Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce an important piece of legislation, the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act: the next step our country needs to take to ensure that every child, in every classroom, is taught by an excellent teacher.

First and foremost, I want to thank our teachers for their dedication and commitment to taking on the overwhelming demands of their profession. We ask them to perform miracles every day in our underfunded and overcrowded system. And we owe it to them and to their students to provide more than rhetoric about our commitment to encouraging talented people to enter the field and stay there.

Let me also thank the organizations, and their members, who go to work every day with the commitment to help our schools and our students succeed. They are a great constituency for this legislation, and I appreciate all of their input into this bill. Thank you to the Alliance for Excellent Education, the American Federation of Teachers, the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the Business Roundtable, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Children's Defense Fund, the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, the Council of Urban Boards of Education, the Education Trust, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, the National Council of La Raza, National Council of Teachers of English, the National Council on Teacher Quality, the National Education Association, the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, New Leaders for New Schools, the New Teacher Center at DC-Santa Cruz, Operation Public Education, Teach for America, and The Teaching Commission.

We all remember the difference that outstanding teachers have made in our lives, but we also know that students who most need the best teachers are least likely to get them. There are many reasons why people decline to enter the teaching profession or decide not to remain there including reasons such as low pay, lack of meaningful professional development, lack of respect, inappropriate working conditions, or little opportunity for advancement.

By failing to address this problem, Congress is shortchanging our children and costing taxpayers an estimated $2.2 billion annually to replace teachers who have left the profession. We need to act immediately to ensure that we have an adequate supply of exemplary teachers for the next generation of students.

My 43 colleagues who are original cosponsors and I are prepared to respond to this challenge facing American education with an innovative approach that matches the seriousness of the challenge with the ``The TEACH Act of 2007''--the next step our country needs to take to ensure that every teacher, in every classroom, teaching every child, has the supports they need to help their students succeed.

The single most important factor in determining a child's success in school is the quality of his or her teacher. We all remember a teacher--or even several teachers--who made us proud of ourselves for what we accomplished and helped us face our future with hope and confidence. Imagine if every one of our teachers over the years had given us that same strength.

The TEACH Act will accomplish four critical goals:

Increase the supply of outstanding teachers.

Ensure all children have teachers with expertise in the subjects they teach.

Identify and reward our best teachers.

Keep the best teachers and principals in our schools.

This bill is a major legislative initiative that will attract our most talented teachers to our nation's classrooms where they are needed the most--and encourage them to stay there.

Over the next decade, we will need to hire more than two million new teachers to serve in our public schools. Yet today, we have no national plan for attracting outstanding students into the teaching profession, or keeping them there.

My bill addresses this need by helping school districts to pay more competitive salaries and by offering up-front tuition assistance to talented undergraduates committed to a career in education, to established teachers working in fields like math and science, where the teacher shortage is most acute, and to retirees with math and science expertise who would like to join the ranks of our nation's teachers.

The TEACH Act also offers up to $20,000 in loan forgiveness to highly qualified teachers who are working in high priority communities.

We know that too many teachers do not receive adequate preparation or training for their jobs to improve during the first years on the job. As a result, over half of new teachers leave the profession within five years.

The TEACH Act helps new teachers transition into the classroom and build their skills through state-of-the-art induction programs

that include proven strategies such as structured mentoring, common lesson-planning, and intensive professional development. This bill also helps veteran teachers improve their skills through peer mentoring and review programs.

My bill also addresses the problem that poor children are far less likely to be taught by expert teachers. Nearly three-quarters of math classes in high-poverty middle schools are taught by teachers who lack a major--or even a minor--in math. The TEACH Act provides higher pay for outstanding teachers and principals who transfer into the hardest- to-staff schools where they can help the children who need them most. Making sure these children are taught by a well-trained teacher is crucial.

The TEACH Act also helps create true career ladders that allow teachers to advance in the profession as they gain new knowledge and skills. The bill would augment the salaries of teachers who seek out opportunities to advance their own professional development and to mentor colleagues who are new to the profession.

We also know that nothing is more important in attracting--and keeping--outstanding teachers than outstanding principals. My bill raises standards and improves recruitment and training for new principals.

Teaching is not just another job. Teaching is a career that must be satisfying itself, that must attract the best people, and that must instruct our children to succeed in an increasingly competitive world.

We can have a dynamic and exciting future for America's schools and their students. We have the national resources. Now, we must make the commitment.

We must dedicate the necessary resources, demand the necessary results, and stay with it to the end to make sure that every child in America has a teacher we can all be proud of and that every teacher in America can say they are proud of us too for the support we give them.

I would also like to acknowledge three reports that were particularly useful. The Teaching Commission's report, Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action; the Center for American Progress report, Ensuring a High Quality Education for Every Child by Building a Stronger Teaching Force, and the National Academy of Education report A Good Teacher in Every Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve. All three reports were extremely instrumental, particularly in identifying practices that are working well and need to be taken to scale.

The TEACH Act will take us where research and experience say we need to go: stronger teachers, stronger principals, and stronger schools. I look forward to achieving the vision of a better school system for all of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to submit their remarks on H.R. 1429, to be taken up next.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we take up the Head Start Improvement Act of 2007. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, as it was last year when it was brought to the House floor. And in that vein, I certainly want to begin by thanking the staff on both sides of the aisle that have worked very hard to bring this legislation in this form with the cooperation of the members of both sides of the committee, the majority and the minority. I begin by thanking Mr. Lloyd Horwich, who is working for Mr. Kildee; Stephanie Milburn, with Mr. McKeon; Sarah Rittling, working with Mr. Castle; and Molly Carter and Ruth Friedman of the majority staff. This staff knows this program backwards and forwards. They have worked long and hard with the Head Start community, with the States, with Governors, with local communities, to make sure that, in fact, we have a program that we can be proud of, that we can continue to place our faith in, and does what we want, which is to give children from impoverished families and communities the opportunity to have a head start and to come to kindergarten school ready, if you will, with the skills necessary to take advantage of the opportunity that will be presented to them when they start school.

Head Start has been the premiere early education program in this country for more than 40 years. It has served more than 20 million children and families in that time. It is a highly successful research- based, comprehensive childhood development and early education program for low-income children from birth to 5 and for their families.

Both Head Start and Early Head Start help our country's most disadvantaged children become better prepared to succeed in school and in life by addressing the needs of the whole child and providing services such as

health and nutrition in addition to the educational curriculum. Its design has always been based in science, and the bill before us builds on the strong foundation again by turning to the best science to renew and improve the Head Start program.

Head Start remains a cornerstone of this country's effort to close the achievement gap, to combat poverty, and to provide all its citizens with the opportunity to thrive.

Today more than 12 million children in America live in poverty, 20 percent of them under the age of 6. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to struggle in school, face physical and mental health problems, and see fewer economic opportunities throughout their life.

The bill before us is central to achieving the goals of No Child Left behind because the achievement gap that appears later on in elementary school begins before these children reach kindergarten. Head Start is one of the most evaluated Federal programs, and research concludes that Head Start works. Recent findings from the congressionally-mandated Impact Study found that after less than one school year, Head Start narrowed the achievement gap by 45 percent in prereading and 28 percent in prewriting. The study also found that Head Start helped to improve some of the important parenting practices, including helping to increase the frequency with which parents read to and with their children.

Another large-scale study on Head Start found that children made significant gains during the Head Start year, and made even greater gains over the kindergarten year.

By the end of kindergarten, Head Start graduates were essentially in the national norms in early reading and writing, narrowed by the achievement gap in vocabulary and general knowledge and early math.

I am encouraged that the research concludes that Head Start is doing what we expect and demand that it should do to help prepare children to succeed in school. However, this research shows that there are many new ways to improve Head Start, and I believe we accomplish that in the bill before us. The bill before us will help more children arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed by improving the program quality and expanding access to more children.

This bill includes many improvements to build on the latest research in brain and child development. The bill also recognizes that key to the first-class Head Start programs is teachers. This is absolutely imperative, and this bill works hard to make sure that we continue to provide for improvement and professional development of the teachers in the Head Start program.

We increase the teacher qualifications by directing the majority of new funds for program improvement activities, including significant new funds to increase teacher salaries; requiring that all programs use research-based practices to support children's preliteracy and vocabulary skills; requiring a full time staff to develop career ladders and professional development plans; directing the Health and Human Services agency to implement an observational assessment tool that will evaluate classroom quality and provide immediate feedback for programs on their strengths and weaknesses; improving the professional development and training and technical assistance systems so that they are better grounded in science and more responsive to local training needs; and requiring the Secretary to reevaluate and update current early learning standards and assessments using the best science available.

The point is this: This is a major revamping of the Head Start program, with an emphasis on quality, with an emphasis on outcomes, with an emphasis on the assessments and how these programs are doing so that we can provide the continuous improvement of these programs, and we can provide continuous high-quality programs to the children who are in need of these programs. It's only then that we can be assured that Head Start will continue to earn its reputation as the premier early childhood education and development program in this Nation. It is only then that we can say to the taxpayers that this continues to be a very wise investment of the dollars in the children of this Nation in providing them access to the kinds of programs that are necessary if they are going to be able to take advantage of the educational opportunities in K-12, if they are going to be able to close the gap between themselves and middle-income kids, if they are going to be able to go to school with those skills.

I believe that this legislation does that. This legislation builds on what was tried and worked on in the last session of Congress under the leadership of Mr. Castle, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Boehner, myself and Mr. Kildee. This is a continuation of that process, and that's why it received the overwhelming bipartisan support when it was reported from the committee. I hope that my colleagues will lend it the same kind of support at the end of this debate and the amendment process.

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

I yield 4 minutes now to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), subcommittee chair and responsible for bringing this bill to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and just to thank my colleagues who joined in the general debate and for their support for this legislation and, again, to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle of both the subcommittee and the full committee without whose work and effort and knowledge this legislation would not be in the kind of shape it is today, with the support that it has from both Republicans and Democrats for the Head Start bill.

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

I rise in strong support of this amendment and urge its adoption. I thank the gentlewoman for offering it.

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

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, we are here today to authorize the Head Start program. What this amendment would do would simply end Head Start in those eight States as we know it. There would be no requirement that those States would take the money that we have set aside, that we have worked hard to provide within the budget for the Head Start program and use it to implement a program that is anything like Head Start, because there would simply be no requirements on that money to provide the kind of comprehensive programs that are now required under the Head Start program that have demonstrated the success that we just spent an hour with speakers from both sides of the aisle attesting to in their own districts or on a national basis as members of the committee have talked about what we are doing in this reauthorization. These States would be eligible for these funds without demonstrating any expertise or commitment to the high quality of this proven preschool program.

Essentially that's the end of it in those eight States. Now, maybe one of those States will have a strong commitment to Head Start and all the rest of it. That's what Head Start is. That's what Head Start is. Why are we running this money through another filter system to recreate the Head Start program? We already require, and we went through a series of hearings about coordination with the States to make sure that Head Start coordinates with other State programs and State agencies.

But we also know that because of what we have done with Head Start over the years, where we have provided reauthorization after reauthorization, the continuous improvement of the programs that are integral to the success of Head Start and to the success of the children, where we have used scientific-based educational and performance standards, where we have provided for accountability and oversight and evaluation of the program, where we have provided for the parent policy councils, all of these things that have been integral to this program over this time to bring it to a point now where we can see that it demonstrates a marked impact on these young children in closing the achievement gap for these children and getting them ready and the skills that they will need for early reading, for early math, for early writing, that is what this program does.

There are not many States that do any of that. They have a lot of early childhood programs. They have a lot of child care programs, they have a lot of it. But they don't have this comprehensive program. That's why this is considered the premier program in the Nation for the education and the development of these young children. That is why we should not support this block grant amendment.

I daresay that we have watched over the last decades effort after effort be made to block grant programs. Generally, where they have been successful, they have been the first step to the budget cuts, to the loss of quality. That's what's involved here.

Again, when we structured this legislation, and in consideration of the budget and the increases in the money, we are putting 60 percent of the money into quality, into teacher and professional development, into salaries, because we recognize that we have to have that continuous update and that improvement of the Head Start program.

Voting for this amendment is not to vote for Head Start; it's to vote for something, but it's not to vote for Head Start. It's, in fact, detrimental because that money, then, is out of the Head Start system to be used for whatever purposes. In fact, you can take this Federal money and then withdraw the local money. There is no requirement in this amendment that there be a maintenance of effort by a State to do this.

What have you really done? You have taken money for the Federal taxpayers that paid into this program that we have decided on a bipartisan basis should go for the Head Start program. You said, oh, you can give it to a State, and they can draw their money out the bottom. So we put the taxpayers' money in at the top, and the State takes the money out of the bottom.

That is not going to improve quality. That is not going to improve access. Now, you can argue that maybe you can add a lot of children to a program, a program, not the Head Start program, because the Head Start program is expensive because we do it the way we should be doing, the way it has been scientifically analyzed and supported by the data.

You can put a lot of kids in low-quality programs, but that is not what we

are trying to achieve. We are trying to achieve high quality so we get the results that Head Start gets and most other States don't get.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that is exactly the point. Yes, it offers all services, but it doesn't require the same high-quality service we have now. You can do all of these things, but you end up doing these things on the cheap because the demand is for slots. We have seen that tension here all the time.

There are no requirements here that you have anything comparable to the quality and the requirements in the Head Start program, and yet you are you are taking money out of the program to give it for these other purposes.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank her very much for introducing this amendment, and we rise in support of this amendment. We think it improves the legislation, and thank her for her consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I rise in opposition to this amendment, simply for the simple fact that we are trying to balance, in this legislation, the best we can do to increase the number of teachers with a B.A. degree in child education, child development and at the same time meet the other needs of the program. And to accelerate that effort on behalf of more teachers with an M.A. upsets that balance.

It's not like, with all due respect to my friend on the other side, and he shares my concern for teacher quality, it's what I've spent my public life trying to do. The fact of the matter is this is a program that essentially has received less than the COLA, last year got a 1 percent cut. And the fact of the matter is we're trying to patch it back up, trying to bring it back to the level where it was around 2002, and recognizing that we want to increase the access to a number of children, so money has to go for slots, money has to go for professional development, money has to go for quality, and money has to go for the salaries, and that's the balance that we have put in this program.

The date that you have was the date that you had at the beginning of 2005 when we started considering this legislation. That legislation didn't get through. We're now 2 years later, so we moved it back 2 years so that the programs can balance, can rebuild the quality, can add additional slots for the million children who are now waiting, and that's the balance that we arrived at on both sides of the aisle.

You could offer an amendment and say, well, there's a million children waiting. Let's put all the money into slots. Then you just reduce the quality and the availability to pay teachers to have them to stay.

So this isn't a game where you can just pick out one part of the program and say, let's put the money there, and that's the reason why we did what we did. And I don't think that this amendment is helpful in terms of our ability to hold on to current staff that have B.A.'s, and that's the staff we're trying to build, and then to attract additional ones to be able to put some money into that pay quality, and the additional slots. And I would hope that we would oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This is what agencies have to do when the funding isn't sufficient and they are trying to hold on to the number of children, the hours of availability of the program and the quality of the teachers that are there. In the past when we had the cut, I believe the agency, HHS, allowed some local programs to do this. I would hope that this will not be a necessity. We are adding an additional $400 million to this program. I hope that the Appropriations Committee will be able to follow through.

The amendment is a good amendment. I hope we don't have to use it, but it's a good amendment.

I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of his amendment. I think his explanation is correct, that this will provide not only perhaps more uniformity in terms of the assessments, but also communications between programs as to which assessments are really working and which assessments are appropriate for this purpose. I think it is a good amendment, and I would hope that we would accept it. I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for offering this amendment.

It is interesting that the other side would now oppose this amendment, but all day long they have been citing us the executive order with the exact same language in it as the basis for the right of faith-based organizations to participate in this program, a right that they have exercised now for more than 40 years. What your amendment does is to take it from the regulations and put it into the statute to guarantee them that right in the law, not just in the executive order and in the regulations.

In my own district, the First Baptist organization runs the Head Start program. They do a marvelous job. The reason they are kicking up the smokescreen around Mr. Shuler's amendment is that they want to protect themselves, because they are going to come here with an amendment that is going to try to give people the right to discriminate against people based upon their religion, the right to discriminate with Federal dollars on religion.

What Mr. Shuler's amendment does is to make sure that we do not weaken

the ability of faith-based organizations to participate, as they have over their proud history. That is why the broadest array of religious organizations will oppose what is going to be offered in the motion to recommit, but strongly support, strongly support, the Shuler amendment to add this language to the statute to provide this protection and to provide this recognition of the historical service and the ongoing service that these faith communities have provided to the children that are eligible for Head Start to provide that quality education year after year after year after year.

That is what this amendment does. We should welcome it. We should adopt it overwhelmingly in this House and get on with the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and his cosponsors for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for offering this amendment and for bringing this perspective to this legislation, along with Mr. Hare and Mr. Altmire and Mr. Welch, and for representing the rural communities and raising these issues during this debate and during the consideration of this legislation.

Sometimes issues get overlooked in the rush to reauthorize the bill and to reauthorize it from a single perspective, so I appreciate this information that they have brought to us. I think the direction to the Secretary to review and to look at these barriers and to see what we can do to remove them so that we can assure both the participation of the children in the program and of their families and their parents as is designed by the law is important.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and not adopt a policy of employment discrimination based upon religion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1429, the Clerk be authorized to correct 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.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in a few minutes, the President of the United States will veto the legislation to hold the Iraqi government responsible and accountable for the benchmarks that they promised their citizens and the citizens of this country. Tonight, after 24,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded, 3,212 have been killed, and the country has descended into a bloody civil war, what we now see is the basis on which the President told this country he wanted the surge in the escalation was that he would hold the Iraqi government responsible.

In January, he said he would hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks as announced, and that if no progress is made, they would lose the support of the American people. The fact is that no progress has been made, and the Brookings Institute has shown us that situation.

What we see now, as Secretary Rice says, that the administration believes that holding the Iraqis accountable to these benchmarks that they establish as the price of the surge ``doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity we need to move forward.''

You can be creative all you want but unless the Iraqis know that there are consequences, and that is what this legislation said, that if you can't reach these benchmarks, if you can't establish a civil society, then we will withdraw our troops.

Right now, under President Bush's proposal under Secretary Rice's proposal, what we see as the only people paying the price are the American soldiers. Those are the only people paying the price tonight.

Today marks a sad anniversary for this, country.

Four years ago today, President Bush declared that the mission in Iraq was accomplished and that major combat operations in Iraq were over.

Since that time, 24,270 U.S. soldiers have been wounded, 3,212 have been killed, and the country has descended into a bloody civil war that we cannot stop nor should we referee.

It is time for America to redeploy it's troops from Iraq.

That's why today, Congress sent a bill to the President's desk that would do just that: to redeploy from Iraq.

It's what a majority of the American people want, and it's what a majority of the United States Congress wants.

But instead of ending the war, the President is pursuing a war with no end in sight.

He refuses to hold the Iraqi government accountable for the benchmarks it promised to achieve: to establish a government supported by its people that can provide for its own security.

In January, the President said that ``If the Iraqi Government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.''

Well Mr. President, the Iraqi's have not followed through, and your war has lost the support of the American people and a majority of the United States Congress.

According to a study by the Brookings Institute, there has been ``no progress thus far'' achieving the administration's benchmarks.

Yet, despite the President's promise in January to ``hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced,'' the administration has flip flopped.

On Sunday, Secretary Rice said the administration believes that holding the Iraqis accountable ``doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward.''

You can be creative as you want, but unless the Iraqis know that there are consequences to not living up to their end of the bargain, American Soldiers, taxpayers will continue to make all of the sacrifices and bear all the costs. And that is unacceptable.

Optimism is not a strategy. Ignoring the facts and misleading the country is not a path to victory.

It is time for the Iraqi's to be held accountable, and to take charge of their own country.

And it is time that the President yield to the will of the Nation, and end our occupation of Iraq now.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 493) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days in which Members may insert material relevant to H.R. 493 in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House will take up H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007.

This legislation is sponsored by two of my distinguished colleagues, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, who has been waiting 10 years to debate this bill on the floor of the House of Representatives, and Congresswoman Judy Biggert, who has been a member of the committee which I chair, the Committee on Education and Labor, and I commend the sponsors for their hard work and for their perseverance.

This bill is long overdue. The Human Genome Project started the revolution in science and medicine nearly 20 years ago by identifying the specific chromosomes within the genes that make up the human body. Once the scientists identified and understood these genetic building blocks, they developed tests that identified genetic markers for diseases that could, but may never, occur.

We understand that this scientific revolution can and will save lives. It can save children from devastating illnesses, and once these tests and treatments become more widely available, they will help us live longer lives with less debilitating diseases.

The key to unlocking this scientific revolution is to assure individuals of genetic privacy and nondiscrimination when they undergo genetic testing and counseling. Many Americans already forgo testing for fear of losing their jobs and their health insurance. In a 2003 National Institutes of Health study, 39 percent of the individuals surveyed cited fear of losing their health insurance as the most distressing issues related to genetic testing.

There is a clear need for us to pass this law to protect genetic information from discriminatory uses. We all suffer if fears of lost jobs or health insurance stifle these scientific advances.

That is why 41 States have passed laws to prohibit discrimination in the individual health insurance market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the Chair of the Rules Committee of the House, who has worked on this legislation for a very long time, without whose persistence with this bill we would not be here on the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) who, again, has worked so hard to bring this legislation to the floor and helped to resolve some of the differences that have existed between the committees, and I thank her for her work.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just want to join in thanking all of the Chairs and the ranking members of the three committees and the subcommittees, and clearly Louise Slaughter, our colleague from New York, who has worked so hard on this legislation so very long, and Judy Biggert also, and Anna Eshoo.

Given the importance of this legislation, it is hard to believe it has been stuck in the Congress of the United States for 10 years, but it has been. Maybe our reporting it today off of the floor is a tribute to a fresh start.

This is a very, very important piece of legislation to the health of the Nation and to the world. The advocacy of Louise Slaughter has reminded us almost every day in those 10 years what we were missing by not passing this legislation and making it available so that we could get on with the wonderful discovery and the wonderful help that could be provided to individuals, to their families and to our communities. And the National Institutes of Health is to be commended, with all of the assistance they provided and all of the information provided to this Congress.

With that, I also want to thank the staffs of the three committees on both sides of the aisle for all of their work. They put in a lot of hours to get this resolved so that we could come to the floor and work over the differences that were there sometimes between the committees.

Madam Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

America is still the number one economy in the world, and we can keep that leadership. But we can only do so with a level of determination and commitment that we have not shown in almost half a century. Other countries are making aggressive investments in a competitive workforce. We must exceed those efforts.

That is why--nearly 2 years ago--then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi laid down a challenge to Congress and the President to invest in innovation in order to create vibrant industries, a strong economy, and good jobs here at home. Now, with Speaker Pelosi at the helm and Democrats determining the agenda before Congress, we are acting on that challenge.

Working with leaders from the hi-tech and bio-tech industries, venture capitalists, and academics, Democrats laid out a plan to boost America's competitiveness. We made it clear to the American people that we take this challenge seriously.

Today, we are taking the next steps on our commitment. The bill before the House today is an important step for America's future economic strength and the strength of America's middle class.

Mr. Gordon's legislation is a strong step in reaching a key goal of our innovation agenda. This bill will educate 25,000 highly qualified math and science teachers by creating high quality programs that integrate the strong teaching of both education programs as well as strong research and content area instruction.

In the Education and Labor Committee, we are also working to create a new generation of innovators by ensuring that today's students are taught to high academic standards and receive the workplace skills that are necessary to prepare them as scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in a global high-tech economy.

The Committee will work toward the goals of innovation agenda by educating 100,000 new innovators in the next five years. We propose a new public-private partnership with the business community and higher education institutions to produce well-qualified, highly-skilled workers by establishing Congressional Science fellowships and interdisciplinary Master's programs in science, engineering, and math that include specialized training and internships with business partners, and loan forgiveness options.

Additionally, we will build on the work of Mr. Gordon by placing a highly qualified teacher in math, science, and technology K-12 classrooms by offering up-front tuition assistance to talented undergraduates majoring in math, science or engineering who agree to teach in a high-needs school and by partnering community colleges with 4-year institutions to improve the teacher pipeline.

Lastly, we need to enhance the ability of states to coordinate education and workforce goals, identify the challenges of recruiting students and retaining them in innovative fields, and develop collaborative solutions through statewide coalitions of education, business, and community leaders, such as P-16+ Councils.

America's entrepreneurial, innovative spirit is one of the key reasons for our strength in the world today. If we match that spirit to these substantial investments, our economy will stay strong for generations to come. I look forward to continuing to press forward with other elements of the Innovation Agenda and to make sure that America stays No. 1 in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I don't know how many conversations Members of this House have had with corporate officers and leaders, but very often when you ask them why they will do something or not do something, they tell you that they are there because they have to take care of their shareholders, they have to protect their shareholders, and the shareholders control the corporation.

But when we get to executive pay, all of a sudden we find out that they really don't want to have this discussion among shareholders about executive pay. And here we are presented with an amendment that is designed to close down those discussions, and it is certainly designed to close down those discussions among average shareholders.

I don't know when the shareholder gets the determination of whether or not they have spent a de minimis amount of money or not. I don't know for a retiree, for a pensioner or a worker of that corporation, if they spend $100 or $500, if they give to a campaign, is that a de minimis amount? Maybe to them it is not, but it may be to the campaign. I don't know when that determination is made so that they can then speak out or not speak out or have their vote counted.

And when are they in jeopardy or not in jeopardy? I don't know. Are they responsible for the rest of the campaign if they simply decide to send money to a campaign and vote their vote because it is the only organization available when it is an organization if pensioners decide that they don't like the direction this company is going?

So what you are really doing here is, you are trying to chill the speech and freeze the speech by putting them and holding them responsible for the disclosure that they may not have any control over. They may not have any control over the entities, all persons or entities engaged in such a campaign, they may not know that. They may know they just don't like that executive compensation or they want a discussion of it. They don't necessarily know the activities engaged in to influence the vote.

You know, a lot of times people will hear about these campaigns in the newspaper because they are there, and they don't know the amount of money that is expended on the campaign. When do they get to vote? When do they get to vote? They don't have this information on their person, so to speak, but unless they can comply with this form, their vote is not counted.

Now, let's flip it over to the other side. The corporation can use corporate funds to make a general solicitation of proxies. They don't even have to speak about this campaign, they don't even have to speak about executive pay. They make a general solicitation. They say the shareholders' meeting is coming up, this is the agenda and this is what is going to be on it. Then they get to vote any way they want. What the hell is going on here?

I want to spend $100 or $500 because I think that this is not in the best interest of me. I am a shareholder, I own the stock, and I have got to jump over all the hoops; and the corporation just glides through an election and they have the proxies. This sounds like the problem with executive compensation; the decision is made at the corporate level, and nobody gets to second-guess it.

Send out a general solicitation. Maybe there is no campaign against executive pay at the time that the solicitation for proxies goes out. You know why? Because very often most people don't know what the executive pay is. You can read that form until you are blue in the face and you don't know what it is.

How many times have we heard executive compensation boards say, I was in the room, I didn't know we were paying them $37 million? I was in the room, I didn't know he got those stock options. I was in the room. That is why we started putting responsibility on people who were in the room.

But now this poor shareholder, this poor shareholder who is not in the room, who is not on the inside deal, this person has to jump through hoops. And then I guess what do you do? You petition to have them count your vote, and then in the petition you say, to the best of my knowledge, these are all persons who were engaged in the campaign, and to the best of my knowledge, this is what they did to influence a vote, to the best of my knowledge, this is the amount of money spent; and if it turns out to be wrong, your vote is thrown away. You call that democracy? That sounds like what they call democracy in Latin America or something.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

You mean those 13,000 in Florida that are missing? I thank the gentleman.

So this is an incredibly one-sided amendment. This should not be accepted by this House. This certainly should not be accepted when the purpose of the legislation is to expand the participation, the meaningful participation of the shareholders, the people who made a decision to go out and to buy the

stock, or they earned it in their retirement fund.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

The point is this. The purpose of this legislation is to address a situation which has unfolded in this country in front of so many American workers, so many retirees, so many people who are close to retirement, when all of a sudden they see that, in the executive suites, they take care of themselves in the cloak of secrecy. And so when all of a sudden a major airline, a major automobile company or any other major corporation goes into bankruptcy, they find out that the executives, as part of their compensation, decided that they would have a bulletproof deferred retirement compensation plan, a bulletproof pension plan; while everybody else was in bankruptcy, that they created a trust, all part of executive compensation. And that is why people are now saying these shareholders, the vaunted basic fundamental makeup of the corporation, the shareholders should be engaged in this conversation.

This amendment comes to the forefront and really starts to strip away that discussion. Reminding you, this is a discussion, since this is a nonbinding advisory vote, so this is a discussion and a vote. And so the question really is, are we going to take the very same people who we pay great deference to when the corporation wants to tell you why they have to do something or they can't do something, it is because of the shareholders; but when it comes to executive compensation, we are going to shut down the ability of those individual shareholders and retirees and others to be able to have this discussion about executive compensation. And executive compensation is getting so large now that it in fact does impact the shareholders, because many corporations if you look at it, you think how much would they have to do to drive that amount of money to the bottom line? What would they have to do to drive that amount of money to the bottom line? This amendment should be rejected because it is contrary to the purpose and intent of this bill.

Madam Speaker, thousands of foreign workers in this country are being systematically exploited and abused every day. I am introducing the Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 to ensure that these workers have basic human rights protections and safeguards against recruitment abuses.

The Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 requires that employers provide in writing and in advance of employment, specific information relating to an individual's working terms and conditions so that workers know the length of their employment, where they will be working and living, how much they will be paid, and what benefits will be made available to them. Under the Act employers will be prohibited from charging the worker a recruitment fee, and obligated to pay the worker's transportation costs. Finally, if an employer or recruiter violates the Act, they will be subject to criminal sanctions, civil penalties and injunctive relief.

Unscrupulous employers in this country are luring unskilled foreign workers with the promise of riches--that they can earn 10 times as much or more if they come to work in America. The foreign workers, most of whom come from impoverished backgrounds, are charged fees--sometimes thousands of dollars--to secure these jobs. To cover the upfront expenses many sell their land, their homes, or take out high interest loans. They risk everything with the dream of earning enough money to provide for a better life for themselves and their families.

The reality for these workers stands in stark contrast to the riches and opportunity that was promised. Employers often refuse to pay the workers overtime or alternatively refuse to schedule them for full-time work. They work in unsafe conditions, and are forced to live in squalor. Living in fear and with no ability to speak out about the abuses, workers are trapped in virtual involuntary servitude under sweatshop working conditions, indebted by usurious recruitment fees, paid inadequate wages and too often cheated out of what little they are owed.

The Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 simply demands that these foreign workers be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. The Act requires that the working conditions promised are in fact the working conditions that will exist. We can no longer allow employers to treat foreign workers as commodities--we have a responsibility to ensure that every individual working and living in this country is afforded labor protections and adequate legal safeguards.

Madam Speaker, with a heavy heart, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Richmond icon and youth football coach Fred Lee Harris who died on March 16, 2007. For 27 seasons, Fred Harris dedicated his life to the Richmond Steelers football organization, providing coaching and moral leadership to hundreds of young players who have been a part of this community institution. As Head Coach of the program, Coach Harris was honored as a valuable role model in the community, establishing a consistent winning tradition and a healthy, positive environment for youth both on and off the field.

Freddie Lee Harris, as he was known to his family, was born to the proud parents of Charles and Helen Harris on February 21, 1945, in Monroe, LA. At an early age, Fred moved with his family to Richmond, CA, and soon became the oldest of seven children. He attended school in the Richmond Unified School District and graduated from Harry Ells High School in 1963. Mr. Harris was a successful electrician for over 35 years, and became involved with the Richmond Steelers when his own son went out for the team.

Despite raising four children and having a full-time career, Fred managed to volunteer 25 hours a week from July to December in order to coach the Steelers' most advanced team, the Midgets. Up until 2005, the Midgets won six consecutive league championships. Moreover, he was the coach and equipment coordinator for the entire program and attended as many as four football clinics a year to make sure the Steelers kept current with the latest coaching and equipment innovations. Fred's natural leadership abilities extended beyond his passion for football and coaching, and he envisioned his position as a chance to nurture life lessons and good values in his players.

The Richmond Steelers organization is not just a refuge for the youth in Richmond. The five teams, which consist of players from the ages of 6 to 14, are a valuable resource for parents who disapprove of Richmond's violent street life. Many have said that under Coach Harris' guidance, the Steelers is one of the most effective violence prevention programs in Richmond. As a coach and adviser, Fred instilled the type of pride in his players that comes from discipline, hard work, and team work, the type of pride that lasts for generations.

Fred Harris was not just a coach, but an effective mentor. Fred saw the athletic and individual potential in each child with whom he worked, and he was dedicated to helping his players reach that potential through constructive means. Many sons of Richmond would have been lost without this resource.

To Coach Harris' wife, Etta Harris, and his children: Andre, Fredda, Felicia, and Maryhelen, I extend my heartfelt condolences. His loss is shared not only by those who knew Fred personally but also by all those in Richmond who benefited from his direction and hard work over the years. We will be forever grateful for the integrity, passion and unwavering commitment with which he sought to make the legendary Richmond Steelers a safe place to foster hope.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise in very strong support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for all of their hard work to put this legislation together.

I believe it is time to bring our troops home, to come home from Iraq, and I believe it is time for this Congress to support this legislation.

As the American soldiers begin their fifth year in this war of choice in Iraq, we confront the tragic fact that the Bush administration's preparation, planning and execution of this war has not kept faith with the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families have made.

More than 3,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and close to 25,000 more have been seriously wounded. And Iraq is mired in a civil war, with tens of thousands of civilians killed, or even more internally displaced. Hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars have been squandered in this war that has left our military readiness in jeopardy, the All-Volunteer Army is at a breaking point, and the world's faith in America's leadership is gravely shaken.

The American people recognize President Bush's approach in Iraq for what it is, a failure. That is why we sent a message to Washington this past November to change the course, to end this war, to get out of Iraq. That is what the American people said in November.

Instead, this President, in all of his arrogance and all of his lying, chose to choose a surge.

Well, the time is now for the Congress to do something about that because the American people do not support a war in Iraq, and has no end in sight, and continues the tragic, unnecessary loss of life. And given the President's unwillingness to change course, it is incumbent upon the Congress to act. With this bill the Democrats in Congress are taking a stand against the President on behalf of the soldiers in this country and the American people.

The bill before the House would protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, and require accountability from the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government, and set a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops with a date certain by September 2008 at the latest. We must support this legislation. And again, I thank the authors of this legislation.

I rise in strong support of this bill and I encourage all of my colleagues who believe it is time for our troops to come home from Iraq to support it.

As American soldiers begin their fifth year of this war of choice in Iraq, we confront the tragic fact that the Bush Administration's preparation, planning, and execution of this war has not kept faith with the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families have made.

More than 3,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq and close to 25,000 more have been seriously injured. Iraq is mired in a civil war, with tens of thousands of civilians killed and even more internally displaced. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered in this war that has left our military readiness in jeopardy, the all-volunteer Army at the breaking point, and the world's faith in America's world leadership gravely shaken.

The American people recognize President Bush's approach in Iraq for what it is--a failure. That's why they sent a message to Washington this past November to change course.

Americans do not support a war in Iraq that has no end in sight and continues the tragic and unnecessary loss of life. Given the President's unwillingness to change course, it is incumbent on Congress to act. With this bill, Democrats in Congress are taking a stand against the President but on behalf of our soldiers and the American people.

The bill before the House would protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, require accountability from the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government, and set a responsible timeline for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops--with a date certain, by September 2008 at the latest, for U.S. combat troops to be redeployed from Iraq.

Adoption of our plan is the answer to America's plea to bring this war to an end and turn away from the President's bottomless commitment to U.S. participation in the Iraqi civil war. Our plan provides a responsible, phased plan for requiring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And voting yes on this bill will clearly show to the American people that a majority in Congress clearly stand with them in their desire to bring an end to the tragic U.S. occupation of Iraq.

My colleagues must understand that if they oppose the war, if they oppose spending more money on the war, if they oppose continuing the tragic loss of life in Iraq, then they must support this bill.

The only alternative to this bill that could garner enough votes to pass would be a supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war with no accountability, no timetables, and no end. That is the reality.

I know that the majority of the House opposes the continuation of the war. There are differences over strategy, on how best to achieve our goal on behalf of the country, on behalf of the soldiers, and on behalf of their families.

Defeating this bill would prolong the war. Defeating this bill would enable the President to continue to his irresponsible and deadly failures. Defeating this bill would send a message to the American people that Congress is not listening to them.

The President has run out of excuses for his failures in Iraq.

The American people have correctly run out of patience waiting for him to change course.

And America's soldiers have done everything asked of them and everything that could be expected of them.

It is time for a new direction.

The bill before the House provides a new direction for America. And it is the only bill that can take us in that direction.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, March 15, 2007, I was unable to attend votes due to illness.

Were I present, I would have voted in the following manner: (1) H. Res. 242--providing for the consideration of H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act--``yea''; (2) On motion to recommit H.R. 1362 with instructions--``nay''; (3) H.R. 1362--The Accountability in Contracting Act--``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, I was unable to attend votes due to illness.

Were I present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 1254--Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007--```yea''; H.R. 1255--Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007--``yea''; H.R.1309-- The Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007--``yea''; Stupak amendment to H.R. 985--``yea''; Sali amendment to H.R. 985--``no''; On Motion to Recommit H.R. 985 with Instructions--``yea''; H.R. 985-- Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007--``yea.''

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by many of my colleagues in introducing legislation to help the San Francisco Bay Area to solve its water challenges. The bill is a revision of legislation I first introduced in the 109th Congress, and will provide local agencies with the Federal partner that they need to implement an ambitious and forward-thinking regional water recycling program.

The City of Pittsburg and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, in my congressional district, have been leading the charge, investing time, energy, and local funds in developing water recycling projects to help meet regional water needs.

My new legislation, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act of 2007, would authorize a federal partner for the effort in Pittsburg, as well as for similar programs in Antioch, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Pacifica, South Santa Clara County, Redwood City, and San Jose.

We put the tools for these Federal-local water recycling partnerships in place with the historic Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, which not only included my Central Valley Project Improvement Act but featured a provision now known simply as the ``Title XVI'' water recycling program.

In my introductory remarks for last year's version of the bill, I made the case for the Title XVI program and the importance of water recycling. Although the Bush administration continues to oppose funding water recycling, the case has only gotten stronger since then, as evidenced by the breadth of local support for this bill and for the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. I am also including in the record an editorial from the Contra Costa Times supporting the earlier bill.

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a collaboration of public utilities that helps to meet our region's and state's growing water needs through a set of recycling and reclamation projects. The projects in this coalition have been repeatedly vetted, both internally at the local level and through each step of the Title XVI review process.

Although these worthy projects have supplied local funding, and secured matching State funding, they still need the Federal partner to step up. There is a clear Federal interest in these projects, as there is in the other successful regional recycling programs like those of Southern California. A good water recycling program stretches existing supplies and provides certainty to all of the water users in the area; conflict can be reduced even in a critically dry year. As we all know, a stable and reliable regional water supply makes good neighbors.

This new bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the following Bay Area water reuse projects: Antioch Recycled Water Project (Delta Diablo Sanitation District, City of Antioch); Pacifica Recycled Water Project (North Coast County Water District); Mountain View/Moffett Area Water Reuse Project (City of Palo Alto, City of Mountain View); Pittsburg Recycled Water Project (Delta Diablo Sanitation District, City of Pittsburg); Redwood City Recycled Water Project; South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project (Santa Clara Valley Water District, South County Regional Wastewater Authority); and South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility (Santa Clara Valley Water District, City of San Jose).

These seven projects are estimated to make 12,205 acre-feet of water available annually in the short term, and 37,600 acre-feet annually in the long term, all while reducing demand on the Delta and on existing water infrastructure. The new bill also directs the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to fully fund the San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, first authorized in the original Title XVI legislation.

These programs are a fiscal and environmental win-win, and encouraging them is sound federal policy. I commend my original cosponsors for joining in this effort to support our region's water recycling initiative: Reps. Anna Eshoo, Ellen Tauscher, Tom Lantos, Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry McNerney, and Pete Stark.

I'm glad to be working with my Bay Area colleagues to help our region's water reuse program, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

[From the Contra Costa Times, Jan. 25, 2007]

Fund Water Recycling

One of the most effective ways to protect our environment

and efficiently use natural resources is recycling. It is

particularly true of water, which can be used more than once.

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.

That is the philosophy behind six Bay Area water recycling

projects ready to begin once they are fully funded. They are

in Pittsburg, Antioch, Pacifica, Palo Alto-Mountain View,

Redwood City and South Santa Clara County.

The recycled water will be treated and piped to water golf

courses, parks, school grounds and roadway medians, and will

be used by some businesses.

Half of the money for the projects will come from local

sources. One-fourth will come from the state, including

Proposition 50 funds. Another one-fourth will come from the

federal government under a bill sponsored by Rep. George

Miller, D-Martinez.

Pittsburg has taken the lead in the recycling effort, has

raised local money, has some of the infrastructure in place

and already is doing some recycling. Antioch is not far

behind.

Both cities are at the top of the list for the second round

of state funding for recycled-water projects.

However, the Department of Water Resources, which can

approve the money by administrative decision, needs a bit of

prodding by local legislators.

Miller's bill, HR 6218, which has bipartisan support, also

needs quick approval.

Together, the six Bay Area projects would recycle nearly

10,000 acre-feet of water per year. That is not a large

percentage of the total volume of water used in the area, but

it is a significant amount and would help spur more recycling

efforts.

The total cost of the six projects is $74.8 million. But

the state and federal governments' share is only $18.7

million each. The state money already is available, and there

is no reason to believe the federal funds will not be

forthcoming.

Recycling is not the only way to meet the Bay Area's and

California's water needs, but it must be part of the

solution. Not only does it use water effectively, it also

reduces pollution of the Delta, San Pablo Bay and San

Francisco Bay.

We trust state and federal officials will agree and act

quickly to help local efforts to recycle an essential

resource.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him and all of the members of this committee for their work on the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.

This a very important piece of legislation, as so many of my colleagues have already testified to. We desperately need, in communities all across the country, the upgrade and the repairing of our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. There is not a congressional district in the country where we are not behind the curve on this effort.

I also rise because this legislation does continue the prevailing wage laws of this Nation, the Davis-Bacon law, which guarantees hardworking Americans, those who are working in Federal construction projects, will be paid a livable wage.

Today, we see report after report, economic study after economic study that talks about the precarious state of the American middle class, about how families are struggling to maintain their status in the middle class. It is one of the imperatives of this new Congress, of the Democratic majority, to grow and to strengthen the middle class; and, clearly, the wages that people pay will play a great part in that.

We should not have Federal dollars, Federal contracts and Federal projects, whether they are in conjunction with locales or not, undermining those livable wages. These wages are incredibly important to the American middle-class family.

We see now that the hardworking Americans and middle class, with the greatest productivity gains in recent history, are sharing the very smallest part of that increase in productivity than at any time in recent history.

It is imperative that we have today Davis-Bacon protections in this law. It is imperative that we have the Davis-Bacon protections for middle-class families in the country.

We know middle-class families now are constantly confronting the risk of what is happening to their pensions: Will they be funded? Will they be terminated? Will they be frozen? What is their ability to put away money in a 401(k) plan? What is their ability to purchase health care? How much more of the cost of that health care is going to be shifted from the employer to the employee? How much more of that are they going to be able to afford?

Maintaining good wages for good quality work is important to these families. It is important to these projects, and it is important to this Nation.

I commend the chairman for reporting this bill to the floor with these provisions in it, to ensure that we continue to grow and strengthen the middle class in this country.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. For over 75 years Davis-Bacon has guaranteed that hard-working Americans working on federal construction projects will be paid a livable wage. I am pleased that the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 includes Davis- Bacon prevailing wage provisions and requires that prevailing wage rules be applied to all projects financed in whole or in part through State Revolving Fund programs (SRFs). I vehemently oppose any and all efforts that are intended to strip the prevailing wage provision and undermine the long-standing tradition of Davis-Bacon.

The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 will be one of approximately 70 Federal laws that include a Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provision. Throughout these laws Davis-Bacon has infused fairness into Federal contract work; and it has protected contractors and workers from unjust treatment and unfair competition.

As more and more families struggle to pay the bills, it is critical now more than ever that we ensure hard-working Americans earn a livable wage.

On a bipartisan basis Congress has historically stood together in support of Davis-Bacon, recognizing the obligation that we have to ensure that Americans are paid a livable wage and to ensure the government does not operate to undermine those wages. As we consider H.R. 720 today we again have a moral obligation to stand up and set the example for how workers should be treated and the standard by which they should be compensated.

Government Projects Benefit from a Prevailing Wage Provision

The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 addresses the critical need that we have to build, upgrade and repair this nation's waste water infrastructure. Davis-Bacon ensures that we hire the best people to do this important work.

Requiring that employers pay the local prevailing wage encourages them to hire qualified and highly skilled workers. This in turn results in a higher quality of work and higher productivity; it leads to less waste; it reduces the need for supervision; and fewer mistakes are made which require corrective action.

The fact is that Davis-Bacon helps ensure that projects are completed on time and in the long-term require less rehabilitation and repair. Thanks to decent work standards, these projects don't suffer staggering delays and taxpayers do not have to shoulder additional and unintended costs produced by the delays or a substandard work product.

Davis-Bacon Helps Local Businesses

Davis-Bacon furthers the viability of local businesses who want to compete for government contracts. The Act protects local employers from cutthroat competition that results from fly-by-night firms who try to undercut local wages and working conditions and who unfairly compete with local contractors.

Prevailing Wages

It's important to remember what a prevailing wage is. A prevailing wage is defined as the weighted average of all the wage rates paid to laborers or mechanics in the same classification in the same locality. It is literally the wage that prevails in the local market. The government, when making contracts, should respect those prevailing rates. The government should not be in the business of using taxpayer funds to drive down wages in a locality.

Defeating President Bush's Repeal of Davis-Bacon

We've seen efforts to undermine the nation's wage laws time and time again and defeated them time and time again. Two years ago Congress successfully defeated President Bush's attempts to repeal Davis-Bacon during the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. At a time when the victims of the hurricane had lost everything--their homes, their belongings, even family members--some political forces thought it would be a good idea to also cut their wages. In a bipartisan effort, Congress stood together and convinced the President to abandon his efforts; in doing so we ensured that those rebuilding the Gulf would be justly compensated for their hard work. I'm proud of the fact that support for Davis-Bacon has always been on a bipartisan basis--and I expect such bipartisan support for this fundamental worker protection will prevail again today.

Madam Chairman, it is time for us to once again stand up for the rights and the dignity of workers across this country. Let's continue the tradition that began over 75 years ago--support the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions contained within the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.