Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Mrs. Ellen O. Tauscher and Mr. Jerry McNerney to pay tribute to the life of Mr. Edward Kelly Anschutz.

A third generation plumber, Kelly joined the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 159 in 1967. After serving his apprenticeship and becoming a journeyman plumber, he was elected to serve as the Assistant Business Manager and eventually the Business Manager for the local for 13 years. He was so well respected; in his last term as Business Manager, he was elected without any opposition.

Kelly was courageous in his efforts to support his union brothers and sisters and their interests at every level. Whether working with a member or an employer, he was well respected and liked by all. Kelly was also a great personality; he had a wonderful sense of humor and truly enjoyed people.

While we realize words may do little to lessen the impact of this loss, we trust that the memories shared will help Kelly's family, friends, and union brothers and sisters realize the scope his influence had on working people and their families.

Madam Speaker, because of Mr. Anschutz's contributions to his community, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to pay tribute to his life today.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days for Members to revise and extend their remarks and insert materials on H.R. 2693 into the Record.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we have an opportunity to protect thousands of American workers from a serious, irreversible and deadly lung disease known as ``popcorn lung,'' a disease caused by a simple artificial butter flavoring chemical called diacetyl.

The alarm bells began ringing on this health crisis over 7 years ago when a Missouri doctor diagnosed several workers from the same popcorn production plant with this debilitating lung disease. In 2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health linked the lung disease to exposure to diacetyl used in the plant.

Scientists have called the effect of diacetyl on workers' lungs ``astonishingly grotesque'' and likened it to ``inhaling acid.'' Hundreds of workers in popcorn and flavor production have become ill, several have died of popcorn lung, and many of the workers are so sick they needed lung transplants. Dozens of workers have sued flavoring manufacturers, winning millions in lawsuits and settlements.

NIOSH first connected popcorn lung to this chemical in 2002. In 2003, NIOSH issued guidance recommending that workers' exposure be minimized. In 2004, the Food Extract Manufacturers Association, the trade association of the flavoring industry, issued similar guidelines. Yet 5 years later, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has failed to issue a standard to protect workers from exposure to diacetyl, preferring to rely on voluntary efforts.

Voluntary efforts, however, have not worked. Last year, California researchers found that despite the issuance of government and industry guidance for years before, many of those recommendations still have not been implemented in the flavor manufacturing facilities, and new cases of this debilitating lung disease have been identified.

How does this bill address the problem? H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposer to diacetyl. The

standard would contain provisions of engineering controls, respiratory protection, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and worker training. The interim standard applies to popcorn manufacturing and packaging, as well as the food flavoring industry.

OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 2 years. This final standard would apply to all locations where workers are exposed to diacetyl and would include permissible exposure limit.

This bill should not be controversial. It is not another battle between workers and business about safety issues and alleged burdens of regulations. Over the past several months, we have built a wide coalition around this legislation from all sides, including industry, labor and scientists. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the association representing the companies that make these flavorings, has joined with the unions that represent the affected workers to strongly support this legislation.

In fact, the only outside dissenters from this coalition are the usual anti-OSHA ideologues spouting the same old ``sky is falling'' rhetoric about regulations. Such rhetoric may be music to the ears of the OSHA-hating ideologues in search of a talking point, but in the real world, this ideology leaves workers and their families to suffer from the preventable scourges of toxic chemicals.

There are many reasons why industry, labor and scientists agree on this legislation. They all agree that we don't need to wait any longer to act; indeed, we can't afford to wait. I have a list of almost 30 major studies and reports showing that diacetyl destroys workers' lungs. They agree that we know how to protect workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued guidelines in 2003 laying out the basic measures that industry can take to prevent worker exposure to diacetyl. In 2004, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association outlined in even greater detail the measures that members can take to prevent the employees from getting sick.

This legislation is straightforward and merely requires that OSHA do what it could have done and should have already done, issue an emergency standard. There is precedent for this bill and for Congress stepping in when OSHA falters in its mission to protect American workers. In 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 2000, Congress moved to require OSHA to issue health and safety standards.

Earlier this month, in response to a report that a consumer of microwave popcorn has contracted popcorn lung, a few popcorn manufacturers have announced that they intend to stop using diacetyl. This is welcome news. It highlights how serious this issue is, but it is not enough. Workers are still at risk because diacetyl will continue to be used in a variety of other food products. We can't wait for consumers to get sick and hit the companies in their pocketbooks before the industry changes. Workers are getting sick now, and have for many years, and will continue to get sick unless we act. Workers cannot wait any longer for our help.

In the past several years, we've seen hundreds of workers become sick from exposure to diacetyl, and we've heard about young workers who need lung transplants, who are not expected to live to see their small children grow up.

It is time for us to act. OSHA has failed over 5 years. They've been on notice to do this, they have failed to do this. The only time they have shown any movement is when we've called a hearing or had some congressional action, they have responded to it.

The time has come for Congress to act and pass this legislation and stop ignoring the needs of these workers' health and safety. And it's time to get OSHA to do the job that they were constituted to do, and that is, to protect these workers and their families from this preventable exposure to diacetyl as the toxic substance that it has become.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I certainly appreciate the situation my ranking member, Mr. McKeon, from California finds himself in, and I appreciate his remarks about the actions of OSHA in this situation.

The fact is that, again, earlier this month, in a commentary of the Dutch study on diacetyl workers which found it is unlikely that any other chemical is responsible for these cases, NIOSH scientist, Dr. Catherine Kreiss, wrote ``the collective evidence for diacetyl causing respiratory hazards supports actions to minimize exposure of diacetyl even if contributions by other flavoring chemicals exist.''

That is the situation we find ourselves in. This isn't a desire to rush to legislation. The fact is, as Mr. McKeon pointed out, on this side of the aisle also we are all terribly disappointed by the failure of OSHA to engage this problem and to engage the people who are coming forth now supporting this legislation to construct a solution.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who is the Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chair and who has handled this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

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

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this isn't about confusion. This isn't about uncertainty. This is about the absolute failure of a Federal agency that has been established and designed to protect the health and the safety of American workers, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and the absolutely failure of that agency to take action, the absolute failure of this administration, the Bush administration, to insist they take action in light of mounting and compelling evidence that workers in popcorn manufacturing facilities and workers maybe now in other food industries have been stricken with a horrible disease that has been directly related to diacetyl.

I appreciate they want to throw up all of the other reasons. Maybe it wasn't O.J., but the fact of the matter is, here it is diacetyl, and we have got to understand that because people are going in for lung transplants, people are losing their ability to earn a living, and people have died from the results of this, and manufacturers and others are paying out millions of dollars.

The other side wants to offer an amendment that is based upon very old information, 3 years old. In those 3 years, NIOSH has recommended that actions be taken. The actions were not taken. NIOSH based that on the information at that time.

Then the industry recommended that actions be taken to protect the lives and the health and the safety of these workers, and actions were not taken in many parts of that industry. And, lo and behold, on the day that we are arguing this bill on the floor, we find out that OSHA has finally taken action.

And what action has OSHA taken? It didn't take action in the absence of information. It specifically states that they are updating the material safety data sheets because they have to include newer health effects information, information they need to understand the hazards associated. The hazards associated.

This is OSHA as of today. OSHA couldn't figure it out yesterday, they couldn't figure it out last year or the year before or the year before. But because Congress is moving, they are now going to give people a data sheet that says diacetyl, in the data sheet from OSHA today, can cause damage to respiratory tract and lungs if inhaled, and it is highly flammable.

This isn't because we don't have information. This is because they refused to act earlier.

The gentleman from the other side wants to talk about the fact that they have put together a rulemaking process. No, what they announced was a one-day meeting, a one-day meeting of stakeholders, and then that was the end of it. We don't know whether they are going to go to the rest of the process or not. There is no indication in their past that they have.

They have forfeited their right to suggest that they will set the time and the tempo and the urgency of the protection of these workers and their families. They have forfeited that. We are stepping in here; and in the first interim standard we are asking NIOSH to do what they have already recommended that they do, based upon the evidence they have today. We are asking them to join with the manufacturers who have made these same recommendations based upon the evidence that they have today.

And what are they asking them to do? These are the first precautionary things that you do: Isolate the mixing room from the rest of the plant using walls, doors or other barriers; provide the mixing room with a separate ventilation system and ensure that negative air pressure relative to the rest of the plant is maintained in the mixing room. Yes, they are doing this because they have information that this can cause damage to your respiratory tracts and your lungs.

The other side wants to suggest in their amendment that if we just knew more, we could do better. It goes on and on.

They suggest reducing the operating temperature and holding the mixing tanks to the minimum temperature necessary, equipping the head space of the mixing and holding tanks with flavor added to oil and held in a pure form, automating the mixing process using closed processes to transfer flavorings. These are all designed to protect these workers, and they would not have happened but for this committee action, but for this floor time and this debate, and but for us voting this bill out of here.

This is the least we can do, to ask these agencies to do what was already recommended they should do in 2003, to do at least what the manufacturers have already recommended they do in 2004. And then we ask them to proceed with a permanent standard using their scientific evidence, their data, their knowledge, not ours. And that is the process by which these workers are going to get protection.

They are not going to get protection from the gentleman's amendment on the other side of the aisle, and they are not going to get it from stalling the Congress from going forward.

This is our opportunity to respond to an urgent medical crises in this industry by these workers and their families. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation when it comes time for final passage and to defeat the Wilson amendment.

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

Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act. As a Member of the Education and Labor Committee I had the privilege of participating in a hearing at which Eric Peoples, a former microwave popcorn worker, testified. Mr. Peoples had contracted a respiratory disease from exposure to the butter flavoring chemical, diacetyl, during his work at the factory. I was appalled to find out that despite the mountain of evidence showing the links between diacetyl and respiratory damage comparable to inhaling acid, the workers were told this product was safe. Now, Mr. Peoples struggles with only 24 percent lung capacity and is waiting for a lung transplant.

OSHA is failing to protect workers from chemical hazards. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, occupational diseases caused by exposure to chemical hazards are responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths each year.

This bill does the job OSHA has failed to do. H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposure to diacetyl at popcorn manufacturing and packaging plants. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 2 years that would apply to all locations where workers are exposed to diacetyl.

It is necessary for Congress to take this step to protect our workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in passing the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is an amendment technical in nature, and it clarifies that if no one is using diacetyl, it is not necessary for OSHA to issue a standard. The second portion clarifies that the purpose of the required NIOSH study is to study the health effects of substitutes of diacetyl. I urge passage of the amendment.

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

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

I find it rather incredible that the gentleman from Georgia would come down and ridicule the idea that Congress would act in this matter when there has been such malfeasance by OSHA, by the Bush administration, and by the oversight of this Congress. I guess you can try to make light of it if you don't want to take responsibility for your actions.

What we are recommending today in this legislation is what NIOSH recommended for the protection of these workers in 2003, and it didn't happen, and nobody on the other side of the aisle asked the question: Why? So now we have workers who have worked in popcorn factories and maybe now in other manufacturing facilities that are losing their lung capacity, that are seeking lung transplants, that have died and have a disease that is called ``grotesque'' by the medical profession and who suggest, when you get this, it is the equivalent of the damage to your lungs if you inhaled acid.

There may be something trite in that, there may be something cavalier in that, but I don't see it. I don't see it. These families, these workers, are asking for our help. These workers are dying.

The industry has tried and is asking for our help. The labor unions are asking for our help. The scientists are asking for our help.

The gentleman would make light of this. He ought to talk to the families who have had members who have died or who have been severely impaired or are hoping that they can get a lung transplant before they die so they might have a chance to see their children and their grandchildren grow up and enjoy their family. It's not to be made light of.

There's a great deal of malfeasance here by this administration, by OSHA, by the Department of Labor and by failure to have oversight on this in this committee. They ought not to come to this floor and make light of this measure. This is about people's lives and about their health and about their well-being, and we should pass this amendment. We should reject the next amendment and we should pass this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

And the gentleman has the right to close on his amendment; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment was offered in committee, and we rejected the amendment, and we offered to work with the gentleman. We've had a series of discussions, and he's been involved and staff have been involved in the discussions, but at the end of the day the simple fact was that they would not agree to any deadlines for NIOSH or OSHA to act in this amendment.

We think the timetables that are in the legislation are very important. If we take off these timetables, all of the past evidence suggests that OSHA and NIOSH will sort of turn to norm and, once again, we will have an open-ended process here where there isn't an urgency about the impacts of diacetyl.

We know what diacetyl does. That's become very clear. We don't know about everything else in the workplace. We don't know about everything else in the workplace, but we know what this very bad chemical can do to people and what it's causing for them to do it.

And so we lay out NIOSH to do it. They've already recommended the manufacturers are laid out. Then OSHA will do the final rulemaking. If they come back and say they can't do it, that's their scientific evidence.

We're not putting a legislative prescription on them, but what we are insisting is they address it and they address it now and they address it on the evidence that is here and emerging and that they make a decision and they protect these workers.

That's what this legislation is about, and that's what this amendment would negate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members of the House to vote against the Wilson amendment and then to support the legislation. If we adopt the Wilson amendment, we're going right back to the status quo, and the status quo is killing these workers in these facilities. And we have the ability to stop it with this legislation.

We should stop it now. We should not any longer empower OSHA to continue to drag their feet and ignore the health and the safety of these workers and their families.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment and an ``aye'' vote on the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the Education and Labor Committee staff: Tom Kiley, Danielle Lee, and Daniel Weiss.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule to make in order the conference report on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.

In this last election, we campaigned very hard on cutting the cost of college for students and making college more affordable for students and their families who are borrowing money to go to school. And it is clear that we intend to do that with the passage of this legislation today.

In the first 10 hours as part of our 6 for '06 agenda, we cut the interest rates in half on the subsidized student loans so that those low-income families and middle-income families who are struggling to meet the debt burden of sending their children to school will have some relief in that effort. And over the next 4 years in this conference report, we will cut those interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, which is a savings of the average indebted student upon graduation over the life of that loan of some $4,400. Also for the lowest-income students, the students most in need, we are increasing the Pell Grant up to a level over the next 5 years of $5,400. This is in keeping with what the President promised but never did, and this is in keeping with our promise that we would again restore the purchasing value of the Pell Grant.

And you can see from this chart, Mr. Speaker, the fact is over the last several years, the Pell Grant has been flat-lined in spite of promises each and every year that it was going to be increased; and this year for the first time Mr. Obey put money in, in the continuing resolution in the appropriations bill, and then this bill will continue to raise the Pell Grant to $5,400. This is the largest increase, certainly, in recent history.

It is important that these two populations, middle-income students and families and low-income students and families, have these resources available to them. And the reason it is important is we are now seeing increasing reports now estimated at more than a quarter of a million students who are fully qualified to go to school every year choose not to go to college, to postpone it, or not to go at all because they are worried about whether or not they will be able to manage the debt or afford the cost of college.

And it is our job to make sure that no student in America that is fully qualified to go to college is refused the opportunity to do so because of the cost of college. That has been the policy of this country since the GI Bill, and this is the largest investment since the GI Bill 50 years ago. But it was a policy of the Eisenhower administration, of the Kennedy administration, and essentially every administration on a bipartisan basis since then. But we now see college costs far outstripping the ability of families to pay for a college education, therefore requiring them to borrow money.

So in this legislation we take $20 billion away from the large lenders and other lenders of college loans, excessive subsidies that were paid for them, excessive subsidies that were identified in the President's legislation, and we recycle those monies to the benefit of the students and to their families, and we do so within pay-as-you-go, that each and every expenditure in this bill is paid for by the recycling of those excessive subsidies that were going to the lending institution. And in that way, we're able to deliver real money to these families in need in the form of a reduction in interest rates, in the form of an increase in the Pell Grants.

But we also do that so that those people who want to choose the profession of a policeman, a nurse, a fireman, a teacher, a special educator, a prosecutor, a public defender, that those individuals will be allowed to choose those careers and know that they will not have to make another choice because of the crushing debt of their college education. They, under this legislation, will not be required to pay any more than 15 percent of their income in any given year for these student loans. And what does that mean? That means they can start a career in nursing, in health care, in law enforcement, as a first responder, and they know that if they stay in that field for 10 years, that loan will be forgiven. That is a major advantage to those individuals who are seeking to go into those fields.

We also want to keep the promise of earlier actions in this Congress when we passed the COMPETES Act to have highly qualified teachers in math and science go into the classrooms. We're saying to those exemplary performers in college that if you'll go into teaching and you'll go into the most difficult schools, we will give you $4,000 a year up front while you're in school of tuition relief if you will agree to do that; 16,000 real dollars to those people because they're going to go in and teach in the most difficult schools, and the exemplary performers are going to have the skills and the talents to do that if they so choose to do it.

This legislation is the foundation of the cornerstone of our agenda on innovation for new discovery of this Nation, the next generation of discovery, of innovation, of economic growth and jobs here in America. This is the most valuable investment we can make. Every economist will tell you that the investment in education yields more back to the government, more back to the public sector, more back to civil society than any other investment we make. And that's what we're doing in this legislation. We promised we would do it. We started out in ``six for '06,'' and today, with this conference report, the House and the Senate is keeping its promise.

We've made changes in this legislation that were suggested by Mr. McKeon and by the administration. And I am proud to announce that the President, in spite of his suggested veto messages or his staff- suggested veto messages over the last couple of

months, the President has agreed to sign this legislation.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join in support of this rule and to support the conference report when it comes before us. I hope that we will have a good bipartisan vote as they're now having in the Senate at this very moment.

I thank the gentlewoman for her support in this effort and for yielding the time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, legislation that provides for cutting the interest rates on subsidized student loans from 6.8 to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years; that calls for the biggest increase in the Pell Grant in the history of the program, $1,000 new dollars over the next 5 years; that provides for an income- contingent payment plan where people will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their income on student loans; and if they go to public service, that loan can be forgiven for 10 years; and provides major support for the minority-serving institutions of this country. This is all done within the PAYGO rules because of the $20 billion in excessive subsidies that were being paid to lenders in this field, and so we comply with the Budget Act.

I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.

Yesterday, we held a rally to highlight the benefits of this legislation for out nation's students and families. It is clear from listening to the students at the rally that one of the greatest challenges facing them today is the rising cost of college and high student loan debt.

With students returning to campuses, I can think of no better back to school gift than passing a bill that represents the greatest effort to help students and families pay for college since the GI Bill was passed more than fifty years ago. This is no ordinary gift. This is real money we are providing for students and families which translates into real relief.

As we have mentioned since the beginning of this process, these historic investments in education are being done in a fiscally responsible way. This conference report will fully comply with new House rules that require all federal spending to meet tough pay-as-you- go budget rules.

Additionally, the conference report will set aside $750 million in budget deficit reduction, demonstrating that with smart policy, we can be fiscally responsible and be responsive to the concerns of the American people. This conference agreement significantly increases the Pell Grant scholarship over the next five years to a maximum of $5,400. This investment--almost double the investment in the House bill, and the largest increase in the scholarship's history--will greatly restore the purchasing power of the scholarship for students with the most financial need, meet the President's 2008 budget request, and also address concerns raised by Mr. McKeon during House consideration of this measure.

This agreement also: Cuts interest rates in half for need-based student loans from 6.8% to 3.4% over 4 years. When fully phased in it will save the typical student $4,400 over the life of the loan. This measure was overwhelmingly supported by this body in January; makes new investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and other minority serving schools--to ensure that students will not only enter college, but remain and graduate; makes debt more manageable for students through an Income Based Repayment program; provides loan forgiveness and loan repayment options for those providing a public service; and ensures that we place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom through the creation of TEACH grants.

As mentioned before, this bill is fully paid for with cuts to lender subsidies.

It builds on proposals we passed in H.R. 5 and on proposals outlined by the President in his 2008 budget.

We believe the reasonable offsets in the final package meet our goal to ensure the continued participation by the lenders in the FFEL program as anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office. While a challenge, we believe this final package balances our commitment to minimizing the burden placed on lenders with our commitment to helping students.

As you can see, this conference agreement is a remarkable step forward in our efforts to help every qualified student go to college. This is a foundation we will continue to build on. As I mentioned at the conference meeting, I am committed to continuing these efforts when the House considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this year.

Given that we have addressed many of the concerns raised by the Administration, I received confirmation yesterday from Secretary Spellings that the President is expected to sign the final bill.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will follow the lead of the White House and the Senate--who overwhelmingly passed this legislation not too long ago--and vote in favor of this carefully crafted compromise.

Rather than stand between our nation's students and their ability to access much needed financial relief, I urge all members to vote in favor of the conference report on the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.

Today this body is voting to do what is right for students, our economy, and our nation's future. Together we are putting the American Dream back within reach of every family in this country.

Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who has worked very hard on this legislation. Thank you for that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is the subcommittee Chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee and who has just been so instrumental in the success of this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I'm under very strict guidelines here from the leadership.

I'm not going to use my time, but I'm under very strict confines here with my leadership. I've asked members of my committee not to speak, so I can't be yielding time when I didn't give it to the members of my committee. I'm sorry. I don't want to be put in that position.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of our subcommittee, Ruben Hinojosa, and all of the members of the conference committee for their valuable contributions to this legislation.

I would also like to thank Chairman Spratt, who spoke earlier, for providing the reconciliation process, and all of the work that their staff did to make sure that we complied with the reconciliation process and we complied with the PAYGO rules so that there would be no new costs to this legislation to provide these benefits to students and to their families. And I want to thank his staff, Tom Kahn and Sarah Abernathy and Lisa Venus.

I would also like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their help and their staffs' work with us to have a successful conference and a conference report on this act.

And I'd like to thank the Education and Labor Committee staff, Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Stephanie Moore, Denise Forte, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Rachel Racusen, Lisette Partelow, Lamont Ivey, Sarah Dyson, Ricardo Martinez and Moira Lenehan of Representative Hinojosa's staff.

This work could not have happened without the long hours put in by a very diligent, committed legislative counsel, and I want to thank Steve Cope and Molly Lothamer.

Given that we must balance our numbers, we appreciate the significance of work provided by the staff at the Congressional Budget Office, including Paul Cullinan, Debb Kalcevic and Justin Humphrey.

The Congressional Research Service has been particularly supportive of our efforts, in particular, Adam Stoll, Charmaine Mercer, David Smole, Becky Skinner and Jeff Kuenzi.

I want to thank all of these individuals, and certainly I want to thank the students who, for so many years have tried to get the Congress to respond to their needs and to the needs of their families if they have to borrow money to go to school, to go to school and to achieve a higher education, to achieve the education that that provides.

I certainly want to thank USPIRG and the United States Student Association and many others who worked so hard over these past years.

We remember just a year ago, just a year ago we were here in the reconciliation process when $11.9 billion was taken out of this very same account, but rather than to use it for the benefit of the students, that $11.9 billion went to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country.

We took $11.39 billion out of this same account and we gave that to the Pell Grant students, to the most needy students in this country who need it the most. That's the difference that an election makes. That's the difference that a year makes. That's the difference that a lot of hard work by the students across this country and their families have made as they've asked Members of Congress to address this issue.

This legislation, just earlier today, passed in the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 79-12.

It has now been stated that the President of the United States supports this legislation and will sign this legislation.

I would hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would understand the importance of this legislation, the value of this legislation to our students and to their families as we know so many of them struggle to put together the means by which they can pay for the college education of the students. One of the very great moments in a parent's life is when a student gets accepted into college, the students announce they want to go to college, and then you immediately start to think about how we are going to pay for this.

This legislation will make it a lot easier for a lot of parents and a lot of students who desperately need this help.

I ask all of my colleagues to support the conference report and let's join this bipartisan coalition and help America's families and students. I thank everybody for their cooperation.

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 to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of proceeding with the conference negotiations on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. In appointing conferees today, I am proud to say that we will be taking the first step in making college more affordable and accessible for students.

Overall, this is an opportunity for the conference to look at both bills, consider concerns and put forth the best possible compromise; and that is our goal. During this process, not only have we looked carefully at what will work for students and families, but we have done our best to listen to and address the concerns brought to our attention. In an attempt at bipartisanship, we have met with the administration, as well as the staff from the other side of the aisle, in such discussions and with the administration, and we believe at the end of the day the conference will include provisions that have broad bipartisan support while maintaining some of our key priorities. These include the following:

Significant investment in Pell Grants. We heard the concern voiced on this floor by Members on the other side of the aisle, and we believe it is important to include a significant investment beyond the House bill in this conference. Understanding that increasing Pell Grants is also an issue included in President Bush's budget, we believe this goal can and should be met.

Cutting interest rates in half will remain a key priority for helping the middle class as well as ensuring debt relief for students and delivery of such needed financial support for Historical Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic serving institutions and other minority serving institutions.

I hope that we can continue the dialogue and work together on final passage in the conference. I am very proud to be here today to offer this motion to officially proceed in the conference with the Senate on legislation that will allow the Congress to do more to help Americans pay for the cost of college than any effort since the GI Bill at no cost to the taxpayers.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 will get us closer to the goal of ensuring access to higher education for all qualified students.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

Let me first speak to the motion to instruct. I have no problems with the motion to instruct. I don't quite know why it is on this bill, but the Senate chose to put this language into the legislation. The motion to instruct would ask the conferees to maintain that language in this legislation so those who are currently at Guantanamo Bay who are among some very dangerous people in the world not be brought to this country in the event that Guantanamo Bay should be closed.

As we know, that is a matter of active debate here in the United States and certainly around the world and within the Congress of the United States of exactly how we extricate ourselves from the situation we have at Guantanamo Bay.

Early on after 9/11, the use of Guantanamo Bay became a rallying point against the abuse of human rights. Earlier practices there violated the protection of human rights. As the gentleman from Michigan has pointed out, much has changed there, but all is not well there yet, and there have been calls to close that facility. In the event they would be successful, as I understand this language, this would prevent the prisoners from being transferred to facilities in the United States, and I concur in that language.

If I might return back to the legislation at hand or the motion at hand, which is to go to conference with the Senate and work out the differences in this legislation, and there are significant differences between the House and the Senate legislation, the staffs of the committee have been meeting on those differences, and we would hope to be able to report back to the House and to the Senate in the near future.

It is important that we do that. We stand here at the beginning of yet another school year, another college year, if you will, and we see that families are struggling harder than ever to meet the cost of college. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) who has been so active in this field pointed out this fact to the House. We must do what we can to address and help families meet this cost.

This legislation does it in a number of ways, both by providing increased grants to the lowest income families of students who seek to attend college who are fully qualified to go to college, but too often economic barriers keep them from doing so.

This legislation makes a substantial increase in the Pell Grants, some $500 over the coming years in that grant. It was the goal of this President to do that. Previous Congresses never did that, and we do that in this legislation, and that is going to be a great benefit to those students and to their families who are struggling with the cost of college.

We also make a reduction in the interest rates. We cut the interest rates

in half on money borrowed from the subsidized loan program which includes those very same Pell Grant recipients. I think 25 or 30 percent of them go on to borrow money from this program, and also middle income families who are feeling the financial strain of having one kid or two or three kids in college at the same time.

We estimate that the savings over the life of that loan will be above $4,000, almost $4,500 for those individuals. That is a very substantial savings, and it is what we know that the young people calculate what is going to be the cost of college, and that includes the interest rates that they are going to have to pay back. As we know, there is forbearance against the payment of interest rates while the students are in college, but upon graduation, they start paying that money back, and that interest rate is a significant cost for those students.

We also try to make sure that those individuals who have chosen to go into public service can understand that there will be some relief for their efforts through a loan forgiveness program for policemen, firemen, teachers, teachers of special ed, prosecutors, public defenders, all of whom enter professions that don't have the highest economic rewards at the outset, but we want them to go into those professions as services to our communities. And we want to make sure that they do so so we can continue to hold civil society together in this country and receive the benefits of their work and they will not be so burdened by the loans that they will choose to go elsewhere and leave society without the use of their talents, as I say, in health care, law enforcement, education, and so many other fields that are important to this.

And following on the passage of the COMPETES Act, we provide for highly qualified teachers in every classroom. In the TEACH Act, we recognize the importance of highly skilled math and science teachers, and we identify those people who are performing in an exemplary fashion in college and offer them tuition assistance if they go into teaching math and science and go into those schools in high need. That would provide $4,000 in up-front tuition assistance for those individuals.

We also make landmark investments of $500 million in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribal colleges, and Alaska/Hawaiian Native colleges. We have a problem of fully qualified minority students going to some of these colleges and really not being able to stay for a host of reasons. We have had discussions with the heads of State college systems and university systems and others about this problem, and the fact of the matter is we have to do more to support those students so they can successfully negotiate the college education that they seek to pursue.

So this legislation is comprehensive. It is important. We did it by taking away the excessive subsidies to the student lending agencies, subsidies that were identified as excessive a number of years ago in the President's budget and by the OMB, and we recycled those successive savings to the benefit of the students and their families who once again are going into great financial stress to make sure that their children will have an opportunity at a college education that we recognize is so important in terms of their future ability to fully participate in the American economy, the American society, and to provide for their families.

As we pointed out, this legislation is the largest commitment of Federal resources since the GI Bill of 1944. We think it's important. We would hope to have an affirmative vote to go to conference on the motion to instruct, and then we could proceed with the conference in the coming days.

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

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

If the gentleman has no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I just want to point out for a number of Members who have asked about what's the relationship of this reconciliation to the loan scandals that the Nation was witness to earlier this year, this legislation does not contain the language of the Sunshine Act that we passed overwhelmingly in May of this year. That will be contained in the Higher Education Act that the House and Senate plan to do soon. It's in the Senate bill, and we have passed the Sunshine Act.

As Members will recall, this was legislation that falls on the heels of public reports of colleges and lenders and their relationships between colleges and lenders and special relationships that were developed in some cases for the exchange of gifts, financial favors, holidays, special treatment to people working for the colleges that were steering people to a particular lender for their loans. Whether or not that was in the best interest of the student or not really didn't come into play.

These practices have gone on for a considerable period of time. In some cases, they've been brought to the attention of the Department of Education by the Inspector General. They were not properly dealt with, and the Attorney General of the State of New York, Mr. Cuomo, brought them to the Nation's attention with his investigation of some of the large lending institutions and these practices and entered into a number of consent agreements with those individuals.

We had hearings on this matter and the failure of oversight by both the Congress and the Department, and we passed the Sunshine Act in reaction to those hearings that we had, again, and was passed on a strong bipartisan vote.

We think these two things are connected. The terms are now removing the excessive subsidies that were used in many instances to grease these relationships for the benefit of the lenders and not for the benefit of the students and of their families who are borrowing the money to pay for their college education.

So I just wanted to bring the Members up to snuff on that matter.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I want to thank the Speaker for speaking and endorsing and her participation in bringing this legislation together, but specifically, from our committee, the Education and Labor Committee, the matter that is dealing with green jobs.

And I want to thank Congresswoman Hilda Solis and Congressman John Tierney for all of the work they did to create green jobs, both in our urban areas and in the rural areas, to build the expertise, to build the capital necessary to meet the demands of this legislation.

For too long, we have debated this issue as if it's the environment against economic growth and jobs. This legislation points to the fact, with the great support of labor unions in our country, that this is also about growing jobs here at home with new technologies, new industries, new innovation and new discovery. And I want to mention the support the Laborers International Union, Operating Engineers, the Brotherhood of Carpenters, the Boilermakers, the Steelworkers, and others. They participated in this joint effort to develop these green jobs provisions, building on very successful models across this country.

Again, I want to pay tribute to Congressman Tierney and Congresswoman Solis for their effort to pull together a coalition of people understanding the dynamics and the economic growth this can mean in both rural America and urban America to build the expertise, to build the talent, to build the job skills to deal with the new technologies that the other committees of jurisdiction are bringing forth.

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

parliamentary inquiry

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to applaud the work of Chairman Gordon, the conferees and the staff for getting us to this historic place in time on behalf of this COMPETES Act, which will make a great difference in America's economy in the future.

The issue of competitiveness has been at the top of our agenda since November 2005 when the House Democrats under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, unveiled the Innovation Agenda.

The Innovation Agenda, which was developed in consultation with the business community, is aimed at keeping America competitive in our ever growing global economy.

In addition to the work by the Speaker, the Committee on Education and Labor focused the first hearings of this Congress on how to address the challenges posed by the middle class squeeze.

Through the Innovation Agenda and through our hearings, a common denominator was the desire by the business community to engage in ways to create a more innovative workforce that is better prepared to enter the growing high tech industry.

This conference bill meets this objective through partnerships that will engage the business community with higher education to create programs that will educate and train individuals to meet the industry's needs.

Additionally, I am particularly pleased that the conference bill addresses another key goal of the Innovation Agenda, which is to ensure a highly qualified teacher is in every classroom.

The new programs in the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education, modeled after the successful UTEACH and CalTEACH programs, will go a long way to better preparing teachers for the classroom.

I am also pleased to see a true vision for education in this bill with programs that encourage math education, ensuring access to advanced placement/IB courses, and the creation of P-16 councils which will help states better understand where students start and where they need to go.

Again, I applaud the work of the conferees. I look forward to continue working on securing funding for these valuable programs.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today along with my colleagues Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher and Rep. Jerry McNerney to recognize three individuals in our districts who have given real meaning to the term ``hero.'' Deputy Fire Marshall Ron Wiley of Richmond Fire Department, Captain Matt Burton and Fire Engineer Scott Desmond both of Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Department each lost their life in the line of duty this past month. The loss has been enormous for the families they leave behind and for their colleagues who have served our communities alongside them.

We ask a tremendous amount from our first responders every single day. They spend their time and talents educating us on how to stay safe and well and then when all the safeguards fail, we ask them to set aside their own safety for us. Ron Wiley, Matt Burton, and Scott Desmond knew well the risks they took but they each also held a deep commitment to service in our communities.

It has been said of each of these men that the love of their work as firefighters was second only to their love of family and our thoughts and prayers are with those families now. We in the communities they served so selflessly now stand to support the loved ones they have left behind.

Richmond Deputy Fire Marshall Ron Wiley, Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Captain Matt Burton and Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Engineer Scott Desmond were mentors and role models and will be forever missed. Even though we don't often express it, we as a community value our fire fighters highly and are grateful for the service and sacrifice of these brave men.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jennifer Collier, my constituent, for her selection and subsequent participation in the House Fellows Program. The program, eligible to high school government teachers, aims to help teachers improve the knowledge and understanding of Congress through a one-week intensive session on the history and practice of the House of Representatives.

Ms. Collier, a social studies teacher at Mt. Diablo High School in Concord, was selected through a competitive process in which all public, private and parochial secondary school government instructors in my congressional district were eligible to apply. The Historian's office made the final selection. During the school year following her participation in the House Fellows Program, Ms. Collier will have the responsibility to present her experiences and lesson plans to at least one in-service institute for other teachers of history and government, expanding the reach of the program to those who do not come to DC themselves.

I am certain it will be a valuable experience for her and that she will pass on what she learns firsthand about Congress and inspire future students to become informed and active citizens. I congratulate Ms. Collier and all the other teachers selected to participate in the House Fellows Program this year.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 579, I call up the bill (H.R. 2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, discrimination is anathema to everything this country stands for. It is anathema to the promise that is America. Regrettably, the recent Supreme Court's recent Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision threatens to turn back the clock on the progress we have made since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more than 40 years ago.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter severely restricts the right of employees to challenge pay discrimination. It ignores the realities of the workplace, prior precedent, and the clear intent of Congress.

Justice Ginsburg's dissent in this narrowly divided 5-4 decision called on Congress to reverse this decision, and that is what we are here to do today.

Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff in this case, worked for Goodyear for over 19 years. When she retired as a supervisor in 1998, she discovered that her salary was 20 percent lower than that of the lowest-paid male supervisor. Not only was Ms. Ledbetter earnings nearly $400 a month less than her male colleagues, she also retired, obviously, with a substantially smaller pension.

A jury found that Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, and she was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages. This amount was reduced to the $360,000 damage cap in title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Despite the jury's finding, the Supreme Court decided that while Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, and it is important that the Members understand that that is what the jury's determination was, they decided that her claim was made too late. Not that she was wrong, not that Goodyear was right. Her claim simply came too late.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires an employee to file an EEOC charge within 180 days of unlawful employment practices. Ms. Ledbetter filed within 180 days, as required, of receiving the discriminatory pay from Goodyear. In fact, she filed as soon as she found out that she was receiving discriminatory pay. She found out thanks to an anonymous note left in her mailbox.

But a slim majority of the Supreme Court found that, because Ms. Ledbetter did not file within 180 days of the discriminatory decision to write those discriminatory paychecks that she received for many, many years, her time had run out. She could not recover anything from Goodyear.

The majority's decision is absurd and entirely shuns the reason in order to satisfy this ideological agenda.

H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, is narrowly tailored and designed to restore the law on pay discrimination as it was before the Supreme Court's decision, the law as it was for some 35 years, the law as it was reaffirmed in circuit court after circuit court, as it was affirmed by the Congress of the United States.

This bill restores the law so that the 180-day statute of limitations clock runs when a discriminatory pay decision or practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the pay decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the pay decision or practice, including whenever she receives a discriminatory paycheck. In other words, every discriminatory paycheck is a violation of the act. That is as the law was for these many, many years. That is what we seek to do.

The bill makes it clear that a victim of pay discrimination is entitled to a full 2 years of back pay. That is as the law currently is. You are entitled to recover up to 2 years' back pay under title

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 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. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

If I can inquire of the Chair as to the allocation of time?

As I understand, I have the right to close.

We're reserving 3 minutes; is that right?

So we're reserving 3 minutes each. You've got a half minute. You and I will close, and we will each have 3 minutes for tomorrow.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let us understand something here. They can say it until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, this legislation restores the law to what it was before. Up until the Supreme Court made its ruling, each discriminatory check that was issued was a violation of the law, and you had 180 days from the issuance of that check when you discovered it to file a claim. This legislation would restore that law as it was.

If you file that claim, if you were successful in proving your claim, you could receive up to 2 years back pay. That was the law up until the Supreme Court decision. That would be the law if we passed this legislation.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that if we pass this law, the courts will be inundated with lawsuits. The people will wait 5, 10, 15, 20 to file a lawsuit, that there will be cases where the witnesses die and memories fade and long times will expire and we won't be able to have justice. It will be a huge cost on the business community. It will change our competitive stature in the world. It will limit economic growth. All of that from little Lilly Ledbetter.

What's the problem with that? If all of that was true, why haven't my colleagues come to the floor of the House in the 12 years they controlled the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and asked to change the law? Why hasn't the President of the United States, who's been in office for 6\1/2\ years, asked to change the law?

Why hasn't that happened? Because none of the things you talked about happened under the previous law. It didn't change our competitiveness. They weren't involved in thousands of cases. People didn't wait 40 or 50 years to get 2 years back pay. No, none of those things happened.

But they want to scare people into believing if we go back to the law as it was before the Lilly Ledbetter case and the Supreme Court overturned all of these years of laws and justice and fairness and anti-discrimination provisions, that somehow all of these terrible things would happen, but they didn't happen, and that's been the law all of these years.

So, tomorrow we will get an opportunity to vote to restore the protections of every American citizen against pay discrimination, to restore justice to the workplace, to restore the right of an individual to be paid the same as those who are doing the same job for the same reasons and the same purposes. That's what we seek. That's all Lilly Ledbetter sought, but she couldn't get justice at the Supreme Court. No, she couldn't get it even though a jury found that that could be the situation.

So we're going to have to restore this for the people of this country, and again, we'll simply be restoring the law. You can tell the doomsday scenarios all day long. You can predict all of the things that are going to happen, but none of them have happened in the last 35 years. None of them have happened in the last 35 years.

So at least you ought to properly represent what the law was and what the law will be, and with that, I look forward to the conclusion of the debate tomorrow

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my unexpired time, and I reserve the 3 minutes for tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, this water recycling legislation, H.R. 1526, enables local agencies across California's Bay- Delta region to invest in sustainable and reliable new water supplies. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act will provide Federal assistance for an ambitious and forward-thinking regional water recycling program that will reduce demand on the Bay- Delta and drought-proof our regional municipal water supplies.

The legislation will assist efforts in Pittsburg, Antioch, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Pacifica, South Santa Clara County, Redwood City, and San Jose.

The city of Pittsburg and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, in my congressional district, have been leading the charge on this effort, investing time, energy, and local funds in developing water recycling projects to help meet regional water needs. Water recycling is good for the environment and for local budgets.

In Pittsburg, for example, instead of using fresh water from the Delta, recycled water will be applied to city parks, golf courses, medians, and other green spaces. As the Contra Costa Times wrote about the bill, ``There is no good reason to flush wastewater into rivers, bays, estuaries, and the ocean if it can be treated and used again for other purposes such as irrigating parks and golf courses.''

I want to thank Chairman Nick Rahall and Chairwoman Grace Napolitano, and the staff of the Natural Resources Committee and the Subcommiteee on Water and Power, for their assistance in this effort, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, this week marks the 63rd anniversary of America's worst home-front disaster of World War II. This weekend, the National Park Service will join the community in commemorating the anniversary of the Port Chicago explosion and honoring those who were injured and gave their lives for their country.

I am introducing legislation today that honors the anniversary of Port Chicago by improving and enhancing the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial, in my district in California.

Thousands of tons of ammunition exploded on the night of July 17, 1944, at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in the east San Francisco Bay area. The blasts instantly killed 320 sailors, wounded hundreds more, and damaged and destroyed merchant ships, the pier, a train, and the buildings of Port Chicago. Less than a month after the tragedy, three divisions were ordered to resume work at a new site a few miles away. Most of the men refused to continue their dangerous tasks until supervision, training, and working conditions were improved. In response, the Navy charged fifty men with conspiring to mutiny; all were convicted.

The majority of the men killed while handling ordinance at Port Chicago, and all of those convicted of mutiny, were African-American. This injustice had clear racial implications, and was a turning point in our Nation's history. Following the conviction, Thurgood Marshall, then a lawyer with the NAACP, took up the case. The Port Chicago disaster and its aftermath strongly influenced America's move towards racial equality, including the Navy's move toward desegregation in 1945, and President Truman's 1948 Executive Order desegregating the Armed Forces and guaranteeing ``equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.''

Recognizing the importance of the site to our Nation's history, I sponsored legislation in the 102nd Congress to designate the site of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine as a national memorial. Since the bill became law in 1992, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial has been managed by the National Park Service to remind Americans of the contributions made by the Port Chicago sailors.

Today, to honor the anniversary of the 1944 disaster, I am introducing the ``Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2007,'' a new bill designed to increase the National Memorial's accessibility, provide additional visitor services, and preserve the site for future generations.

The legislation enhances the memorial in several ways. First, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to administer the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System. Second, when the site is determined to be excess to military needs, this new bill would transfer the property to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.

In order to improve public access to the Memorial, this legislation authorizes the Interior Department to work with the City of Concord and the East Bay Regional Park District to establish and operate a facility for visitor orientation and parking, administrative offices, and curatorial storage for the Memorial. Finally, the legislation directs the Defense Department and the Interior Department to work together to repair storm damage to the site.

I am including for the record a letter I received today in support of the Act from the president of the National Parks Conservation Association. As Mr. Kiernan says, the story of Port Chicago ``deserves commemoration at the highest possible level, and clearly is worthy of being fully vested in the care of the National Park Service, the guardians of our Nation's natural and cultural heritage.''

This new bill will protect and enhance the memorial, and will allow future generations to honor this important moment in American history. I urge my colleagues to support the Port

Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2007.

National Parks

Conservation Association,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2007.

Hon. George Miller,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Miller: On behalf of the 330,000 members of

the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), I am

writing to express our strong support for your bill changing

the designation by the Port Chicago Memorial from an

affiliated NPS site to a full unit of the National Park

System. This legislation brings the nation one step closer to

fully honoring those whose service and sacrifice exacted such

a heavy toll in blood and honor.

As you know, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine was the scene

of a deadly explosion on July 17, 1944, which claimed the

lives of 320 sailors and civilians and wounded 400 more. The

blast, felt up to 500 miles away, occurred as merchant ships

were being loaded with 5,000 tons of high explosives.

Unaddressed concerns about safety led to a refusal by African

American sailors assigned to an ordnance battalion to load or

unload other ships. The subsequent court martial of 258 of

these men on charges of bad conduct and mutiny was a highly

controversial decision with decidedly racial overtones.

Establishing the Port Chicago Naval Magazine Memorial as a

fully-fledged unit of the National Park System will complete

work first started in 1990, when formal efforts to create a

memorial first began. The explosion, work stoppage, and

mutiny trial, provide invaluable insights into the injustice

of racial discrimination, the African American experience in

the U.S. military, and home front life during the Second

World War.

You are to be commended for the many years you have

championed this cause and honored the legacy of the surviving

veterans. This story deserves commemoration at the highest

possible level and clearly is worthy of being fully vested in

the care of the National Park Service, the guardians of our

nation's natural and cultural heritage. We pledge to do all

we can to help see your bill enacted into law.

Sincerely,

Thomas C. Kiernan,

President.

Madam Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I would hope that all of our colleagues would oppose this amendment.

The student loan application that is in question here, the criticism of it and the concern with it is not because it is printed in Spanish or English. The real criticism is that it is so complicated that families have an incredibly difficult time in filling out this form. Our committee has been working, Mr. Emanuel and others have been working, to try to simplify this form to make it useful.

This form has more questions than if you went to the World Bank to get a loan. But to now suggest that a student may be denied access to a loan and the family may be denied access to financial support for that education solely on the basis of whether or not the parents speak English, they fill out the form right and whether or not the form is printed in Spanish, you know the old saying, I'm here from the Federal Government; I'm here to help you. This has nothing to do with the parents' status. Nothing to do with the status. It is a question of whether or not we make some effort to reach out to these individuals to make it easier for them to fill out the forms that are necessary for their young people, their children to go on to college and have the financial resources to do that. The question of whether it's printed in Spanish or not is simply now arbitrary. And as would they, if they don't fill out the form correctly, if they have do it with their child or somebody else trying to interpret the questions, interpret the answers to them, I think that's incredibly unfair to people who are here in this country. They're here legally, and they don't happen to speak English and they made need this assistance.

What we know about people trying to learn English is that in every city, in every part of this country, where there are classes to teach English, they're oversubscribed, they have waiting lists because these people understand that English is the language of this country. It's the currency of the country, it's the means by which you get ahead in this country, and that's why they want their children to learn English. To now come along and say that we're going to make it more difficult, based upon this characteristic that has nothing to do with your qualifications for the financial assistance, with the qualifications of your child to go to school, what they've accomplished with their lives, I think is outrageous and arbitrary.

I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

I think the gentleman makes a point. This is about American citizens who are here who are paying taxes, whose children have done well enough to go on to college. They're seeking the financial resources to do that. They may not speak English. And this is a service that we provide to those individuals so that they can accurately fill out a form. They can understand the form, they can understand the liabilities that they're taking on. They can understand the qualifications.

To arbitrarily come along and tell one group of citizens, based upon this question of whether or not they speak English, they will be able to have the same access to these resources as others or not seems to me to be very unfair, very un-American. It promotes a set of values that really aren't consistent with the values in this country. And it really is about whether or not the Federal Government is in the business of looking at the people they're trying to serve as customers, people who should be served.

I would hope that we would oppose this amendment. We continue to struggle to try to make this form comprehensible to those who speak English and understand English. And I think to make it more difficult now for those who don't is a very poor service to that part of American society. And I would urge opposition to this amendment.

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