Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Madam Speaker, here we are, close to adjournment, maybe 48 hours from now the Congress will go home for the elections, and we will leave millions of Americans who work at the minimum wage, who are stuck at a poverty wage, because of the failure of this Congress to address that issue.

What that means is that for those millions of Americans who go to work every day, all year long, at the end of the year they will end up poor. They end up with the inability to provide for their families, to provide for their health care, to provide for their transportation and the education of their families.

Why is that so? Because for 10 years, the Republicans in the Congress have successfully fought any increase in the minimum wage, and they have done it proudly. They believe that these people aren't entitled to any more money than the minimum wage that they are receiving today. Now, that minimum wage has less purchasing power than at any time in the 50 years we have had the minimum wage. These people are falling behind every day, every month.

We just saw yesterday in the newspapers that health care costs went up 7 percent. We know what has happened to families with energy costs. We know what has happened with utility costs. We know what has happened with educational costs and with the price of groceries. All of these things have gone up in these people's lives, but what hasn't gone up is the wages they work at.

The Republican Party is apparently perfectly content, even though we have the votes to pass the minimum wage, we have the votes in the Senate to pass the minimum wage, they are completely content to go home without an increase in the minimum wage.

It is shameful, it is sinful, the treatment of these people and the families in which they reside. The Republicans cannot see their way clear to put a clean vote on the minimum wage up or down on the floor of the Congress so that we can increase the financial capabilities of these families.

When you have the testimony of people like the Wal-Mart Corporation, which prides itself in presenting to America everyday low prices, theoretically, the least expensive place you can shop for the goods that they carry, they are now asking for an increase in the minimum wage because they say that the people who are coming to their stores simply don't have sufficient moneys to provide for the necessities of life. They don't have the money to buy the necessities they need, even in their stores. That is an indication of how important an increase in the minimum wage is.

The other terrible tragedy is that the Republicans refuse to roll back the raid on student aid that they engaged in earlier this year, when they took $12 billion out of the student aid accounts. They didn't recycle that money for the well-being of students to lessen the financial burden of families who are trying to put their children through school. They didn't do any of that. They took that $12 billion and they put it over here to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this Nation.

That is the investment they made. They took $12 billion that the Congress and the government has been using to finance student aid programs, and they moved it into tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. They do that at a time when the basic Pell Grant for the most needy students, it only covers 30 percent of college costs today. When it was enacted, it covered 70 percent, and it has fallen behind.

The President had pledged to raise the Pell Grant to $5,100. Five years later, that hasn't been done. The President has broken his promise. We have been asking that we increase the Pell Grant to $5,100 to make it easier for students, and to take that $12 billion they took out of the student aid account and recycle it into the loan programs for students so that we can continue to try to help students meet the cost of debt.

Congresswoman Matsui talked about the average student today graduating with debt of some $17,500. We are now seeing a significant number of students who are perfectly qualified to go to college, to take advantage of college education, and they are not doing so, or they are postponing it because they are worried about whether or not they will be able to manage the debt when they graduate or whether they will be able to assemble the resources to go to college on a current basis.

That is a tragedy for this country. At a time when we talk about the competitiveness of this Nation, at a time when we talk about the need to have an educated population, to deal with innovation, to deal with discovery, to deal with the future economy, we are foreclosing the higher educational opportunity for hundreds of thousands of students because of the debt, because of the cost.

Because of the actions of the Republicans in this session of the Congress and the refusal to roll it back, students will now be paying 6.8 percent on their loans instead of 3.4 percent. Parents will be paying 8.5 percent instead of 4.25 percent.

This is a tragedy. This is the tragedy of the Republicans' failure to address the needs of middle-income Americans who are struggling to educate their kids, to pay their energy bills, and minimum wage families who are simply struggling to survive in America today. It is a tragedy and a blight on this session of the Republican leadership in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, for 10 years the Republicans have kept hardworking Americans away from an increase in the minimum wage. Over 7 million people who get up in the morning every day and go to work, all day long, all week long, all month long and all year long, and at the end of that year they end up in poverty. At the end of that year they end up with the inability to provide for their families.

For 10 years, the Republicans have fought an increase in the minimum wage. For 10 years the Republicans have made it official policy of this country that people who get up and go to work every day will end up in poverty. It is a poverty wage. And the Republicans are proud of it. The majority leader boasts that he has fought this his entire public life, and yet these people are stuck at 1950 wages.

But what is not stuck at 1950 is the price of groceries, the price of gasoline to go to work, the price of housing, and the price of health care. There is no relief for these hardworking Americans. There is no relief for their families because the Republicans refuse to entertain a clean vote on the minimum wage. A clean vote, so 7 million Americans could start to have an increase in their yearly take-home pay. That is what the Republicans refuse.

There is 72 hours left in this session. The Republicans can decide to do the decent thing, to provide a minimum wage increase for hardworking Americans. But the Republicans won't do that because they are not a party of decency. They have chosen to put these people into poverty and to keep them in poverty year after year after year. Yet they have chosen to have eight pay raises for Members of Congress at the same time they have chosen to keep hardworking Americans in poverty.

That's what the Republicans promise hardworking Americans, you end up in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take up H.R. 2429, the Fair Minimum Wage Act.

Once again, the Republicans block a vote on the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, all Members of Congress support the effort to thwart international terrorism and make Americans safe. But there are right ways and wrong ways to carry out that critical effort. The military commissions bill before us today is the wrong way, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

The Geneva Convention protects Americans everywhere. Congress should not alter our international obligations in an election-year rush ordered by Karl Rove's partisan strategy shop.

We cannot use international law to justify America's actions when it suits our purposes and ignore it when it does not.

America has given its word to the rest of the world that we win abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Redefining our interpretation of the Geneva Convention is a slippery slope. Consider the words of the Navy's own Judge Advocate General, who testified to Congress on the possible implications of altering America's commitment to the Geneva conventions:

``I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that, if it's good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us, and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our servicemen or servicewomen were taken and held as a detainee.''

Beyond military personnel, the Geneva Conventions also protect those not in uniform--special forces personnel, diplomatic personnel, CIA agents, contractors, journalists, missionaries, relief workers and all other civilians. Changing our commitment to this treaty could endanger them, as well.

In addition to my concerns about our commitment to the Geneva Conventions, there is a real possibility that this bill will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court in ``Rasul v. Bush'' decided that detainees have habeas corpus rights. And well established case law lays out that legislation depriving federal courts of jurisdiction does not effect currently pending cases. And nine former federal judges recently wrote:

``Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in depriving the federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees. . . . If one goal of the provision is to bring these cases to a speedy conclusion, we can assure you from our considerable experience that eliminating habeas would be counterproductive.''

Sacrificing our principles makes us neither safe nor free. In fact, there is some evidence that sacrificing our principles in this bill may make us less safe.

Just yesterday, the President declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate--or NTE--which, news accounts say, details that U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere has increased the spread of terrorism, making America less safe.

One of the key reasons outlined in the NTE for this conclusion was that, entrenched grievances of injustice help create an anti-U.S. sentiment among Muslims that terrorist groups exploit to recruit new members and grow the jihadist movement--the images of and stories about detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib; the unexplained death of prisoners at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan; the denial of habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo bay; the use of extraordinary rendition to kidnap suspected enemies of the state anywhere in the world; and secret CIA prisons.

These incidents have all helped spread anti-U.S. sentient around the world. This has alienated us from friends and allies and added to the list of grievances terrorist groups like al Qaeda use to recruit new jihadists.

The President should have the best possible intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States and our allies. And those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist acts should be brought to justice, tried, and punished accordingly, and their convictions should be upheld by our courts.

Sadly, this legislation does not accomplish any of those things. For that reason, I encourage my colleague to vote against its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislative package, which will reauthorize important international fish and wildlife conservation programs and will expand national parks and wildlife refuges.

In particular, I want to draw special attention to the Great Ape Conservation Act. The reauthorization that's before us today was introduced by Senator Jeffords last June, following a bill that I introduced in May 2005 with Rep. Baird.

It has now been more than 5 years since the Great Ape Conservation Act was signed into law. In that time, this program has helped protect threatened primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. I'm very pleased that the House is now poised to pass this reauthorization, which is needed to continue progress in this important field.

As the Fish and Wildlife Service testified in the Resources Committee last June, ``Much of the success of the Great Ape Conservation Act has been a direct result of the unique small project focus on on-the-ground conservation projects in Africa and Asia.'' The funds provided by the Great Ape Conservation Act have gone to such diverse projects as: protecting chimpanzee habitat from logging operations; establishing anti-poaching enforcement units; starting conservation education programs; coordinating gibbon population surveys and threat assessments; and implementing ape health monitoring programs.

Like the other Multinational Species programs, Federal funds under the Great Ape Conservation Act are distributed as matching grants, meaning that the expense for these projects is shared between the Federal government and project partners. This match requirement has leveraged over $7.7 million in non-federal contributions over the period of 2001-2005 and has more than doubled the actual funding for conservation projects.

But despite the ongoing successes of the Act, the threats to these noble primates continue, and time is not on our side. Press accounts and reports from the field indicate that these species continue to be placed in jeopardy by habitat loss, poaching, logging, and the bush meat trade. The bill before us today specifically authorizes funding to address these root causes of threats to great apes.

The contributions of the Great Ape Conservation Act have been very important in the international efforts to protect and conserve the great apes of Africa and Asia, but there is much work yet to be done. Accordingly, today's bill extends the program's authorization through the year 2010.

As I said when I introduced the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000, the task ahead is daunting. But the ecological consequences of not acting are far more tragic if it means that great apes will cease to exist in the wild.

I want to thank the Resources Committee staff, especially Dave Jansen, for their work in shepherding this bill through the House, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Vallejo Symphony Orchestra as it celebrates its 75th season, 2006-2007.

The mission of the Vallejo Symphony Orchestra, VSO, is to present performances of symphonic music of the highest possible artistic excellence for the citizens of Vallejo and all of Solano County; to cultivate and nurture the appreciation and enjoyment of classical music in people of all ages; and to serve and shape the musical, cultural, and educational interests of the people of Vallejo and Solano County. The VSO engages guest artists of national and international renown so Solano County residents can enjoy them in live performance. The VSO sends its musicians to perform in public schools so children may experience and learn about live classical music.

The Vallejo Symphony, seventh oldest symphony orchestra in California, traces its roots to the early days of the Great Depression, when a small group of community leaders determined that local musicians needed a showcase for their talents and that other members of the community would be enriched by attending live performances of timeless music. On February 21, 1931, a 60-piece orchestra conducted by Julius Weyland made its debut in the auditorium of the city's newly dedicated Veterans Memorial Building. Concerts were presented throughout the decade with Mr. Weyland and George Trombley conducting the orchestra during these formative years.

Activity lessened, then ceased during World War II until 1946, when the Vallejo Symphony was revitalized under the auspices of the Vallejo Recreation District and the Adult Education Department. Dr. Orley See became its conductor at that time. In 1951, Virl M. Swan took the conductor's baton to lead the orchestra until 1961, when Dr. George Wargo began his 21-year career as music director and conductor. The sixties saw the independence of the orchestra established, a subscription concert series launched, and supportive fundraising activities begun by the Symphony Association's board of directors. During the following decade, artistic goals for the orchestra were set, and an annual Major Gifts Campaign was established to support a professional orchestra and expand the concert season.

The 1980s saw a dramatic improvement in the quality of the orchestra and programming

when David Ramadanoff, a former associate conductor of the San Francisco Symphony and winner of the 1980 Leopold Stokowski Conducting Award, accepted the position of music director and conductor. Under his dynamic leadership, the Vallejo Symphony has developed into an urban orchestra of regional importance, attracting some of the finest musicians in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1983 the VSO became completely professional. In 1993 the orchestra visited Vallejo's sister city of Akashi, Japan. In 1997 the VSO hosted the West Coast premiere of Hannibal's concert opera ``African Portraits.'' Hannibal spent the week in Vallejo public schools with students.

The Vallejo Symphony now performs a four-concert subscription season and an annual Summer Pops concert each Fourth of July. As part of its commitment to the musical experience of Solano County's children, the orchestra performs youth concerts for the elementary school children of Vallejo, and presents its popular series of intimate, entertaining and educational mini-concerts in elementary schools throughout the county.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we recognize the Vallejo Symphony Orchestra for its many contributions to the Vallejo community and wish its members many more years of outstanding performances.

Mr. Speaker, it was with deep sadness that I learned of the passing of Mrs. Bernice King-Hill on July 18, 2006. For more than 30 years Bernice ``Bea'' King-Hill faithfully served the community of her church and the city of Richmond, California. For her church group, Mrs. Hill was a social worker and teacher of great capacity and compassion. For the people of Richmond and Contra Costa County, she was a dedicated leader who gave of herself to the community with sincerity, commitment, and strength.

Bernice Hill was born on August 31, 1924, in Mobile, Alabama, and raised, along with her four siblings and their nine cousins, by the late Joe West and Georgia King-West. For her advanced degree, Mrs. Hill attended the Nannie H. Burroughs Religious School in Washington, DC, and the Tuskegee Institute in Tuskegee, Alabama. By 1955, Mrs. Hill had moved to Oakland, California, in the San Francisco Bay Area and begun what was to be a 30-year career of service. Since 1955, Mrs. Hill worked for our community in the various capacities of service, education, non-profit work, administration, and religious counsel.

For 5 years, Mrs. Hill owned and operated B-Nolas Fine Foods which served the schools and the medical centers in the community of Berkeley. Since then, Mrs. Hill held many different positions within the community beginning with her work as founder and director of the non-profit Senior Extension Center in Richmond, California. She was also a manager for the Contra Costa County nutrition program for several years during this period. Mrs. Hill served on the Advisory Council for Aging as well as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Ladies Auxiliary, 761st Tank Battalion, Post 8399, for which she was the president.

More recently, Bernice Hill served on the Board of Children's Council in Richmond, California, and as the Administrative Assistant to Senior Legislators of California under Carolyn Ashe Stokes. Mrs. Hill was also the Chairperson of the Progressive District Association and Senior Citizen Department as well as a teacher for the California State Baptist Convention.

During these many years, Mrs. Hill pursued her religious service with the same devotion and selflessness that marked her professional work. Her service to the religious community at the Bethlehem Missionary Baptist Church included passionate and dedicated work as a teacher for the church's Sunday School, the Baptist Training Union, and the Ester Circle of the General Missionary Society.

Throughout her many years of service to the people of our district, Mrs. Hill maintained her direction and independence. She was hardworking with a unique honesty and heart yet she was never afraid to challenge those who sought to exploit her or her effort. She believed in self-responsibility and forgiveness and she not only built her work on these values, but also inspired them in others. Her goddaughters Leona Sims and Nola Pyle are fine examples of her commitment and integrity. Her home will go to the Senior Extension Center to continue her legacy.

To Bernice Hill's family and friends, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared not only by those who knew Mrs. Hill but also by all those who have been touched by the work she has done. We will be forever grateful for the courage, compassion, and integrity with which she sought to make our community, and our country, a better place for all of us. We are so grateful to Mrs. Hill's family and church for sharing her with us for so many years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the sacrifice of the Filipino veterans of WWII.

America owes a great debt of gratitude to these brave veterans, who risked life and limb

fighting off Japanese aggression in the War of the Pacific.

These brave soldiers, who were outmanned and outgunned, helped hold Japanese forces at bay for 2 years, preventing enemy victories in other parts of the Pacific theater.

Following the surrender of Allied forces on the island, Filipino veterans were subjected to some of the harshest treatment in WWII's recorded history.

This is perhaps best symbolized by the Bataan Death March, where over 10,000 veterans--both American and Filipino, side by side--gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.

That is why I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Daryl Issa, for offering H. Res. 622.

This important resolution, ``Reaffirms, recognizes, and honors the Filipino World War II veterans for their defense of American democracy and important contribution to the victorious outcome of World War II.''

And while I proudly support Mr. Issa's efforts here today, I must point out that there is much more work left to be accomplished in fully honoring and recognizing the sacrifices of our brave Filipino WWII veterans.

Sadly, Madam Speaker, as many of these veterans enter the sunset of their years, America has yet to fully extend health and survivor benefits to them and to their spouses.

Filipino veterans did not abandon America in her hour of need. Nor should we abandon them in theirs.

Congress must pass legislation to correct this inequity immediately. Several bills that more fully honor the sacrifices of these brave veterans, including, H.R. 302, the Filipino Equity Act, introduced by my colleague and fellow Californian Bob Filner, are pending before this House.

H.R. 302 would restore all benefits promised to Filipino veterans. I call on the leadership of this House to bring H.R. 302 to the floor for a full vote before we adjourn this fall.

The words of this resolution are well deserved and welcomed by all who honor the sacrifices by Filipino veterans of WWII. But it is time we match our words with action.

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

Mr. Speaker, as one of the original cosponsors of the Zero Tolerance for Guns and Weapons in Schools, I have long supported the effort to make our schools safer, and, in fact, schools are among the safest places in our entire society for children, but this legislation, I do not quite understand what it is trying to do.

The suggestion here is that if we just pass this law, that somehow schools will become safer. The fact of the matter is every school district, every State has a policy with respect to the bringing onto campus of drugs, which it is illegal to have on campus, off campus, in your own home or anywhere else, and the use in bringing on weapons, which we have a very strong zero tolerance policy against the bringing of any guns or weapons onto school sites.

It seems to me that this legislation is somehow founded in the idea that if the Congress just votes, this will, in fact, happen.

Tragically, what we have seen is while people are asking us to vote on this policy, which is already in place in most school districts, or all school districts in all of the States in accordance with the State court decisions and in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions, what we have is that the Republicans are masking the fact that what they do is they keep gutting the Safe and Drug-Free School Grants to the States. They cut those grants from $437 million in 2005 to $346 million in 2006, and the House Republicans want to cut them even further to $310 million next year.

So the very funds that this Congress has determined and we worked in partnership with States and school districts over the last several years to make our schools safer, to help educate children about the dangers not only of the drugs and of weapons and various kinds of social behavior, they are now in the process of cutting those, but they want to pass a law that says to do what we have as a matter of existing policy, except that this law, in fact, exposes the district to much more litigation now because now, under the guise of this law, they have to go back through, and if a student is searched under this law, the questions are raised all over again which many districts have tried to settle under State law, under State court interpretations, so that they can have a policy that works, that the schools are on notice of, and the students are on notice of, and that the parents are on notice of. The fact of the matter is that the policy appears to be working across this country.

So, when we get all done with this, I think what we have with this legislation is an effort to try and cover what are the more serious votes taken by this Congress to slash the funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools legislation.

Also, this legislation, if it were to be passed into law, fails to take into account additional legal standards that have been imposed by State courts. A uniform search policy can cause difficulties for school districts and would require it to establish policies to address requirements of H.R. 5295, as well as legal standards that apply to respective jurisdictions.

The Congressional Research Service adds that enacting Federal legislation with respect to school-based searches could, therefore, interfere with areas of traditional State and local responsibility, of which there is no showing that the States and local school authorities are not meeting their responsibilities to their students, to the teachers, to the staff in the schools, to the parents and to the communities.

The question is, I guess, just a question of whether or not you think you trust the Congress more simply to pass a law, of which there have been no hearings and no discussion with local officials about how to do this, or whether you trust the people who are running the schools--the school boards, the school administrators, the principals, the district superintendents--who, in fact, have the responsibility for the safety of the children of their districts and of their schools.

It is not much more complicated than that, and you do not have to take it from me, because the fact is that the National School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National PTA and the Great City Council Schools all oppose this legislation.

Why do they oppose this legislation? Because this legislation only makes it a very difficult job that they have been working at and policies for the safety of our students that they have been refining over the last decade.

This legislation just throws all of that open to new interpretations, to new exposure to liability on the questions of their actions that they take on a daily basis to keep our schools safe, to keep our children safe.

They understand this policy. They have developed these policies they have done in conjunction with the communities that they represent. Now Congress wants to fly over on suspension without hearings and drop down a new policy, one size sort of fits all, for all of these school districts, for all of the schools, when in fact the people we represent in our communities have been working on these policies a long time before this legislation was ever suggested. They have been working on them successfully, they have been working on them within the intricacies of State and Federal law, and they have developed the policies in cooperation with the communities and with the parents.

And I would hope that we would reject this legislation, and we would let those who have to take the responsibility, those who absorb the liability for their actions, and those who have local cooperation within their communities on engaging these policies, that they would in fact be allowed to go forward and continue those policies, and we would heed the concerns of the Congressional Research Service that we now have a Federal policy that, if it was to pass, requires this kind of reaction by all of the States to see whether or not they comply with this Federal law when in fact they are already complying with the efforts in their communities to keep their schools safe.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

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

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

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

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

It is rather interesting that this legislation comes up with no hearings, no discussion with the school districts, no discussion with local authorities who have the obligations to meet the demands that we cavalierly talk about here. This Court decision I believe is 1985. That is what school districts have been struggling with is to try to put in a policy that meets the test of reasonableness and also protects them in terms of liability and the teacher in terms of liabilities.

We cited Columbine here. I can't believe there is a school district in Colorado that doesn't have a policy dealing with guns on campus in compliance with Federal law where there is zero tolerance for guns on campus or you can lose your funding.

Paducah, Kentucky, and the tragedy there, I can't believe there is a school district in Kentucky that has not responded in the years since those tragedies.

The fact of the matter is every school district in the country has a policy like this because they can, in fact, be sued for not having a policy, for not taking reasonable steps to protect their students and faculty and staff.

Here we have the United States Congress apparently read a report of statistics and studies of all of the activities which is illegal under State and Federal law. They have read that now and have decided 10, 20 years later that the school districts are not doing anything, are not taking action, and the Federal Government has to tell them to take this action. It is incredibly arrogant and an insult to people who every day live on the front lines for the protection of those students and those faculty members and those staff members and for those children whose charge they have to think that somehow they have not developed the best policy they possibly can within the confines of the fourth amendment, within the confines of their State interpretation of State laws.

That is what school districts struggle with all of the time. That is what they do for a living. Those are the measures they can take. This idea that somehow if you codify this Supreme Court decision, the TLO decision, that somehow if you codify this and they are immune from liability, no, they are not. Someone would go to the court and decide it was an unreasonable search, and you will be right back with liability, just as is done all of the time under the fourth amendment.

What school districts have tried to do is to build a policy over a period of years to try to make it the most effective policy and also make sure that they are not exposing the district and others to all kinds of different liabilities, but to have an effective policy.

Does anybody here suggest that is not their purpose? Does anybody suggest that they have not done this since Columbine, they have not done this since Paducah, or they have not done this since the shootings in Oregon? Of course they have.

And you know what, they would probably be in a much better standing if you would keep cutting the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, if you quit cutting the money that is available to them in education so they could make these policies even more effective, and they could spend even more time with the students working on why these behavior patterns should not be allowed, why schools should be a safe place, why schools should not be allowed to be the street. There should be bright lines between the schools and streets. That is what schools are seeking to do all the time.

But here is the Federal Government 10, 20 years later after the policy was announced saying, I guess you are not doing anything, and we are going to tell you to do it. We are going to tell you to do it this way or the highway.

It just doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't comport with what all of us know is going on in the districts that we represent. Either that, or you have never visited a school, you have never talked to a school administrator, or never talked to a superintendent or a teacher. The fact of the matter is that they struggle with this all of the time, and they do it within the confines of the decision that you say is controlling. They know that. That is why they hire attorneys. That is why the policy parties that are responsible for coming up with this, that is why they oppose this.

But this will be the Congress who tells them, do it our way, that is the only way; and now we will have to go back through all of these policies and start over from ground zero. It just doesn't make any sense. It denies what we all know is, in fact, taking place in school districts and schools all over this country every day as those individuals struggle to keep those educational institutions safe for the students who are attending them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Tina Batt, the Founding Executive Director of the Muir Heritage Land Trust, as she leaves her post after eighteen years of dedicated service.

Under Ms. Batt's leadership, the Martinez Regional Land Trust grew to become the Muir Heritage Land Trust, a powerful force for conservation in Contra Costa County. She has been directly responsible for preserving over 2000 acres of open space in and around the City of Martinez, California. Her passion for the environment and dedication to preserving our heritage has translated into a highly successful fundraising effort that has over the years totaled over five million dollars.

The Muir Heritage Land Trust has also expanded its public agency partners to include the Bay Area Ridge Trail, the California Coastal Conservancy, California Wildlife Conservation Board, California Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources, the City of Martinez, Contra Costa Fish and Wildlife Committee, East Bay Regional Park District, the Environmental Enhancement Mitigation Program, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Critical support from well-established public and private foundations has increased dramatically due to Tina's efforts. The list of supporters now includes the Bechtel Foundation, East Bay Community Foundation, Firedoll Foundation, David B. Gold Foundation, Martinez Community Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, Resources Legacy Fund, the B.T. Rocca, Jr., Foundation, the San Francisco Foundation, the Charles Schwab Corporation Foundation, L.J. & Mary C. Skaggs Foundation, Strong Foundation for Environmental Values, Trust for Public Land, the Morrison Foerster Foundation, and the Valley Foundation. She also fostered steadfast corporate support from Union Bank of California, Conoco Phillips, Mechanics Bank, Shell Oil Products, Tesero Corporation, Chevron, Parsons Corporation, Shapell Homes, Telfer Oil, Dow Chemical Company, John Muir Health, Overaa Construction, Plumbers & Steamfitters Union Local 159, Contra Costa Times, Diablo Magazine, East Bay Business Times, and Galilee Enterprise.

With all of this valued support, Tina Batt has led the Muir Heritage Land Trust through a phenomenal period of expansion. The Trust has preserved easements, facilitated acquisition of treasured open space, and ensured the permanent protection of an important segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail, which runs the length of the Franklin Ridge from Martinez to Hercules and Crockett.

Mr. Speaker, because of Ms. Tina Batt's many contributions to acquisition and preservation of open space in Contra Costa County, I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognize her tireless efforts, and ask all Members of the House to join me in wishing her well in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, the two most important issues facing our country right now are the seemingly endless and tragic war in Iraq and the need to ensure America's safety here at home.

President Bush's speech to the Nation last night regrettably demonstrates that either he doesn't understand the security challenges we face, or that he is intentionally misleading the American people for partisan political purposes.

This is a tough election year, and I can understand why the President and the Republican Party are desperately clinging to a campaign of misinformation, mudslinging and fear, given their failures on the economy, the war and homeland security. But their campaign is not responsible, and it ill serves our troops, our people and our future.

The President continues to try to convince Americans that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Last week, the President said, and I quote, one of the hardest parts of my job is to try and connect the war in Iraq to the war on terror.

I can understand why it is so difficult for the President, considering that Saddam Hussein's regime and Iraq were not responsible for the attacks of 9/11 or the war on terror. The only prewar connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda was that they were enemies. The bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report just released last week states that Saddam Hussein distrusted Osama bin Laden so much that he, quote, issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qaeda.

And, more importantly, while there was not an Iraq/al Qaeda connection before the invasion, certainly there appears to be one now. And that is what the President would say makes Iraq the central front in the war on terror.

But, once again, the President is wrong.

First, the only role the U.S. occupation in Iraq currently plays in the war on terror is making it worse. Our presence in Iraq has created more terrorists than we have captured or killed. In fact, the U.S. occupation of Iraq is one of al Qaeda's chief recruitment tools, and the American people have caught on to this.

According to a recently released poll, by a 45 to 32 percent margin, people believe that reducing America's overseas military presence, rather than expanding it, will have a greater effect on reducing the threat of terrorism.

The most effective weapon against terrorists is cooperation among nations in sharing critical intelligence to round up and disrupt terrorist organizations and activities. That effort is hampered by the recruitment and growth of terrorists because of the Iraq war.

It is time for the President to be honest with the American people and to admit that the biggest threat to Iraq's future is the presence of U.S. troops fanning the flames of Sunni-Shiite civil war. And one of the biggest threats to the United States' security is the powerful motivation our presence in Iraq gives terrorists who seek to do us harm.

The President and this Congress have wasted resources, time and precious lives in a diversion from making Americans safer, and it has been an enormous and costly diversion by this administration. But the facts are clear that we have not done enough to make America safer. In fact, we have done just the opposite by getting bogged down in the war in Iraq and fanning the flames of hatred and violence.

Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart, I rise to honor the life of Mary Bourdette.

On September 5th, America lost one of its great champions for children and families. Mary Bourdette was a passionate and dedicated advocate and had an extraordinary 30 year career. Mary's tireless efforts improved the lives of countless children and families across the country.

I will personally miss her friendship, and the Nation will miss her devotion to children's welfare.

I first met Mary in California when she was working on improving education in the state. Mary and I then worked closely together when I chaired the House Select Committee on Children Youth and Families in the 1980's here in the House.

She was a skilled advocate and negotiator and her vision and persistence were critical to my efforts on child welfare policy and numerous other issues. Mary advocated for children and families in many capacities here in Washington, D.C. over the past 30 years. She worked for the Legal Services Corporation to help ensure that our poorest citizens have access to the legal system that our Constitution promises. She later worked tirelessly at the Children Defense Fund on the first major expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and

the original enactment of the Child Care and Development Block Grant-- programs that have made an enormous difference for America's poorest families.

Her work with the Child Welfare League of America as Director of Public Policy also proved vital for the well-being of America's children and families. And her 8 years with the Clinton Administration allowed Mary to play a central and critical role in the many federal policies that affect children.

Her untimely death is a tragedy. Her colleagues will miss her and her family and closest friends will mourn her loss. To them, I extend my profound condolences and empathy. But in honor of Mary, let not one of us ever forget the meaning of her life's work. Mary Bourdette believed that every child and family, no matter how poor or meager their existence, deserved the chance to live a better life. She was a model for those who wish to dedicate themselves to improving the lives of others. And for that I am grateful. Our nation is indebted to her for what she believed in and what she tried so hard to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Virgilio Lodge No. 1586 and the Beatrice Portinari Lodge No. 1626 as they celebrate their Golden Jubilee Gala on September 9, 2006.

The Order of the Sons of Italy in America was established in Vallejo, California, in January of 1931 when one-fourth of the community was composed of Italian Americans. The Sons of Italy is a National Fraternal Order that has lodges throughout the United States and Canada and took out its Charter in 1905 in New York City. They believe in liberty, equality and fraternity.

The lodges have been very active in Vallejo and Solano County including awarding 15 annual scholarships; raising in excess of $80,000

for the Alzheimer's Research Center at the University of California at Davis Medical Center; donating $5500 to the helipad at Sutter Solano Hospital in Vallejo; donating to numerous charities in the area; and in 1976 sponsoring the Landing of Columbus at the Vallejo Waterfront as a Bicentennial Tribute to the City of Vallejo.

Through the years the Virgilio Lodge and the Beatrice Portinari Lodge have jointly participated in activities from civic to social functions in Vallejo. Among their shared highlights during their 75-year history are sponsoring the annual Columbus Day Banquet and initiating the renaming of Miller Road to Columbus Parkway. In 1974 they dedicated their own Lodge building in the former Lincoln School annex, which represents a second family home to the entire membership. Three Lodge members have served as Mayors of Vallejo: Terry Cutrola, Jr., Anthony J. Intintoli, Jr., and Gloria Exline. Many other members have served as elected or appointed officials in the City of Vallejo and are very active in the community.

I commend the Virgilio Lodge No. 1586 and the Beatrice Portinari Lodge No. 1626 for their many contributions to the City of Vallejo and wish them many more years of service to the community.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the

gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to correct the record.

The legislation does not require the funding of these plans. Executives can continue to get benefits out of these plans if they are only 60 percent funded. The gentlewoman from California was correct. Workers can only get benefits if they are 80 percent funded.

So the executives can continue to draw down the assets of the corporations, but the employees cannot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this is a complicated piece of legislation and Members of the House and Members of the Senate have struggled with it for some period of time. That struggle really hasn't been completed yet because this legislation was taken from the conference committee and it is here tonight to be passed unilaterally within the House and be presented to the Senate in the future.

It is difficult to understand all of the things that have been done in this legislation, certainly for the Democratic Members of the House since we were not included in this conference committee. We were not invited into any of the sessions, nor was the information shared with us as it was developed during the conference committee because they chose to run it simply on a partisan basis among the House conferees.

But I think it is clear to understand also that this legislation does, in fact, as my colleague from Massachusetts said, miss a number of opportunities. And that is why we are concerned with it tonight.

We understand the changes that have been made that allow companies to continue to underfund those pension plans and then increase the contributions that those plans will have to make in later years, and it is pretty clear that as businesses sit down and make the decisions about the allocation of resources and they look at those increased contributions, the burden will really push them in the direction of freezing or terminating their plans. That is why we see the quote that was given this last day or so, ``We will see an unprecedented number of companies freezing their plans in 2007 because they will recognize the difficulties of the new pension regime.'' That comes from the American Benefits Council, which deals with so many of these plans, because this tilts the table toward the decisions by companies to terminate or to freeze those plans.

And if that happens, of course, we have been warned now, under this legislation by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that as they contribute less to those plans and then make that decision, it also heightens the likelihood that these underfunding problems will become worse, according to this legislation as represented to us by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. And they also make it clear

the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that absorbs these plans on behalf of a safety net paid for by other plans that as they suffer from a huge deficit, a $23 billion deficit, they expect that this legislation that is before us tonight will add some $2 billion to that deficit over the next 10 years.

But there are other decisions that the conferees could have made or that you could have made in drafting this bill as you brought it to the floor. You could have erred on the side of working people. You could have made a decision that in these plans that are distressed and underfunded that we would, in fact, treat the employees and the executives alike. But we set two different standards. We said that if your plan is not 80 percent funded, then the employees can get no additional benefits in terms of their retirement out of that plan. But if a plan is only 60 percent funded, executives can continue to draw and add on and accrue pension benefits. So we have set two different standards here. Both people, I assume, are working very hard for the success of that corporation. One is just going to get treated entirely differently than the other. It is a matter of simple fairness. A matter of simple equity. But when we see the greatest disparities in the history of this country for a long time now, when we see these disparities, this bill increases those disparities between the executives and the employees.

You could have made a decision not to harm the pilots that were harmed after 9/11 because they were forced to retire early. Federal law made them retire at 60. Then 9/11 and the high fuel costs come along, and that drives United Airlines into bankruptcy, a bankruptcy I didn't agree with, but they went into bankruptcy; so you lost 40 percent of your pension. PBGC took over their plan, but you lost an additional amount because you retired at 60. Those pilots had no chance. We could have taken care of them in this bill. One would have thought that that was somewhat of a humane thing to do, a compassionate thing to do. They were victims of 9/11. They were victims of the downturn in the travel economy after 9/11. They were victims of high fuel costs. They did not do anything wrong, and Federal law forced them to retire. But we just blew off their cause in this legislation.

The issue of older workers, a missed opportunity there, to make sure, as we transition from defined benefits plans to cash balance plans, that we would protect the oldest of those workers, the closest to retirement, that we would make sure that they would be taken care of because, as we know, people who are 55, 60 years old, 5 years from retirement, have very little opportunity to accumulate the kind of economic resources that are necessary to match the retirement that they were expecting. You didn't have to do it. It was recommended by the administration.

The Secretary of Treasury, former Secretary Mr. Snow, said it should be done. He said he did it in his corporation at CSX. He voted to do it as a member of the board of Verizon. It was done by Honeywell. It was done by Wells Fargo Bank. It was a compassionate thing to do. They still realized the savings that they wanted by changing their pension plans, and I do not object to their doing that. I just thought that we could make an effort to try to protect those people who the GAO tells us would lose almost half of their benefits with those kinds of conversions. But that was not done in this legislation.

So I really think that we ought to understand that those kinds of decisions really do harm a number of people that could have been helped in this legislation, a significant number of people that could have been helped in this legislation. And we could have done some more to try to help keep these plans out of the PBGC.

We could have also made sure that before people went to bankruptcy in the manner in which United did, that they would have made the last ditch effort, the kind of effort that we just talked about earlier, where airlines made these kinds of efforts to freeze their plans, but they did not. But I think before we rush to bankruptcy and then we turn these plans over to the PBGC and maybe ultimately to the taxpayer that there ought to be a burden, there ought to be a showing, there ought to be evidence that, in fact, you made every effort. I am not asking you to destroy the company. I am asking you to make the kind of effort that we saw others make but they chose not to make it at United, and as a result of that, those machinists, those flight attendants, the pilots, the ramp workers, and so many others have taken such a serious hit on their pension benefits with no ability to recover. So those are my objections to this legislation.

We started this session with an unprecedented attack on Social Security. And as people started to look at that attack, and they saw the Federal privatization of Social Security, they started to look at their own pension plans, and they realized, as what we are doing with here today, that their own pension plans are very insecure. There is probably no employer in this country that can tell you that that pension plan will be there for their employees 75 years from now, 65 years from now, and be paying out 80 percent of the benefits. So people have come to realize that they need retirement security. And I do not believe that this legislation provides that kind of security that individuals need.

I recognize the transitions in pension plans. I recognize the changes in pension plans. But I really think that this legislation, in many ways, was drafted looking in the rear-view mirror as opposed to the future of these plans and how we encourage savings and how we encourage participation.

There is no question this legislation deals with some of those issues, but I do not believe that we did the kind of job that will serve us well in the future.

And I would encourage Members to oppose this legislation. We will have a motion to recommit, a motion that will protect those older workers, a motion that will treat those airlines the same. If they all freeze their plans, they should get the same number of years to do that, and we think it will provide them a greater margin of safety if they do that, and provide for that kind of transition and the protection of those pension plans as they originally requested, as the Senate originally voted to do. But the conferees didn't go there, and certainly this legislation being offered in the House tonight didn't go there. But that will be offered in a few minutes.

I urge opposition to this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion does two things. First, it sends the pension bill back to committee to include all of the airline protection provisions that were included in the Senate-passed pension bill. Second, it seeks to send back to the committee to add the Senate-passed provisions providing for the transition protections for older workers affected by cash balance conversions.

Both of these are critical to protecting America's workers' pensions and their retirement security. All across America, employees are worried sick about their retirement nest egg. They have seen big airlines like U.S. Air and United cut and run on their obligations to pay promised benefits and are wondering if they are next.

The House bill protects Delta and Northwest and enables them to extend their pension payments over 17 years at the plan's interest rate. However, the bill only provides American and Continental a 10- year payment and at a much lower interest rate, making their pension payments much higher. We would extend the same period of time, work-out time, for the airlines if they chose to provide for the freezing of their plans.

The bill does nothing for airline pilots who are forced to retire at age 60 and who received PBGC pensions reduced by 35 percent because of their age. All airlines were hurt by 9/11 and the skyrocketing fuel prices and the downturn in the economy.

It would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of workers across the Nation if more airlines were permitted to dump their plans into the PBGC. When this happens, the big losers are the employees. Look at what happened to the pilots at United, for example. They had vested pension benefits cut in half. The average pilot lost $1,270 a month. That is why we offer these protections.

Finally, the motion would report back this pension bill to provide for the

protection of older workers who are facing conversions in cash balance plans. This means the older workers who the companies are now putting on notice that they will lower their benefits will now get a substitute plan called a cash balance plan.

Despite overwhelming votes in support of protecting older workers' pensions in the House and Senate, Republican leadership has excluded these vital transition protections. Many workers will lose hundreds of dollars a month in expected retirement benefits. Many of these workers will be in excess of 50 years of age, and it is highly unlikely they will be able to recover the retirement benefits that they have been counting on for many years, that they signed a contract for in exchange for their labor with their employers.

Today, the Congress is getting ready to tell them they are not going to make the employers live up to their agreements, and we are not going to even provide a transition to soften the economic blow when those agreements are changed.

Here is what AARP CEO William Novelli said about the backroom Republican deal for older workers: ``AARP cannot support legislation that would undermine the age discrimination laws and prevent the reduction of pension benefits for older workers, thus discouraging older workers from continuing to participate in the workforce,'' unless they get a second job to make up for the loss of their retirement, of course. ``Our members and older workers in general care a great detail about these issues.'' That is why we brought this motion to recommit.

Again, time and again the House and Senate have voted to provide these protections for older workers. We would have carried that message to the conference committee, but we were not allowed into those discussions and apparently the conference committee couldn't hear the Members of this House on the bipartisan basis that voted overwhelmingly to provide these protections, both to the airlines and to the older workers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, it is rather interesting to see my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle ask us whether we know that the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Apparently, they have just discovered that fact. I would ask them did they know that the minimum wage was $5.15 an hour 10 years ago and 9 years ago and 8 years ago and 7 years ago and 6 years ago and 5 years ago and 4 years ago? It was $5.15 an hour and you never raised a finger. You never raised a finger to help these individuals. We introduced a bill every year. I have asked for hearings in my committee every year to raise the minimum wage because these people have been stuck at $5.15 an hour. You control the House, you control the Senate, you control the White House. You could never find time for these people. You found time for the richest people in the country, but you never found time for the people at $5.15 an hour.

Now, as your political fortunes change, you get a letter from the most vulnerable members of your caucus, and you discover that people are working for $5.15 an hour. But even then you cannot play it straight. No, the only way you can do this bill for the people whom you now recognize need help, and they have needed it for many years, is to put a poison pill into the minimum wage increase of the estate tax cut, knowing that you will send it off to the Senate and it will be embroiled in the 18 days that we have left in this session and there will be no increase in the minimum wage.

You could vote for the motion to recommit. The extenders are not controversial. And apparently the minimum wage is not controversial on your side. Although when a clean minimum wage passed on the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, it came to a grinding stop, and your Speaker said we are not going to have a minimum wage increase, and your majority leader says, I haven't voted for one of these and I have not supported it for 25 years, with great pride. Did he know they were working for $5.15 an hour all that time? If he had his way, they would have been working for $3.15 an hour over the last 25 years.

So tonight what are we presented with? The appearance of a minimum wage increase, but it is really about driving the estate tax. But it is about driving the estate tax into a hostile environment in the Senate, where you will argue and you will argue and you will argue and the session will end, and those same people that are working for $5.15 an hour today will be working for $5.15 an hour next year and next month. As much compassion as you felt for them, you decided they ought to wait longer to get $7.25 in the bill you presented. As much compassion as you felt for them, you decided if they work for tips, you would take away their wages in the States that Mr. Inslee pointed out, in Washington and California and elsewhere. They would lose their wages under this bill.

So I think this newfound compassion is somewhat shallow, somewhat less than sincere for these people because you could not find time for them over the last 5 years. You could not find time to deal with their problems of working all year long and ending up with $10,700 and being in poverty. You could not find time for them when the price of gasoline went up and the price of rent went up and the price of education went up and the price of milk went up. You could not find time then. But all of a sudden, you can find time now, but only, only if you can stick it in with relief for the richest people in America, relief that you know will not happen in this legislation. And once again, these people will be denied. They will be denied at the hands of the Republican leadership that has been hostile to the minimum wage from the moment they came to this House of Representatives. They had never had any intention of supporting it, they had never voted for it, and it will not happen again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion and there appears to be almost unanimity in this Congress that we should be raising the minimum wage. But it also is very clear from this discussion that if we proceed with the bill that is before us offered by the majority in this House, that we will not accomplish transferring that legislation into the law of the land, because that legislation has very little chance of passing in the time remaining in this House.

We offer this motion to recommit because in this motion we offer the minimum wage, we offer the extenders that are present in the bill that is before us, and the provisions for coal mining. These are important, they are widely supported in the Congress; we voted on them many times, and they are important for all the reasons people cited here today. But, most importantly, it will allow us to have in effect an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage because it will not have the poison pill of the estate tax, all of the costs, all of the deficit that is created by that legislation. It will not bring that controversy to this chance, the first chance in 9 years to raise the minimum wage for those people working at the federally mandated minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.

We have now seen that many, many Members of this Congress have decided that that is no longer acceptable in this country, that we cannot mandate under Federal law that that is the minimum wage for these people. And so we have an opportunity to change it, but the only real opportunity to change it comes with the motion to recommit, where we can clean this legislation up, we can take the poison pill out, we can take the deficit spending out, we can take the privilege out of this legislation, and we can address the important priorities of this Nation.

That is what we should be doing at this point in this session of this Congress. That is what we should be doing at 5 minutes after 1 o'clock in the morning. We should be addressing the important priorities of this Nation, and we should do it in the manner that ensures, that almost guarantees the opportunity to pass the minimum wage so that these people can help to lift themselves out of poverty, help to be able to provide the wherewithal for their families, and be able to continue in their employment.

We don't have to go the route that the Republicans went with the minimum wage where these people have to wait another 18 months. We don't have to go through this business of taking away the wages from people who earn tips. We don't have to do any of that. We can have a clean minimum wage, we can have clean extenders, clean coal provisions, and we can go about our way and take care of the priorities of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also thank her for all of her work on this legislation, along with Chairman Boehner and Chairman McKeon and Chairman Castle. And, of course, with the diligent work of our staffs on both sides of the aisle, I think we have crafted a measure that maintains the integrity of the program while responding to the changes in the career and the technical education programs across the country.

While the President has chosen to put forward a proposal to dismantle this critical program, we saw an opportunity to make high school matter for many young people, offer college students pathways into productive employment, and new hope for displaced homemakers and workers reentering the workforce.

The conference report before us signals that we will not retreat on our investment in career education and training. The global economy demands a high skilled workforce, and the Perkins Act, has been instrumental in building today's workforce and the workforce of the future.

Today, these programs are changing in the face of secondary and postsecondary education, and they equip America's workforce with the skills they need to compete in a global economy. More important, career tech programs acknowledge that we must be preparing students and adults for high wage, high skill jobs that exist in this new economy. To do this, however, we need a system that is challenging and academically sound and a system expands the secondary and postsecondary programs, offering students a pathway toward those kinds of careers.

I am pleased that the conference agreement mirrors the recommendations we have heard, that we must pay more attention to math and science and technology to increase our competitiveness. We also know that this is what the high paying jobs require, with these advanced skills.

The conference agreement continues the Tech-Prep program. Tech-Prep has been a model of career and technical education with demonstrated outcomes. In California, students, teachers, and administrators benefit from the connections made between secondary and postsecondary programs, and career and technical programs. Successful Tech-Prep programs offer a challenging and rigorous coursework at the high school level that is coordinated with postsecondary career technical programs. And Tech-Prep students obtain better paying jobs because they have the academic and technical credentials that businesses want for their workforce.

We made important strides in the area of professional development. This conference agreement strengthens the instructional connection between academic and career technical programs. We heard from numerous teachers that successful career tech programs allow academic and vocational teachers to develop curriculums together to teach together so that students can apply the academic content to the real world context.

This conference agreement contains new measures of accountability for career and technical education systems. I do not doubt that some programs may have difficulties in meeting this new system. However, there have been too many programs that have chosen the status quo, to the detriment of our workforce competitiveness. Successful career and technical education programs produce students that outperform their counterparts and make higher wages. We must demand that all programs work toward this same goal. The accountability systems move us in that direction.

I want to point out two other areas where the conference agreement improves upon the House passed bill: Graduation and career plans. Under the agreement, local programs may use Perkins funds to create graduation and career plans for students. These plans can be tools for students and parents to help focus the student on the student's future goals, making sure that the actions that we take will lead to the outcome they desire. And, also, the special populations and nontraditional careers.

The conference agreement also strengthens the provisions, and the gentlewoman from California has been a hawk on these issues for her entire career on this committee, and that is to improve the opportunities for women and men to gain access to nontraditional careers, and ensures that displaced homemakers and individuals with disabilities have access to career and technical education. In this global

economy, we can't afford to waste the potential of any of our people, and these provisions will help ensure that that doesn't happen.

Mr. Chairman, the Perkins Act is a critical workforce development tool, and the bill before us represents a sound career and technical education policy.

I want to thank our staff again for their efforts in bringing this conference agreement together, and I look forward to a quick passage of this conference report. And I also want to comment that this continues a long tradition in this committee where we have been able to work on a bipartisan basis on the most critical education issues confronting this country, both in the development of high performing students and professional individuals and high performing career opportunities for those individuals, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for their efforts on this legislation and urge a passage of this conference report.