimulus package quickly.

I am very pleased that this package includes unprecedented tax relief for 35 million American families who work hard every day but earn too little to pay income taxes. Past economic relief packages, including the one developed to respond to the 2001 recession, did not benefit these families. But these families must be included to really help boost the economy. This represents a very significant change in policy thanks to pressure from Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in Congress and I applaud the Speaker for working so hard to ensure that these families and workers were included in our package.

Under this bill, a married couple with two children and an annual income of $33,000 will see a rebate of $1,450. A single parent with an annual income of $20,000 and two children will see a rebate of $1,035. This financial assistance will provide substantial relief to families struggling with the rising costs of energy, food, transportation, and other basics.

Another important feature of our stimulus plan is the help it provides to homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure. The bill increases loan limits for single-family houses from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $417,000 to $729,750 for 2008.

This increased loan limit will enable qualified homeowners with larger mortgages to refinance their mortgages, lower their monthly payments, and avoid foreclosure.

In Contra Costa County, CA, where I live and which I am proud to represent in Congress, the median home price in 2006 was

more than $640,000. In Solano County, which I also am proud to represent in Congress, the price was nearly $490,000. Both prices are well above the current $417,000 limit. So, the change our bill makes will provide critical help to untold numbers of families in my district and around the country who are struggling to hold onto their homes.

Indeed, foreclosures in California skyrocketed in the fourth quarter of 2007, up 421 percent compared with the fourth quarter of 2006. This is an economic crisis that we must address, and our bill takes a strong first step in that direction.

We have a responsibility to do everything we can to limit the economic trouble that our country is now facing. We have this responsibility to American workers who could lose their jobs and to families that could lose their financial security.

We also know that passing this legislation is only a first step. That's because our economy faced fundamental problems well before the housing bubble began to burst and the turmoil started in the credit markets.

Indeed, ever since the end of the last recession in November 2001, the economy has been growing. But the benefits of that growth went mostly to corporate profits--not to workers' paychecks.

Indeed, despite that economic growth, median family income last year was actually lower than it was before the 2001 recession. Since 2001, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased. So has the number of Americans without health insurance.

These are long-term challenges that we must continue to address after we pass this short-term stimulus package. We have an obligation not just to get the economy on the right track again, but also to create a stronger economy that truly benefits all Americans for years and years to come.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I very much appreciate his remarks against this amendment to eliminate Davis-Bacon.

You cannot build good solid communities on the backs of poor people, and you can't build good solid communities on the back of poor wages, poor working conditions. This is about prevailing wages; it is not about a union wage. They constantly year after year come and mischaracterize this amendment; they mischaracterize the program. But the fact of the matter is the majority in this House understands how important this provision is to working people in this country and to the communities in which these projects are being built. In fact, all projects in this country where we invest taxpayer money, we should get good projects, good wages and good working conditions for the people on those projects.

I thank the gentleman for his statement.

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

Here we have a bill to reauthorize the HOPE VI program. That program provides grants to localities for the construction, rehabilitation, and, in some cases, demolition of public housing units. That work is going to be done in some of the poorest neighborhoods in this country. That work is going to be done in areas with some of the highest unemployment in this country.

And what does the King amendment do? It eliminates prevailing wage requirements for this work. It gives the money to contractors who would be free to pay poverty wages and pocket the rest as profit. This amendment worsens the cycle of poverty in the very areas that need the most help.

But that's not all. This is taxpayer money. What do you get when you give taxpayer money to contractors who pay poverty wages and treat their workers poorly? You get shoddy work. And you have to spend more taxpayer money to fix it later.

Let's summarize: The King amendment uses taxpayer money to worsen the cycle of poverty in the poorest neighborhoods in this country. It uses taxpayer money to buy shoddy work that just increases the costs later on. It's difficult to tell who the amendment is trying to hurt the most--the poor neighborhoods, the workers, or the taxpayers. This Amendment is outrageous and should be roundly defeated by this House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2768.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of legislation that would greatly enhance the health and safety protections in the Nation's coal mines.

Despite significant progress over the last several decades, mining remains one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Mining fatalities occur at a rate more than seven times the average of all private industries; and we are reminded of how dangerous mining can be by the tragedies like the one in Utah in August of this last year, where six miners and three rescuers died in what appears to have been a preventable disaster, and the tragedies of Kentucky and West Virginia in 2006.

Accidents every year claim the lives of one or two miners at a time. In 2007, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, 32 coal miners and 31 metal and nonmetal miners died on the job. Miners also face serious health risks, including a resurgence of black lung disease.

The legislation we are considering today, the S-MINER Act, builds on the work of the last Congress when it passed the MINER Act of 2006. The S-MINER Act represents a comprehensive approach to minimize the health and safety risks facing miners. It is critical that Congress take this action, because one of the things that is clear is that we cannot leave mine safety and health to the Bush administration.

When the Sago Mine disaster occurred, we learned that the Bush administration had withdrawn or delayed more than a dozen health and safety proposals that would have benefited miners. The Bush administration filled top-level positions at MSHA with executives from the very industry that the agency was charged with regulating. Dangerous rules favored by the industry, which would leave miners vulnerable to aggressive ``belt air'' fires, became law under this administration.

From 2001 to 2006, the Bush administration gutted MSHA by cutting funding and staffing, and especially in coal mine enforcement, where the worst tragedies would strike in 2006 and 2007. Even as coal production increased around the country, the Bush administration cut the Mine Safety and Health Administration's coal enforcement personnel by 9 percent by 2006. And then came the Sago disaster, Aracoma Alma, Darby, and Crandall Canyon mines. Even after these recent tragedies, even after the MINER Act was enacted, we continue to see neglect from this administration.

The Inspector General found this past fall that MSHA was failing to conduct mandated inspections on time, leaving thousands of miners unprotected. In 2006 alone, MSHA failed to complete the required inspections of 107 mines, employing 7,500 miners. And,

Secretary Chao failed to meet a simple deadline under the MINER Act to produce regulations on rescue teams, fundamental regulations on rescue teams, at the end of this last year.

The track record of this administration on mine safety and health has been horrendous, and Congress needs to act. That is why we are here today, to make sure that our government fulfills its obligations to protect those brave men and women who risk their safety to keep this country running.

The S-MINER Act addresses three broad issues: disaster prevention; improved emergency response; and long-term health risks. And I will talk more about those areas in a moment.

Later today, in addition to the underlying bill, I will be offering a manager's amendment that makes modifications to the bill. Among other things, that amendment will address the troubling problems of substance abuse. Because of injuries, overwork, and stress that miners often suffer, we have heard reports of substance abuse among miners.

I want to be absolutely clear. None of the recent mine tragedies have been linked to drug use in any way, but we should nevertheless be proactive in heading off the dangers that drug use poses to the miners. A few States have already adopted drug testing requirements for miners. Most, if not all, of the large coal mining companies already utilize some form of drug testing program. It will take further study to determine what role, if any, the Federal Government should play here, but this issue should be dealt with. That is why the amendment I will offer later today will require the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on best practices and will authorize her, within 6 months, to set up a drug testing and rehabilitation program for miners, in consultation with miners, their unions, operators, State agencies, and public health experts.

Two other amendments will be offered by Representatives Boucher and Ellsworth to build upon and modify this legislation, and I support those amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My colleague from California said that we had a study in this. Yes, we have a study for the Secretary to determine the best way to implement a drug testing and treatment program after 6 months of talking to the States and local agencies and the companies and the miners. We don't impose this from Washington. And then the Secretary, if she determines that it is feasible, she is instructed to start the program.

We just thought it would be wise to consult the companies who have programs, States that have programs, the miners themselves, the local public health agencies.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman should have finished reading the rest of the letter where NIOSH says that these technical modifications can be addressed quickly. And, in fact, the preliminary feedback is that manufacturers have already made many of these, and they have already been implemented. Read the whole letter. I suggest that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle read the legislation, and when they want to introduce evidence, read the complete evidence.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his support of this legislation, and more importantly, to thank him for all of his support on behalf of workers during our first session of Congress. I thank you for your attendance at the hearings and advocacy and questions on behalf of workers. I know of your very strong interest in miners, and I want to thank you for your advocacy on behalf of all workers.

I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Alaska is quite correct. It's a pathetic sight to see the President of the United States begging the Saudi prince to release more oil 8 years after that President has been in office; several energy bills passed by the Republican Congress, and the President is left going hat in hand begging the Saudi prince for more oil. It just shows the opportunity cost of this administration, of that Republican Congress and the pathetic energy policy that we were left with.

The new energy bill, however, reverses that trend. I'm very proud to be part of it.

That's 10 years ago.

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

May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has remaining.

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

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

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to thank the gentleman. I've had an opportunity to read the letter from his constituents, and I want to thank him for entering it into the Record. It's on behalf of those families and the families of the other mining tragedies who have also written to us that we made a pledge in our committee, as the gentleman knows, that this committee was going to be very diligent about pursuing mine safety.

It had been ignored for too long. The families had been closed out of the process. They were not allowed to testify. They were not allowed to go to the investigations. They were not allowed to attend the hearings, and this legislation changes much of that.

And you're quite correct and I want to thank him and his constituents for the support of this legislation.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I'm the only speaker. We were looking for a gentlewoman to do a colloquy, but she's not here. If she shows up, I would do the colloquy with her, but I wouldn't take additional time. So you can go ahead and use your time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

If the gentlewoman would yield.

I want to thank you for your support of this legislation. I would note that the manager's amendment will slow down the required schedule of underground mines to convert to the new more fire-resistant conveyer belts. These belts will help prevent deaths in all kinds of underground mines. And the amendment will ensure that mine operators have a chance to use up the perfectly good belts that they have in their inventory.

Also, the S-MINER Act will not adopt new safety standards for underground non-coal mines, except for the conveyor belt, and in this case, the mines which regularly emit methane gas, new rules for explosion-proof seals. It certainly does not treat these mines like coal mines.

The current air quality standards for underground salt mines are based on 1973 rules established by a private organization and incorporated by reference into the MSHA regulations. It is hard to even locate a copy of these old standards. It is the intent of S-MINER to adopt air standards that are justified by the unbiased scientific evidence as preventing health risks to miners and are feasible for the mines to achieve. If mine operators object to the new mine health limits based upon concerns of technological or economic feasibility, the bill requires them to fully analyze these concerns before adopting new standards. By speeding up the rulemaking process, we want to accelerate MSHA to address real hazards, but do not intend to adopt unsupported standards that do not create significant benefits or are not feasible for compliance.

The S-MINER Act does increase minimum and maximum penalties for violation of requirements that specifically protect the health and safety in underground metal and non-metal mines. However, it leaves in place the requirements in the law that small mines get a break, that a mine operator's history is a factor in assessment, and that the degree of negligence and seriousness of the hazard is to be considered.

Also, I want to note that our colleague, Congressman Ellsworth, has an amendment which would eliminate the requirement from the bill that concerns many of your constituents with respect to escrowing proposed penalties before contest.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, does four things. First, it will authorize $30 million for the Department of Labor to buy a new generation of personal dust monitors required by the builder and provide them to miners. These dust monitors greatly enhance the accuracy in measuring the concentration of coal dust in underground coal mines. Both miner and industry representatives have expressed support for this initiative. It will go a long way in helping us reverse the rise in black lung and save untold amounts of costs in dealing with such debilitating disease.

Second, the amendment will increase the time permitted for the mining industry to install a new generation of fire-resistant conveyor belts, significantly cutting industry compliance costs with the underlying bill. This amendment takes into account the industry concerns about significant amounts of old-style conveyor belts already purchased and in reserve. Under this provision, miners can use up the reserved belts before purchasing new fire-resistant belts so long as after 5 years of use they pass a proper annual inspection.

Third, the amendment would eliminate delays by some mine operators in providing supplies of breathable air in underground coal mines for miners who may become trapped as required under the MINER Act of 2006. We recently learned that some miner operators are putting refuge chambers on order, with a wait of several years in some cases, and MSHA has been treating these purchase orders as sufficient to comply with the MINER Act's breathable air requirement. In the meantime, miners are underground without the breathable air that this Congress intended them to have. At least 11 of the 12 miners of the Sago explosion, for example, did not die because of the explosion. They died because, after many hours of awaiting rescue, they ran out of air. So this provision closes an apparent loophole in the MINER Act and ensures that breathable air is readily available to miners underground today while operators await the delivery of refuge chambers. Such air supplies can be provided via air cylinders or through boreholes to the surface pursuant to MSHA instructions.

Finally, this amendment deals with the potential safety problems posed by substance abuse in a direct and responsible fashion. Many of us have seen the recent reports about the rise of substance abuse problems in mines and mining communities. There is no doubt that the injuries, overwork and stress that miners experience can leave some of them vulnerable to abusing substances like painkillers. Now, none of the recent tragedies have been linked in any way to drug use, but we should be proactive in this area.

The amendment directs the Secretary of Labor to study the problem in consultation with all parties and to impose the program if she determines it to be feasible.

I urge my colleagues to pass the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that, first of all, on the question, I'm sure we had both the same reaction when we read the story in The Washington Post that we had an opportunity in this legislation to address, the issue of substance abuse by those in the mining industry. You drafted your amendment and we drafted our amendment. Ours is, in fact, a study and then the implementation of the program.

The gentleman from the other side of the aisle and his colleagues are always saying they don't want a solution made in Washington. They want to consult other parties. We thought we should consult the companies. We thought we should consult the States that have experience in this, the public health agencies that have some experience in this, and have the Secretary develop the best program and then enact that program with drug testing. That's what we thought we should do, and I think it makes the most sense. There are States that have extensive experience, and rather than just somehow creating a program sent from Washington, whether those programs have drug testing or not, didn't make any sense to us.

With the rest of the criticisms of the amendment, I think it's sort of like maybe the ``Abbey Road'' album, where you guys play it backwards and it says ``Paul is dead'' or something. You're reading the amendments upside down or something because that's not what the amendments do. These are good amendments. They address some concerns that the industry has raised with us. And the fact of the matter is miners are entitled to have breathable air, to have 96 hours of air underground today. When the chambers come, they will come, but in the meantime they should not be unprotected given the history of the accidents that we have witnessed in this country and the problems that the miners have reaching those breathable supplies after the explosions.

So I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment, the manager's amendment, by voting for it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of his amendment. I think it's well thought out. It recognizes the problems that were described in the article and experienced among his constituents to provide the kinds of resources for what clearly, from the narrative in the story, is a very difficult problem, encountering numerous substances, of people who are caught in very difficult situations, many of whom are struggling to stay employed. And I think the kinds of services that the gentleman provides in his amendment are absolutely necessary, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman from Indiana's amendment and commend him for his very thoughtful work and his diligence on putting this amendment together to make sure that we in fact attack the problem at hand, which was those few irresponsible miners who refused to pay their fines and that have a history of not paying. Then, also the creative use of these fines to provide better enforcement, better safety for our mine workers. I rise in strong support and ask all of our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Ellsworth amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

What this amendment would do would be to strike many of the very important provisions in the underlying bill that are there to protect the lives and the safety of those who mine coal in this country's coal mines. They would change the retreat mining where we just saw a disaster of a mine accident in Utah this last August. They would provide a provision of a study. Rather

than changing the regulations by which that happened, they would provide a study. A study was not going to save those miners.

They would also take out the provision that we have that miners should have 96 hours of air available to them in the mines until such time as we have the refuge chambers. They take that out. Those miners need that air today. The fact that a refuge chamber is on order, may not be delivered for six months, a year, a year and a half, does nothing for the miner who goes to work today and tomorrow, and that is why we did it. We did it so that we could provide that margin of safety for those individuals.

We also look at conveyor belts, a major ignition point of fires in the mine, and if not properly installed, if not properly taken care of, can take the fire and the gases directly to where the miners are working. So they take that provision out.

We say that MSHA cannot investigate itself. It cannot investigate itself. These must be independent investigations, because you have to look at whether or not MSHA properly did its job, properly enforced the requirements of the law, properly inspected the mines and all that that entails, and to have them redo that themselves is a disservice to the miners and to the families. It's the single most provided complaint to this committee by the families, that they just don't understand how the watch dog can investigate themselves when their family members died in these mines. They want somebody else to take a look at it. They want somebody else to see whether or not it was done properly or not, and that is out in this provision.

It also limits the family participation. Why is it that the victims aren't able to testify and to participate and understand the design of the investigation? They are excluded from this process today. These are family members, these are victims of the disaster, these are taxpayers, and they're told, Just stand on the side, we'll tell you what happened. In many instances, they know more about what happens because when their spouses come home from work, they talk to them about what is wrong in the mines, what's dangerous, about their fear of going to work. So we provided an ombudsman so that that could happen. They should also be part of that investigation.

We think it's very important that this amendment be defeated because it wipes out, it guts those provisions of the law that we envision in this legislation that are so important to those miners and to their families. We cannot do what we have done in the past and assume that we can just leave this to the Mine Safety Health Administration. They essentially did nothing for 8 years.

Now, tragically, year after year those mining families are paying the price for that. That must come to an end. That is what this legislation does. This amendment destroys the ability of this legislation to provide that margin of safety to the miners and to their families, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time I may consume.

Just in response to the question that was asked, the whole point is the chambers are not available. We are asking that they put 96 hours of air available in canisters until such time as the refuge chambers are available. Currently now, apparently if you order a chamber, you are considered to be in compliance. No new air has come into that mine. No new resources of air are available. Nothing is available to the miner, but you are in compliance with the law.

We saw miners lose their lives because they simply ran out of air. They weren't killed in the explosion. They weren't killed in a slide. They weren't killed in a roof collapse. They ran out of air.

So what we are saying is we appreciate that you have gone ahead and you have ordered the chambers because you have made the decision to put the chambers in. Until such time as they are there, we ought to provide that kind of margin of safety. One is not inconsistent with the other.

These are air cylinders that are readily available. These are not the individual-sized packs that we deal with here in terms of inspections that didn't work in the Sago Mine. Canisters of air are readily available all throughout American society. We just say you should

put some in the mines so people can use them.

Then let me just say the question that is raised here, currently the law allows for employer and employee involvement in safety issues. Many, many organizations and businesses have these committees. But we want those committees to remain independent.

This suggests that somehow the employer should select those employees to engage in those discussions. We think that the workers ought to be able to do that and do it independently so that, in fact, they can have a true discussion about the conditions and the safety of the mines and not be establishing unilateral committees to make those determinations.

The fact of the matter is, where people have these employer-employee safety committees, very often the efficiency of the mines improves, the productivity of the mines improves and the safety improves, and we think that that is the model that ought to be continued.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my strong opposition to this legislation. I believe that it does eliminate most of the very important provisions in the underlying bill and the manager's amendment to ensure that we increase the margins of safety for miners and for their families. We should not give up that opportunity to this substitute, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Wilson/Kline amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we were treated to a very sad and disturbing story in the Washington Post about drug use in the mining community in Virginia and other States, about miners who have been crushed by equipment in the mines, who have been crushed in roof falls in the mine, who had been run over by other equipment in the mine, whose bodies were wracked with pain, who got addicted to painkillers, to OxyContin, to other drugs such as that, prescription drugs, and then were struggling with their addiction.

There was also the story of a miner who got up every night at midnight,

fixed himself a quick meal, and drove 135 miles round trip before he went to work so he could get his methadone treatment at the clinic and get on his job, and do that with the knowledge of his employer, struggling with his addiction, struggling to stay employed.

In this bill, we had the opportunity to address this situation. Rick Boucher, our colleague, addressed it by authorizing with almost unanimous support $10 million for treatment and to work with these miners, that the Secretary can use.

We have suggested an amendment in the manager's amendment, which you voted for, which says that the Secretary will spend 6 months to work with the industry, to work with the miners, to work with the States. Virginia has a program. Kentucky has a program. West Virginia does not. Pennsylvania apparently does not. Indiana does not. Illinois does not. The Secretary will work with them to see how they're doing it, the best way to do it, and at the end of that 6 months, after those consultations, after her study, to impose a drug program with drug testing and treatment and rehabilitation.

How is that different than what is being offered here by my colleagues on the other side? They impose drug testing, and then they impose a blacklist for those who test positive. You want to talk about baseball? You're being a hell of a lot harder on hardworking miners in this country than you are on the baseball stars because they use drugs, and they go to work every day and nobody says anything.

But a miner who's been crushed on the job, who's trying to provide for their families, tests positive, we don't know if it's a false positive. They don't make allowances for false positives. He gets on the blacklist and he may never work again.

Rick Boucher had a better idea. Our committee had a better idea. Have the Secretary work with the States and the companies and the mining industries and the miners and the unions and say how can we best do this because I'm going to do it. So what's the best way for us to do this.

So many of you from both sides of the aisle during the consideration of this bill have said to me one thing over and over again: Will you work with the companies? Will you work with the companies? Now, along comes drug testing, nobody says work with the companies. Nobody says work with the unions. Nobody says work with the community health facilities. They just say test them and list them.

What the hell kind of thing is that to do to hardworking people in one of the most dangerous industries? We've had spouses come to this committee and talk about the fear in their spouses at night when they come home from work and before they leave, the fear that these miners have of going into that workplace.

In that article, one of the miners said he takes drugs and he used to drink because he's fighting, he hates the job. Some of them love the job in that article. They said, This is my life, mining. Digging coal is what I do best, but my legs have been crushed, my arm has been crushed.

Let's give them testing. Let's give them treatment, and let's give them some understanding of the kind of industry that they're in. We benefit, we burn the coal, we run the economy, and these families live in fear.

This is a very good bill. This is a very good bill. We should not suggest for a moment that because there is no link between the tragedies of the mining accidents last year and the year before, that drugs were involved at all. We have a nutty owner in Utah, but we're not going to test him. We're not going to test that owner, who is running around giving all these false reasons to these poor victims and their families as to what happened.

So yes, you can talk about baseball. But at the end of the day, those baseball players, just as they did last season and next season, they'll be playing. And they'll get a warning, and they'll get treatment. And they'll get a second warning, and they'll get treatment. These guys get a test and a list. It's unfair. It's outrageous. And you should not support it.

I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to join with my colleagues in thanking him so much for all of his leadership on this legislation, his knowledge of the subject matter, and his ability to work out the intricacies in what may be the longest-standing battle in the Congress, and that is on fuel economies. But he has put together a standard that will work for the consumers, it will for the environment, it will work for the auto industry, and it will work for the people who work in that industry.

And, Mr. Dingell, I want to thank you for that. I also want to join in thanking the Speaker of the House of Representatives for making this her most important priority for this legislation, to give us an opportunity, this Congress and the American public, to break with the past, to break with the stranglehold of the old way of thinking both about our transportation sector and about our energy sector, to introduce into that sector the competition of alternative energy sources, of renewable energy sources, of efficient automobiles that will change America dramatically.

Whereas, we know, with this legislation, many have said it, by 2030 it will save almost 4 million barrels a day. That is almost the equivalent of the output of this entire Nation. You can keep thinking that you can produce your way out of this problem, but it has shown that we can't. We continue to become more and more reliant on questionable sources of energy, and yet this legislation itself will produce, just the automobile standards will produce half of what we import from the Persian Gulf. This changes that dramatically. You can find oil in conservation. You can find oil in Detroit. Or you can find it in the Persian Gulf. We chose to go in the smart direction, to think about conservation, not only its impact on energy, but on the environment and on the pocketbook of the American public.

Four million barrels of oil a day saved by 2030, five times the output of the Alaska pipeline today, five times. It is like finding money in the street and oil in the street. It doesn't mean we won't continue to produce, but it means we are going to be very smart about oil production in this country and about the use of energy on behalf of this Nation.

I also wanted to mention that we address the jobs that are going to be created by this commitment to renewables, this commitment to alternative energy sources, whether it is in nuclear, whether it is in coal, whether it is in the automobile industry or in the renewables sources, and that was the green jobs bill to provide training and expertise for people in solar panel manufacturing, construction work, and renewable energy and initiatives. Those are very important. Those were reported out of the Committee on Education and Labor and were championed by Congresswoman Hilda Solis and by Congressman John Tierney on that legislation.

This legislation has a potential to create millions of new jobs in new industries of the future in every geographical sector of America, not just confined to the old centers of manufacturing, but all across this country for new high-skilled jobs for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for all of her work, as well as everyone on the committee, for bringing this bill to the floor of the Congress today.

I rise in support of this bill to authorize State and local governments to divest assets in companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, as well as to prohibit United States Government contracts with any such companies.

Several years ago I traveled with a bipartisan Congressional delegation to see firsthand the site of the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and to meet in person with the refugees--people displaced from their homes because of targeted political violence. At that time, 250,000 people had already been murdered or had died from subsequent malnutrition and disease. Another 2 million people had already been displaced.

I returned from that trip outraged with the conduct of the Government of Sudan. Not only did the Sudanese Government refuse to protect the innocent people caught between the rebels and the government, but it was also actively involved in the raping, maiming and killing of these refugees.

I returned with the hope that our Nation would do everything possible to bring this nightmare to an end. But not enough has been done. The murders and the rapes continue in Darfur, and in response, the American people want us to do more to help bring this genocide to an end.

Therefore, we in Congress must pass this bill today so that State and local governments will be able to divest from companies that continue their financial ties with Sudan. We must also ensure that the Federal Government is not complicit in the horrendous conduct of the Sudanese Government through our use of government contracts.

By passing this resolution, we will stand with the thousands of religious groups, churches, humanitarian and community organization, and State and local governments--all of whom are coming together to send a message about the ongoing genocide in Darfur--not on our watch.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to recognize the difficult choices that the Appropriations Committee had in dealing with the education portion of this legislation. At a time when this administration is almost $55 billion behind its promises to the American people, to the parents of this country, to the children of this country, to the educators of this country, of the resources that would be available in title I, we find that, in fact, we are only going to be able to add about $1 billion, a little over $1 billion this year, which is completely insufficient, at a time when schools and school districts are struggling to make the reforms required under No Child Left Behind.

But I want to thank the Appropriations Committee, because as difficult as that choice is to only provide that small amount of money, they were able to make of that portion of the money almost $500 million available to schools in need of improvement. These are schools that we were supposed to have started helping out 3 and 4 years ago. This is the first time this money has ever been put in this budget to help these schools that have been recognized as needing very substantial improvement to improve the opportunities of the children in those schools for a decent education, but this bill is the first time that we have done that. The administration has ignored that over the last 6 years.

I also see that the committee was able to restore some of the money for educational technology, a subject that is becoming more and more important in terms of improving our schools, improving the opportunity of students to learn, and improving opportunities for students to understand the technologies that they are going to have to grasp in the workplace and in higher education. The President's budget zeroed that money out. The Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Mr. Obey, was able to restore almost all of it, the money that was available in the last year.

Now I see that we have been able to add $259 million to IDEA, which is able to take it above the President's request, which was a cut in education for students with disabilities. Once again, the Republicans, when they were in the minority, promised that they would fully fund IDEA because districts are struggling with the education of students with disabilities, and they signed letters, they passed resolutions, they did all of it. The day they came in power, they stopped funding IDEA. So it has been flat-funded while school districts struggle with both trying to deal with school reform and the education of students with disabilities.

So this committee, I think, made some good choices, difficult choices, insufficient choices. But if you look at what the President had recommended for educational technology, if you look at what the President had recommended to help schools with English learners in those schools, this is a dramatically better budget, but an insufficient budget for the education, but it is completely insufficient for the education of America's children. Don't go home and tell your constituents how well you understand the tools that they need to compete in a globalized world, in a globalized economy, because you have absolutely failed to provide them, and this administration has failed to provide them.

Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee has been able to recalibrate some of the numbers and to move some of the money around for these high-priority areas. I am only so sorry that we weren't able to do better by America's children and their families.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to congratulate her on this legislation.

This is an important piece of legislation, and I'm delighted that we were able to work it out in the committee on a bipartisan basis. And I want to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle.

Since the early 1990s, I've tried to bring legislation to the floor of this Congress to reform the abusive labor practices and the broken immigration policies of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, an American territory in the Pacific.

I sought these changes so that we could put a stop to the well- documented and widespread abuse of poor men and women in the garment and tourism industry in the CNMI and to better secure America's borders. But for more than a decade, a lobbyist by the name of Jack Abramoff joined then-Majority Leader Tom Delay and others here in Congress to block my reform efforts, even though they passed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate and in the Senate committee twice.

Ten years ago this month, in fact, Tom Delay visited the Mariana Islands and declared that our Federal reforms ``had no future'' as long as he was in control of the House of Representatives, but there is a new Congress in town. We have new Republican leadership and we have new Democratic leadership, and we're moving quickly under the leadership of the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands to right the wrongs of the past.

Earlier this year, we raised the minimum wage across the country, and for the first time in almost a decade we gave the workers of the Northern Marianas a raise as well. Thanks to that minimum wage increase, workers in the Marianas make $3.55 an hour, up from barely $3 that workers were paid for these past years. And what's more, the minimum wage will continue to rise in the CNMI until their wage is equal to that of other American territories.

Today, my friend and committee colleague from the Virgin Islands has brought this legislation to the floor to fix the other long-standing problem in the CNMI. The broken local immigration program in the CNMI has allowed unscrupulous recruiters to exploit and abuse thousands of workers and their families, and it helped the CNMI's sweatshop-based economy to persist for decades. The legislation we are considering today brings the CNMI within the Federal immigration system so that we can put an end to that exploitation and abuse. The bill was drafted by the Bush administration and improved by the Natural Resources Committee.

I want to congratulate Chairman Rahall and Chairwoman Donna Christensen for bringing this legislation to the floor. As I said earlier, I also want to thank Congressman Conyers, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for helping to improve this. And I thank the cooperation of the Republicans, Don Young, and the subcommittee of the Resources Committee.

Today, Jack Abramoff is in prison and Tom Delay has resigned in disgrace. And today we pass a bill that restores the human rights to those individuals working in the CNMI. And today we strengthen the borders of America.

With these two pieces of legislation soon to become law, the minimum wage, which is already the law, and this legislation, to repair the immigration, I think now we can comfortably consider and support the notion of a delegate from the CNMI to the Congress. And I want to thank the gentlewoman for her persistence, the gentlewoman from Guam, and the gentleman from American Samoa for that effort. As they know, this is legislation that I have been deeply concerned about for a

very, very long time that unfortunately brought about a lot of bad practices in the CNMI. But I am convinced with this legislation that we're doing the right thing, and we can open a new chapter, hopefully, of economic prosperity and of representation for the CNMI in the Congress of the United States.

And again, I thank the gentlewoman very much for your tireless effort on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him and the Chair of the committee and Mr. Issa for all of their work on this legislation.

This legislation was drafted with the help and the cooperation of the Veterans Administration and the Office of Personnel Management and the Selective Service.

Current laws governing Federal employment do not draw a very clear distinction between those who do not register for selective service through an oversight and those who knowingly and willfully avoid registering. Under current law, we are lumping sort of the innocent along with the guilty, and this legislation is an effort by these agencies to correct what's wrong with this legislation and to make sure that we can protect those who do this in an unknowing fashion.

The bill sets out to correct this by exempting individuals from employment ineligibility who failed to register for selective service but were honorably discharged from active duty in the armed services. And second, it would allow current Federal employees who are at least age 31 to remain eligible for Federal employment despite their failure to register. And this would effectively change the lifetime ban from employment to a 5-year ban, which would coincide with the statute of limitations. So there would be the full ability to prosecute those individuals that we felt wrongfully failed to register for the draft.

This would have a big impact on the caseload, and it would also make sure

that we do not deny many of our agencies the talents and the abilities of individuals who have been caught in this conundrum that has taken place.

And this has been, after many months of negotiation, and Mr. Issa has been a vital part of these negotiations with Selective Service, with the Veterans Administration, and with the Office of Personnel Management, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I think it restores to law the intent for which it was passed and keeps us from punishing those individuals who are not guilty of knowingly refusing to register for the draft.

I want to thank my colleague from California for mentioning Mr. Frecking, because this was a case that really was just so absurd in how it was being played out because of the circumstances that he found himself caught in, but more importantly it also had the potential to deny the veterans service of the VA Hospital in San Francisco the very skilled talents of this individual. They went to bat. They recognized that they too had made a mistake, inadvertently they made a mistake. But they did not want to lose his skill and talents to our veterans coming through that hospital. And it was really at their insistence, their concern, that brought this case to the forefront and allowed us to be able to work it out with the Office of Personnel Service and Selective Service.

I know as we explained it, we talked about it back and forth, and Mr. Issa, at first I don't think he thought this could possibly be going on, but we convinced him that it was, and this is exactly the kind of case that this legislation is designed to address so we don't harm these individuals in the manner which was possible for Mr. Frecking.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this legislation. I want to thank the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the skill and experience and the knowledge of Congressman John Dingell for all of this help on this legislation.

This is a remarkable day for the United States House of Representatives and, hopefully, for the people of this country as we break the chokehold of those Middle Eastern countries that have us tied to them because of oil.

The energy independence that we talk about in this legislation is the ability, through the savings, through fuel-efficient automobiles, through fuel-efficient appliances, through fuel-efficient houses and businesses and buildings that the savings that we will be able to have with respect to the use of energy and oil in this country will allow America to make decisions based upon the American interests and not the interests of other countries because we are tied to them because we do not have energy efficiency in this country.

This is a remarkable piece of legislation for the benefits that it will provide for American consumers at the gas pump, at the department store when they buy new appliances, when they buy new homes, when they go to work in new buildings, when they start businesses in more energy- efficient buildings.

These are the kinds of benefits that we can have because we have renewable energy, we have fuel standards, and we have a new CAFE standard that is a 40 percent increase in the efficiency of automobiles that Americans will buy into the future that will break that tether to that high price, $3.50 gasoline as it is in California. They will be able to go further on each one of those gallons of gasoline. That is what we need.

This bill also creates over 3 million jobs in the green industry that are supported by this legislation that encourages that investment in wind and biofuels and solar energy. Those 3 million jobs, we are 8 years late coming to those jobs, but they are in this legislation; and those jobs will be created in almost every sector of the economy no matter what geographical area people live in. But we need to develop those skills. And I want to thank John Tierney and Hilda Solis for their efforts on that.

This is what the people who are betting their money on the future of the high-tech companies, people who are betting their money in terms of venture capitalists, that this is where they told us to go to generate the next generation of innovation, of technology, was in energy. And that is what we are going to do, and America is going to have a much better energy future as a result of this legislation.