Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, traditionally, the higher education bill has been an opportunity for this Nation to pause and think about the role of higher education over the coming years in American society, in America's economy, in America's national security. Every 4 or 5 years we reauthorize that act. That is not what happened this time, and that is why you have opposition to this bill across the higher education community, across America from every sector, because we did not do that.

Instead, the higher education bill was hijacked. It was hijacked by those in the Republican Party that wanted to take the savings from the student aid accounts and give them to the oil companies and to the energy companies for their tax breaks. To continue to pay for the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, they hijacked those moneys that America's families and students have been paying over the years, the excessive fees and excessive rates that they have been paying, and rather than reinvest them in America's future, rather than reinvest them in the institutions of higher education, in the families and students who are attending those institutions who are trying to get those advanced degrees to participate, they simply took that money 3 months ago and walked off with it. And now what we have here are the leftovers, the leftovers that state lofty principles and ideals, but fund none of them.

The Budget Committee is slashing education funding. The caps have suggested that they want cuts beyond what the President has suggested in his budget, and that is the status of higher education in America today.

What does it mean? Members recall Mr. Dreier talked about the EU coming to some conclusions. You do not have to go to the EU. Just listen to what Americans, who are thinking about the subject, who have a great stake in the outcome have been telling this Congress for a number of years, and this Congress has turned a deaf ear to those individuals under Republican leadership.

Whether it is the American Academy of Sciences, whether it is the Council of Graduate Schools, whether it is the American Electronics Association, whether it is Tech Net, whether it is the bioscience companies, all of these people have paraded to Washington and said one thing: you must reinvest in the R&D and in fellowships and in graduate school programs for science, engineering and mathematics. It is not being done. It is not being done. We recognized and we have been warned of the need to reinvest in the greatest partnership ever created in the history of the world, the greatest public-private partnership that was the result of President Kennedy's decision to send a person to the Moon and to bring them back safely. It was more than a Moon shot. It was an investment in the best and the brightest in America. Tens of thousands of fellowships were given to individuals. They didn't have to go beg for a loan. They didn't have to think about working during the summer or on Easter vacation or student break. No, they concentrated on the science and the engineering, and America met its goal. And we have been living off that legacy now for 30 years.

But everybody in that field, betting their money, their company's money, their venture capitalist money has told us the time has come to reinvest. That is not what this bill does. That is not what this bill does. This bill just passes on as if nothing has changed in America. And yet, members of this committee, Members of this House have traveled to the Pacific Rim. They see the new institutions being created in India and South Korea and China. They see institutions that are attracting some of the best and brightest minds from America to those institutions. They see the investment being made by the private sector of worldwide companies, American companies, because of that kind of investment that is being made there.

But this bill doesn't address that. This bill is just status quo. This bill doesn't create new fellowships. This bill doesn't create new opportunities for people to pursue those degrees. This bill simply adds to the debt and the cost, because when I say ``this bill,'' understand I talk about both bills. You split them for the convenience of what you wanted to do with your raid on student aid. But this is the higher ed bill. The moneys were skimmed off in the name of the oil companies. The moneys were skimmed off in the name of tax cuts to the wealthy, so we don't have the ability to make that investment that we have been warned about by the leading companies, by the leading people who have been thinking about this, by various institutions about the investment that America needs to make.

So we have a bill now that really doesn't do much of anything. It pretends that it sort of increases Pell Grants, but as we know, the Pell Grant has continued to lose value. Yes, they say, well, we put more money in it every year. That is because more students, tragically, are eligible for the Pell Grant because they don't have the family income. And we now see that the Pell Grant now covers the lowest percentage of costs for those students who have Pell Grants going to school; it has dropped from 41 percent. It covered 41 percent of those costs in 2000. It is now down; it will be down to 25 percent by 2010.

So the trend line is horrible. The trend line is horrible for those students most in need, those families most in need. More and more of them are showing up to get the Pell Grant, but they are not getting enough money to cover the costs of their college education. The trend line is horrible. And the number of students who are pursuing graduate degrees in science, math and engineering, it is working against the American economy and American security. But this bill doesn't address that.

The Higher Education Act has lost its place in the priorities of this Congress and the priorities of this Nation about the future of education, and that is a tragedy. That is a tragedy for those students who will be saddled with higher costs because of the increase in interest rates, with higher fees. Their parents will be saddled with higher costs. Those who will choose to take out direct loans to try to reduce the cost will find out they are paying fees now.

And so that is what the Republicans decided. Their idea, when every indicator suggests that college costs are getting out of the reach of America's families and students and workers, their idea was to increase the cost to those families and to their students. It is just unacceptable. It was unacceptable 3 months ago, and it is unacceptable today. This bill should be returned to committee, and we should initiate the debate that this country demands and that this country needs in terms of the future of these students, our economy and our national security. That is what this higher education bill should be about. It should not be about the leftovers after the largest cut in student aid accounts in history have already been pulled off 2 months ago.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman tells an interesting story on Pell Grants, but the problem is the amount of money for Pell Grants has gone up simply because more students are eligible for that. More students are applying for that, but the Pell Grant that they get is worth less now than it was in the year 2000, worth less than it was in 1995.

The fact of the matter is, it is covering only about 30 percent of the cost of the college, and it is getting worse every day.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope this will not come out of his time, but I certainly want to associate myself with your remarks in thanking Sally for all of her work in a most cooperative way, but keeping us on our toes a lot of the time over here. So we thank you and wish her well for all of her service to the committee.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

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

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, there is some suggestion that somehow this bill has become a partisan bill. The fact of the matter is that this bill has continued, as we have done so many bills in the Education Committee, started out on a bipartisan basis, and we worked on that basis over the last couple of years. And then in the last session of Congress, the decision was made in the reconciliation bill to split out the student loan portions of this bill and to make the cut, the now famous $12 billion cut, in the student aid accounts.

We continued to work with the majority, and up until yesterday, when I went in and talked to Mr. McKeon and told him I just didn't think we were going to be able to arrive at a conclusion, and he was getting ready to go to Rules Committee, and I said that we are just not going to get to that point where the Members on my side of the aisle, significant players in the education community and on our committee would not support the legislation. We look forward to continuing to work with him as we go into conference. But the fact of the matter is, I think what Members see in this legislation, when we talk about a missed opportunity, when we talk about a failure to respond is you can continue to put up charts that we are spending more money. Yes, the entitlement programs of Pell and the entitlement loan program are spending more because more students are becoming eligible for them, some because of a bad economy, some because they have decided to go to college.

But the fact of the matter is you are spending more money and you are purchasing less. And the gap that the maximum Pell Grant covers now, it used to cover 40 percent of that student's education. If that student worked full-time during the summer, part-time during school, they could close that gap. Starting this year, they can no longer close that gap. They are going to be about $2,000 short. They are going to be about $2,000 short if they work over that period of time. So the Pell Grant is purchasing less and less of the college education. In just a couple of years, a couple of years from now, that gap will dramatically increase even more.

So what the problem is, and what the Republicans haven't yet recognized is, the conversations that are taking place in families right now as students are trying to put together their aid package, that the student loans, the Pell Grant are purchasing less and less of the cost of that education. And this bill fails to address that. This bill fails to address that because they chose, when they made that $20 billion in cuts, the $12 billion net, they chose not to reinvest those savings in the education programs on behalf of these families and their students. Families will continue and students will continue to pay excessive fees and excessive charges. They will not let the lenders keep them, and they shouldn't let the lenders keep them. But they take what they admit are excessive payments by these families, and they give it for the tax cut. They don't say, here, take this money back; return this to the borrower, let them keep the money, let them pay for their child's education. They take it off and give it off to the tax cuts for the oil companies and the tax cuts to the wealthy.

That is what we talk about when we say a missed opportunity. The Republicans just aren't hearing huge numbers of American families who are struggling with the decision on how to pay for their kids' college education. In that cut, they raise the interest rates on those parents from 7.9 percent to 8.5 percent. The parents are going to have to borrow more under this program. They charge them a 1 percent insurance fee. They say, well, it is waivable, all that. The fact of the matter is they are raising costs at a time when it is harder and harder for families in America to put together the package to pay for that education. And as we see now, even if the students work full time in the summer, part time through the school year, they cannot close that gap. That is what we mean. That is

why some of the speakers got up here and said they are worried about the affordability. That is what we mean by the inability to address the needs of families and students who want to pursue a higher education.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have seen the amendment and discussed it with the chairman, and we have no objections to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have read the amendment. We support the amendment. We urge passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, you said several times ``Middle Eastern.'' The fact of the matter is that any money from any source would be reported; is that correct?

We have read the amendment. We don't have a problem with it and we support its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for this amendment. I have had wonderful experience with the Teach for America teachers in my congressional district.

This past week I was up in the Lakota Nation on the reservations of Rosebud and Pine Ridge, and met a number of Teach for America teachers there and the coordinators. And I think in that case, we always talk about them being for 2 years, I think almost 30 percent of the teachers are planning to extend themselves for another year on those reservations, in Indian and public schools on the Indian reservations, and they are doing a magnificent job.

So I would urge the passage of this amendment and thank Mr. Castle, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Ford, Mr. Regula and Mr. Van Hollen for offering this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, we support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, we support the

amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it is an important addition to this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, we offer this motion to instruct, because today, all across America, employees are worried sick about their retirement nest egg. They have seen big airlines like USAir and United cut and run on their obligations to pay the promised pension benefits and are wondering if they are next. They have seen major companies like Verizon, IBM, Motorola, Northwest, Delta, Sears Roebuck Company, Alcoa, Hewlett Packard, Lockheed Martin freeze their plans. We just read that General Motors will close its defined benefit plan to new management hires and give them a 401(k) instead. These are devastating developments that need urgent action by this Congress.

Unfortunately, this House bill makes none of these provisions better. In fact, it may make some of them worse. This motion addresses two urgent issues. First, it provides needed help to the airline pension plans hurt by 9/11 and skyrocketing fuel prices from terminating. It would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of workers across this Nation if more airlines were permitted to dump their plans into the PBGC. When this happens, the big losers are the employees.

Look at the pilots of United, for example. They had a vested pension benefit cut in half. The average pilot lost $1,270. Here is what you see what happens when an airline or any employer is allowed to simply dump the plan into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the government body that is set up to protect pensions. You see here that the pilots, 14,000 pilots, and 6,000 of them were retirees who lost 50 percent of their benefits, they lost $1,370 a month for the rest of their lives, for the rest of their lives. Management, employees and ticket sellers and others; 42,000 of them, 12,000 retirees lost $221 for the rest of their lives as did the machinists and the ground crews, who lost $493. That is because the company made essentially a unilateral decision simply to dump this plan without justification into the PBGC.

There are other actions that could be taken. The reason that we are here today is because a number of airlines have said, let us see if we can work with our employees if we can stretch out these plans, if we can keep from terminating them. We can work through these difficult times for the airline industry, that there may be a way to do this and get away from the tragedy that happened to these retirees and to their families.

Let us just be very clear about this. These are not 401(k) investments that went wrong in a bad market, these pension plans that were dumped into the PBGC. They were rock solid pension benefits that were stripped away from these employees and retirees for the convenience of United executives and shareholders.

While these employees, the pilots, flight attendants, machinists and others, were losing millions of promised benefits, the majority party in this Congress didn't fight for them, didn't lift a finger for them, didn't even offer a fair hearing to the people who were going to be most impacted by the decisions by people like United. This is a national disgrace.

This motion accepts the Senate provision that gives these airlines the ability to keep their plans going while stretching out payments. Freezing plans is a lot better than terminating. Go ask the ticket agents, the pilots and the mechanics at United whether they would have rather had their pension plan frozen while the airline worked through its difficulty, or whether they would have it terminated.

The motion would also support the Senate provision to provide full Pension Guaranty Corporation retirement protection up to the maximum guaranteed amount, about $47,000, by the Federal Government, for those pilots who are required by the Federal Government to retire at age 60. This was a double hit to these pilots. The Federal law said they had to retire at age 60, and then the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation told them, because you had early retirement at age 60, you are going to lose even more of your pension every year. We should protect those pilots. They had no way to protect themselves.

This motion also makes it clear that the bill's onerous funding requirements do not apply to companies that pose no risk of termination or liability to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Forcing healthy plans out of the system does not make our pension system more secure, it makes it less secure. The House bill as written will give a financial hit to company pension plans that do not face the risk of termination and don't threaten the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Finally, this motion supports the commonsense provision that will encourage savings through the savings credit to allow people to deposit a portion of their tax refunds into savings accounts. Let us keep these airline plans going so hundreds of thousands of employees at Delta, Continental, Northwest Airlines are not put in the same position as the employees of United, and I urge the Members to support this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) of Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for 3 minutes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers. I believe I have the right to close. Is that correct?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Members, this is a very straightforward proposition. This is about whether or not this House of Representatives will go on record to try and give the airlines the ability, the time, and the means by which they may treat their employees better by holding onto their current pension plans; whether they freeze them or they take some other action in conjunction with their employees so that their employees will not be thrown for the loss that the United employees saw when that company decided that it would use the PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, just as a convenient tool to discharge in bankruptcy those employees' pension plans that devastated those employees, the United employees, and devastated their families.

Why are we doing this on this legislation? Because it is very interesting, through the course of this legislation during the consideration in the committee and on the floor, we could never quite get a vote on airlines. Now we are going into a conference committee, and the Republicans say, oh, everything is going to be just fine. And yet we know that already this conference committee is starting to attract attention, that this may be a vehicle for other measures that are unable to move in this Congress.

And so we do not know what is going to be in play. So we wanted to make sure that the Members of the House have the opportunity to say that these airlines ought to be able to try and work this out.

The other factor is that time is running against these airlines. They are going to have to declare and make a decision relatively soon.

We do not know if this conference is going to be committed. So it is just a question for the Members, do you or do you not want to be able to be on record to suggest that this would be better treatment for these employees, hopefully for these companies, than what happened under the United pension plan.

You saw what Mr. Pomeroy said: many, many business executives, people involved in the pension business, have looked at this bill, and they have said that this bill is going to make it more difficult, make it more costly and probably lead to additional terminations.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the people that handle this problem when all else fails, told us this is worse than current law. Now, you can ride that animal if you want, but you may also, if you are deeply concerned about the airline employees in your area, you may also want to vote for this motion to instruct so we send a clear message to the House conferees and the committee, have refused to have this vote at any stage of the process, that we be allowed to have a vote, and that we support the effort of having the airlines be able to work this provision out.

That is what this motion to instruct does. It is important. It is important to the airlines. It is important to the employees. It is important to their families. It is important to how we look at solving this difficult problem of holding onto people's retirement nest eggs and to the pension plans that they are currently in.

This is presented as some great pension reform. It really does little or nothing to forestall the trend that we now see developing in terms of the termination of pension plans and people losing their retirement nest eggs.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to support the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mrs. Tauscher and I, rise to pay tribute to Donald Lawrence Blevins who is retiring from Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 342 after a distinguished career including fifty years as a Steamfitter, four years as an Instructor, ten years as Director of Training, nine years as Business Representative and another eight years as Business Manager/Financial Secretary.

Larry Blevins was born April 10, 1937, in Arbuckle, California; two years later, his family relocated to the city of Tormey near the Union 76 oil refinery. It was here in December of 1954 that Larry first embarked on his career as a Steamfitter working as a permit hand for Fluor Maintenance on a two-week turnaround. Realizing his potential, Larry joined the Steamfitters Local 342 Apprentice Program in January of 1956 and four years later graduated from the Laney Tech Trade School in Oakland, California.

Upon graduation, Larry's first General Foremen's position came while working Travel Card out of the Chico Local in 1961 and 1962 at a Titan missile base. Larry's elevation to a supervisory position was a rare feat for a Travel Card worker and came as a direct result of his outstanding skill level and ability to learn quickly. Larry was further rewarded for his commitment to Local 342 and elected to the Apprentice Committee in the General Election of Officers on December 10, 1967.

In the early 1970's, Larry was encouraged by Brother Vern Gosney to start regularly attending Membership Meetings and become more involved with the organization and operation of the Local. Brothers Les Reed and Tom Irvin also worked closely with Larry and were the first to recommend that he begin teaching. He took all of this advice to heart and began regularly attending meetings and started taking night school classes to learn supervisory techniques and engineering skills. It wasn't long before Larry began instructing the Local 342 Apprenticeship Training Program and subsequently earned a Life Time Services Teaching Credential through the State of California.

Starting in 1977, Larry embarked on another career path and undertook the task of running the Training Center as Director of Training. It was during his ten years as Director that the school was expanded to accommodate larger classes of apprentices to help complete the many projects within the Local's jurisdiction. As the need for apprentices grew, Larry also oversaw the expansion of the Journeyman Training classes. These classes were designed to upgrade the skill levels of the Local's journeymen and keep them current with the industry's expanding technological advancements. Larry understood the need to stay on top of the changing industry and worked diligently to keep pace.

On December 11, 1988 in the General Election of Officers, Larry won a three-way race for Business Representative over Contra Costa County with more than 53% of the vote. While overseeing Contra Costa County, the Local worked major projects such as: the TKC Rebuild at Chevron in Richmond, the CoGeneration Power Plants throughout the area's refineries, major expansions throughout Chevron, and Clean Fuels projects at Chevron, Shell, Tosco and Unocal. Almost overnight Larry's jurisdiction went from just a couple hundred UA members to more than 2,000. Larry's skills helped ensure that the work was manned with qualified craftsmen and the jurisdiction of the Local was protected.

After three terms as Business Representative, Larry put in his bid for nomination to the Local's top position, Business Manager/Financial Secretary. On December 14, 1997, with the largest turnout for any election in Local's history, Larry was elected with 88% of the votes cast. The Membership's confidence in him was high enough in the General Election of Officers in 2000 and again in 2003 that he was reelected unopposed.

With Larry's leadership and the assistance of many dedicated members, Local 342 has one of the finest and most progressive training centers in the country. Larry also worked tirelessly as a Boards of Trust member to stabilize the Health and Welfare Plan and amend the Master Labor Agreement to improve the conditions on the work site. Larry negotiated an increase in the Total Package that provides

funds for the Pension, the Health and Welfare plan. These advancements have not only helped to significantly improve working conditions; the language and monetary conditions were also greatly increased.

Larry has represented Local 342 countless times at conventions of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the United Association, the Western States Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Pipeline Conference. He's also served on the Executive Boards of these associations as well as the Contra Costa and Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Councils. In 2001, Larry was appointed by the UA General President to the prestigious Laws Committee at the UA Convention in Miami Beach, Florida. On October 26, 2001, Larry was honored as Labor Leader of the Year and recognized by the Contra Costa Central Labor Council, the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council and the California State Senate and Assembly for his service to the community and to working men and women.

Larry not only worked tirelessly for his brothers and sisters of organized labor, he also cultivated friendships within the community. Some of the community projects he has been a part of include, Camp Okizu, the building of the Shepard's Gate home for battered women, the Mother Wright Foundation and the Northern California Special Olympics.

Upon retirement Larry will now have more time to devote to his wife, Debbie, sons Donald and Keith, daughter Dorothy, stepchildren Derrick and Andrea, as well as grandchildren Stephanie, Marshall, Amber and Curtis.

As we wish Larry a fond farewell, we can rest assured that he has left Local 342 financially strong, cultivated a strong symbiotic relationship with the Local's contractors, and helped strengthen the ties with Sister Locals and other branches. Larry's honorable toil has helped cement a positive place within the community for the brothers and sisters of Local 342. We are all beneficiaries of his hard work and we salute his efforts. Cheers to a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues the personal and really tragic story of one soldier's struggle to cope after returning from the war in Iraq. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported on the life of Blake Miller, whom some Americans came to know through the media as the ``Marlboro Man'' of Iraq for his efforts in the battle of Fallujah, one of the most intense battles of the Iraq War since the invasion itself.

As the war continues to rage on and the country continues to debate how to bring it to an end, it is important to stop and look at the consequences of the war on our soldiers. America's soldiers have done everything asked of them. They and their families have endured great hardship, and many, too many in my opinion, have paid the ultimate sacrifice in this war.

I believe that we must not neglect the full experience of the soldiers and their families from this war, the trauma and stress that have severe consequences on their post-war lives. Blake Miller, a.k.a. the Marlboro Man, now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder from his experiences in Iraq, and specifically, his involvement in the siege on Fallujah. He is really struggling, according to this news account that I am enclosing for all of my colleagues to read. As the article describes, he and those who fought with him, will forever be tormented by their experiences in Iraq.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, Blake Miller and his family are not alone. According to an article in the Washington Post on March 1, 2006, soldiers returning from Iraq consistently reported more psychic distress than those returning from other conflicts. More than one in three soldiers and Marines who served in Iraq have sought help for mental health problems, according to Army experts.

Mr. Speaker, the President and Congress have chosen to send America's soldiers into battle in Iraq. That was not a decision that I supported because I believed then, as I do now, that the evidence of a real threat to America did not exist. But whether one supported this decision or not, every member of Congress and the President have an obligation to be concerned with the well-being of our troops both in battle and afterward. I hope that Blake Miller's story will help convey to this Congress the human suffering that this war is likely to cause for many years to come and help us to think long and hard about the consequences of the decisions we make in Congress--before we make them.

We honor Blake Miller's sacrifice and service to our country by making sure he and his family have every resource available to help them recover from this trauma and to regain a sense of normalcy in their lives and that they are not denied any needed service because of a lack of funding from this Congress or this President for medical care for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Education and the Workforce Committee had a subcommittee hearing dealing with the mine safety issues around the recent tragedies that happened in the Sago mine disaster in January of this year. Unfortunately, that hearing was arbitrarily gaveled to adjournment at a time before members could have exercised their rights to ask questions of the witnesses that were there from the Mine Safety Administration, the United Mine Workers, and the mine association of the companies.

Had we had the opportunity without the arbitrary adjournment of the hearing, we would have tried to ask the Mine Safety Administration how they have come to delay and weaken and scrap the 18 regulations that were put forth to protect the miners in the coal mining industry of this Nation and, in fact, regulations that may very well have been able to save the miners, the 12 miners who died in the Sago mine disaster. But we were not allowed to ask that question because of the adjournment by the chairman of the committee.

We would have asked them whether or not they have ignored the requirements of the law that no standard put in place be less protective than the existing standard, as they have continued to chisel away at the safety standards for the miners working in deep coal mines of this Nation, meeting our energy demands for this Nation, for the miners and their families, who every day make the decision to go into the mines in this hazardous occupation.

We would have also asked them whether or not, when they see the failure of the regulations to protect these miners, whether or not this shift of enforcement and the loss of enforcement personnel to a compliance assistance philosophy to work voluntarily with the mining companies, whether or not that led to this mine accident, especially when this particular mine, the Sago mine, had 208 violations in 2005.

It is clear that the owners were interested in maximizing their profits and not complying with safety laws, and it is clear that the penalty system that we have in place does not deter repeat violations, because the Sago mine had many repeat violations, serious violations of the safety rules dealing with combustible gases in the mine and the protection of these miners.

We would have also tried to ask them whether or not they felt that Congress had exercised its oversight authority, since this was the first oversight hearing on mine safety in 5 years.

We would have also asked them to stop shutting out the public in the decision-making process. We would have asked the administration to open up all of its records, including the inspector's notes, to public scrutiny around the Sago mine disaster so that we can be able to do the work to determine whether or not we could have prevented this disaster that took these lives.

We also would have made sure that they would have put in place commonsense rules dealing with the ability to communicate with the miners who were in the mine. We now think we are learning that it might have been possible for those miners to walk out of the mine had they known where they were and had we been able to communicate with them. And while communications devices are available, they are used in some American mines, they are used in some Canadian mines, they are used in Australian mines, they are not very well used, if at all, in the U.S. coal mining industry; and yet the government has done nothing to try to push this technology so we could have had communications with these miners.

Also the idea of locators, so that we would have been able to send a message to these miners about what their situation was and what they might have done to prolong their lives, because we now know they were down in that mine for a very long time waiting to be rescued, but that did not happen.

As we heard from Amber Helms, the 23-year-old daughter of Terry Helms, who died in the explosion, he died in the explosion, she asked us why if she can set up a Web page in her computer, if we can communicate to the solar system, if we can communicate around the world, why couldn't we have communicated to her father and those other men down in that mine that lost their lives?

Why wasn't this put in place when the cost of the items to protect their lives ranged from apparently $20 to $200? It means nothing in terms of the profits of these mines, the revenues they generate and the overriding concern for the safety of their miners.

But, no, we didn't have a chance to ask these questions, because after one round of questioning, the chairman decided that enough was enough, that we were not going to have the opportunity to ask the Mine Safety Administration, Where have you been for 5 years on the issue of rescue chambers in mines and the protection of these miners, and when are their families going to get these answers?

Well, they didn't get them today, and apparently they are not going to get them from the Congress for a very long time.

This Congress has been blind to the need to maintain even the protections that already exist under the law. It was not long ago that some members of our committee, including its former chairman, were actively seeking legislation to abolish MSHA and NIOSH and to cut back critical enforcement provisions.

Under that legislation, 3 out of the 4 mandatory annual inspections at every underground mine would have been eliminated. Inspectors would have needed a warrant before entering mine property. Only miners in unionized mines would have had the right to accompany inspectors as they examined the mine. The circumstances in which an inspector could shut down an unsafe section of a mine would have been restricted. Mine operators would not have had to pay fines for typical citations as long as the hazards were abated. And on and on.

That legislation was defeated. But that apparently hasn't deterred Administration officials from trying to gut MSHA anyway. Now they're just dismantling it and taking it out the back door, where they think no one is watching. Well, we are watching, and legislation must be enacted to ensure that changes are made, changes that make the safety and health of these mine workers a priority, and that prevent the industry from being allowed to get away with further abuses.

I want to commend my colleagues, Congressman Rahall of West Virginia, and the West Virginia delegation, for their prompt hearings and action on these issues. on February 1st, they introduced H.R. 4695, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 2006, which enhances and reinforces the original purpose of the landmark Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. This legislation is a vital step in this process, and an effort that I am hoping will be a catalyst for change.

Amber's testimony, and the powerful and courageous testimony provided by all

The witnesses at the forum is documented on DVD. I strongly urge all members of this subcommittee to watch the footage of the forum, and the incredibly important questions

posed by these witnesses, questions that have unfortunately, been asked before, but that have not been answered, not by the administration, and not by MSHA. As Amber said:

I understand that nothing that I say today or nothing that

happens in the future is going to bring my Dad back. But my

Uncle Johnny, my Uncle Mike, my cousin Rocky, as well as

every other miner that is underground and every other son

who's getting ready to go into the coal mines--because that's

where the jobs are in West Virginia and maybe some of these

other states--we can prevent their families from going

through this.

We owe it to Amber and every other American who has lost a loved one in a mining accident to learn what more we can do to make mines safer. And then, just as Amber says, we must take action to prevent more families from going through the hell that she has had to go through.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I thank the gentlewoman for taking this time and for making the remarks that she did.

I was in my office working and listening to your presentation, and not only did you lay out a cogent case why this deal with Dubai World Ports makes no sense at all in terms of the security interests of our country, but also the other reasons that you pointed out in terms of their role, in terms of the boycott on Israel and all the other issues of concern there.

But as I left my office, you were also talking about the fact that we have a port security system that still has an awful lot of holes in it. The number of containers, we were told by the CIA that the most likely attack on America would be in a dirty bomb or weapon of mass destruction inside of a container. Now, 4 years later, we still find ourselves where we are inspecting those containers once they arrive in Florida or the San Francisco Bay area in my district, which is far too late.

So even if you thought it would be a good idea to outsource the ownership of these ports to a foreign entity, you certainly would not do it when you have the kind of port security system that we have in place today with so many, so many flaws in that system.

There has been a lot of suggestions about how to get this done. There are ports around the world engaging in very serious screening of these containers, but not all of the ports from which we receive cargo.

So I just wanted to join the gentlewoman in her remarks, because I think there are two issues here. One, this is a real bad deal and doesn't make any sense. People in my district were stunned when the President would say one day he was going to veto it and the next day he hadn't been told about it. He was so well informed he was going to veto it, but not well informed enough to discuss it, because he hadn't seen the deal.

Then, secondly, they think about the problems that we are having trying to secure this worldwide traffic in containers, and they just think that somebody has lost their mind in terms of starting at this point the outsourcing of these ports to foreign ownerships and then, of course, to a country-owned company that has a lot of questionable activities in its background with respect to terrorism and other items.

I just want to thank the gentlewoman for raising these issues. I think it is important, and it is important that they continue to be raised during this 45-day period.

Thank you and the other 30-Somethings for doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I am claiming this time on behalf of myself and other colleagues who will be joining me shortly to talk about what really has made America such an economic power in the world and such a leader in both economics and in innovation, and that is in the 1960s when President Kennedy made the case to send a person to the Moon and to bring that person back safely, it was more than a moon shot. It was an expression of optimism about the talent in this country and about the resources in this country.

In the process of sending that individual to the Moon and back, we also built a great infrastructure. We built a great infrastructure that consisted of one of the great public-private partnerships in the history of the world, a partnership between our academic institutions, our research institutions, the private sector, and the U.S. Government. In putting that partnership together, we created both the physical resources to create the rocket ships and the infrastructure at NASA, and also the intellectual basis and foundation to make the discoveries necessary.

That is where America has been for the last 50 years. It has ridden out on the point of scientific discovery, of the discovery of knowledge, the acquisition of knowledge, and in the resulting innovation, in the resulting economic growth and the world leadership in those areas. It has served this country well. It has made it the richest country in the world. It has made it the strongest country in the world because of that innovation, because of that scientific discovery.

Some of that was done through the National Science Foundations. Some of that was done through the National Institutes of Health, the National Institutes of Medicine, in conjunction with other research facilities and with the private sector.

It was very interesting as the Democrats started to consider the need for reinvestment in America's innovation infrastructure; and we thought about what would it mean at this time to push ahead for the next generation of innovation, the next generation of innovators, the next generation of manufacturing jobs in this country, the next generation of other jobs in this country and the economic growth that could continue to drive the American standard of living for America's families.

As we talked to those who had been so very successful in the world of technology and biotechnology and venture capitalists who have gone forth to try and fund these bright young people and their ideas, those people who today are the CEOs and the presidents and the founders of some of the most successful companies in the history of the world, American companies in the technology field and the biotech field, it is interesting that all of them fully understood that they were the inheritors, they were the inheritors of that public-private partnership, of that investment that was made in the scientific discovery, that investment that was made in new young mathematicians and scientists and engineers; the fact that this country decided that it was important enough for our national security, for our economic security, that we would fully pay people's way with fellowships so they could spend their full time in the quest of that new knowledge, those skills, those talents, and achieved their Ph.D.s and other advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering.

All of these people today recognize that when they were starting their companies in the garages of California, in the small business parks of New Jersey, in the small business parks and the university research labs across this country, they were the inheritors of that investment made by this Nation.

They also told us in these meetings that they felt in that public- private partnership the public side had been lagging, the public side had not been keeping up with the kind of investments that were going to be necessary if we in fact were going to have long-term, high-risk, high-reward research taking place in this country, the kind of research that does lead you to the next generation of innovation, to the next generation of jobs and economic growth and world leadership, that we need to reinvest in that.

They talked about how we doubled and this Congress made a decision on a

bipartisan basis to double the budget of NIH. But they also made it clear that the doubling of the budget wasn't simply a one-time target; it was the beginning of the process at the National Institutes of Health, at the National Institutes of Medicine.

They also noted when we decided to double the budgets at the National Institutes of Health, we did it at a cost to the physical sciences, that the physical sciences also had been lagging. It is interesting we see after now having achieved the bipartisan goal of doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health, we see in the President's most recent submission a diminishment, a cutting of that budget of the National Institutes of Health while the President is talking about increasing the physical sciences, the budgets of the National Science Foundation and the other governmental research.

This cannot be a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul effort. It cannot be that. This cannot be done by robbing the physical sciences to help the life sciences or robbing the life sciences to help the physical sciences. A great country must make advances in scientific discovery in all of these fields; and clearly, clearly, that needs to be done if we are going to attract private capital to partner up with the Federal dollars in the basic researches across the agencies of this country.

We also talked with them about what would be the driver of much of the new innovation, what would give them a task which would generate new scientific discovery and innovation; and many of them said we have got to deal with the energy problem in this country. The technology is a big part of America becoming more energy independent and trying to achieve a sense of energy independence over the next 10 years in alternative fuels, in alternative technologies, in alternative energy sources, rather than simply relying on the fossil fuel policy of the current administration and the current budget of this country. Those kinds of investments in energy.

They also thought we should try to recreate a long-term, high-risk, high-reward research facility within the Department of Energy so people could go out on the edge again of the kind of knowledge that had to be acquired if we are going to achieve the goal of energy independence. But, once again, you don't do it on a nickel-and-dime policy. You have to make a sustained major commitment.

When you double the budget of the National Institutes of Health and you are looking for the kind of research that is so critical to preventative medicine, to dealing with the new communicable diseases that are traveling around the world and the health care of this country, you have to make a sustained investment. If you are going to do it in the physical sciences, you have to make a sustained investment.

So that is what my colleagues and I would like to talk about, how America turns to the next generation and provides them the promise and investment in their talents, their skills, and their future. We think we can do that by looking at what has led to this American model of success.

We will also talk about the fact that this model is under challenge from countries in Asia, from India, from China, from Korea, from Japan, from Taiwan; that the idea that America is number one, the position we hold in the world today, in innovation, in Nobel prizes, in patents issued and copyrights, that that is not a position that is ours by birthright. It came because of the investment and the hard work.

That is now being challenged from all across the world. People are now able to take the American model and leapfrog it because of the technologies, because of the scientific discovery that we have made.

I see one of my colleagues from New Jersey, Mr. Rush Holt, who participated in the drafting of the innovation agenda for the Democratic Caucus, an agenda that has received wide acclaim from the private sector in terms of our ability to go forward again on a new and higher level of sustained effort at scientific discovery and innovation and economic growth.

I am delighted to the yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield on that point, the gentleman was part of this and we traveled to North Carolina and to New Jersey and to Boston and to California and Seattle talking to people about this innovation agenda; and when we put the innovation agenda together, so many CEOs and venture capitalists and others said this is it, you are exactly on the right track, this is what America needs.

It was interesting to see the President come forward in the State of the Union as you mentioned and embrace the innovation agenda, many components of this effort. Then it was so disappointing to see the budget that was published afterwards, and even more disappointing when the Republican leadership slammed this innovation agenda as just simply more spending, when in fact the President mirrored what was in our agenda right down to switch fuels.

What has happened to that is we made a promise to the country. We put it out in the bill. We negotiated with the President of the United States. And now what we find is in this budget the President is about $55 billion behind where he promised the country he would be on the funding of No Child Left Behind.

What is interesting is, while the President is creating those deficits in education funding, the private sector is telling us one of the key items in terms of economic growth in this country is to fully fund No Child Left Behind. They are not telling us, the Federal Government, to create 100,000 new scientists. They are saying we want to partner with you. We will employ these people in internships in summer jobs, in graduate jobs, full-time jobs. We want to work with you because it is so critical to the future growth of our companies.

These are some of the most successful companies in the history of the world. They are worried about whether or not America will be able to generate the workforce necessary so they can continue to do business in this country and we can have jobs in this country.

And what happens? The President says he wants to do it in the State of the Union. It is not in this budget, and the new majority leader slams the program as simply more spending. This was not our agenda. This was not partisan. We specifically laid this out as a challenge to this Congress, to 435 Members of Congress to take up what the private sector now has been telling them for years to do with the permanent extension of modernization of the R&D tax credits, the full funding of No Child Left Behind, the doubling of the National Science Foundation, maintaining the doubling of the National Institute of Health, to get broadband across this country so that economic growth can take place all over the country in the rural areas, people can start jobs, and education can be brought there.

And what do we find out? You just get a big partisan slam from the Republican side of the aisle. Most of the CEOs who helped us draft this program and consulted with us in Boston and in California and in Austin and in North Carolina are Republicans. But they can see the challenge of what China and India that Mr. Ryan just talked about. The trend line for American scientists and engineers is going down; in our most fierce competitors it is soaring up.

And that is what this is about. We have lost a huge number of manufacturing jobs overseas. We have lost other jobs overseas. This is a fight and a struggle to make sure that there will be new jobs created in America. I think it is called the Advanced Manufacturing Association, many people out of the Midwest, in Mr. Ryan's area who are worried about the next generation of manufacturing in this country. That is going to come through scientific discovery and innovation, and that is what we are trying to promote here, and what you get from the Republicans is ``we are not going there.''

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

Mr. Speaker, it was with overwhelming sadness that I learned of the passing of The Reverend Dr. C.W. Newsome last week. For more than 40 years my friend and mentor Rev. Charles Newsome served as a moral compass for our community. For more than 40 years he was our spiritual rock and for more than 40 years he was our seeker of justice. There was no question in his mind or ours why God put him on this earth. Rev. Charles Newsome came to us to lead the way in the struggle for economic and social justice and to heal the scars of racism on our country and our community. And he did. With strength and trust given to him by the people he served, he fought for the rights of all people to seek opportunity and to be free from bigotry. He understood that there was no other way for us to build a lasting integrated and strong community. Year after year our friend led the efforts for better housing, schools, jobs, and health care for everyone. So very often he took his church, North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church, and its members into the forefront of these battles. Rev. Newsome knew the strength of the church depended on its involvement with the daily needs of its members and our community. Over these many years I have enjoyed our conversations, treasured his friendship, and highly valued his counsel on a wide variety of issues.

Reverend Newsome was born on June 15, 1924, in Brenham, Texas. Prior to his commitment to the faith ministry, he served valiantly as a U.S. Marine, in the Segregated Corps, fighting against Nazi fascism in the European Theater of World War II. An injury forced him to leave the service and he eventually came to Richmond, continuing to support our country's effort by working in the shipyards. His participation in shipbuilding and that of the countless African Americans who migrated west during the war, led Richmond to become one of the leading industrial hubs of the world. Today his legacy and that of all of the men and women who built our country's warships has been memorialized as Rosie the Riveter National Historic Park.

With an insatiable appetite for learning, Reverend Newsome attended Contra Costa College for his AA Degree, the University of California Berkeley for his undergraduate work, Bishop College in Dallas to study theology, and received his Doctorate from Reeds Christian College-- Western Theology Seminary in Los Angeles. Following the completion of his studies, he began his life's work. Rev. Newsome's ministry has included Organizing Pastor of Holy Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church in Richmond, and heading the Community Baptist Church in Santa Rosa, California. In 1966 he took on the pastoral duties at North Richmond Baptist Missionary Church. Building on his congregation's stature in the community as the first ``Negro Baptist Church of Contra Costa County'', Rev. Newsome continued to break new ground in the name of social justice. He led laborers to fight for equality in the workplace and led families to fight for safety in our schools and on our streets.

It was just two years ago that I came to this Well to mark Reverend Newsome's retirement after 38 extraordinary years as Pastor of North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church. This congregation under his leadership has become a beacon of hope in a community struggling against issues of social and economic injustice.

To Reverend Newsome's wife, Alice, his daughters Patricia Cooper and Redonda Newsome, and his son, Reverend Charles Newsome, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared not only by those who knew Reverend Newsome but by all who have been touched by the work he has done. We will be forever grateful for his skill, strength and courage as he sought to make our community and our country a better place for all of us. We are so grateful to his family and his church for sharing him with us for so many years. We celebrate his life without sorrow because we know God has much need of him.

``What does the Lord require of us--to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with thy God''--Micah 6.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, today in the New York Times Americans were told that not only had the Congress passed a royalty holiday for major oil companies but in the most recent energy bill they had expanded and extended that royal holiday. So we have the situation today where a bill, a law that was passed many, many years ago when the price of energy was very low, has been kept on the book in spite of efforts to try and repeal it by myself and others. And now with world oil prices in excess of $60 a barrel and the oil company profits of the majors at historical record highs by all of the major oil companies, the Federal Government is going to continue to provide a royalty holiday to those oil companies that will cost us, at a minimum, over $7 billion in the next 5 years and maybe an additional 35 to $40 billion over that same period of time.

The time has come for Congress to stop this program, to insist upon the renegotiation of these leases; and if the oil companies will not participate in that renegotiation they should not be allowed to bid on Federal land owned by the taxpayers of this country and continue to be able to rip off the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. Speaker, today Americans woke up to the unfortunate news that because of the actions of this Congress, the major oil companies that are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico are in all likelihood not going to be paying any royalty on billions of dollars, some $65 billion worth of oil, that they will be extracting from the Outer Continental Shelf of this country and on which they would be expected to pay some $7 billion in royalties; and, in fact, they may not be paying that. It may go even further that some of the majors have suggested that they are not required to pay any royalties on oil extracted from the Outer Continental Shelf. In that case, the cost to the taxpayers would be maybe $35 billion, $35 billion in lost revenue to this country at a time when we are running record deficits, at a time when we are telling people we cannot afford to help them with their home heating oil, at a time we are making basic cuts to basic education; and it goes on and on and on and on.

The fact of the matter is the policy of royalty relief that the Congress passed was an unwise policy when we passed it. But the oil companies convinced this Congress to do so, and they have convinced the administration to allow it to continue. Although the Bush administration opposed the further extension in expansion of the oil royalty relief program that was in their most recent energy bill that was just signed by President Bush, unfortunately, his opposition did not go to such an extent that he insisted that it be taken out of the bill.

So what do we have? We have the major oil companies securing leases on land that is owned by the public, land that is owned by the taxpayers of this Nation, to go in and to drill those lands. And in exchange for that, they said that they would not go in there and drill unless we gave them royalty relief, unless we took away the royalties that they were entitled to pay to the landowners, the taxpayers of this country, for the privilege and the right to drill those reserves.

These are some of the most important reserves in this country. They are some of the more important reserves in the world. There is a huge amount of competition for drilling for this. At the time, it was suggested that nobody would bid on these leases, that nobody would participate, that nobody would raise the capital to do so if they did not have royalty relief. The fact of the matter is I think the record will show that at the same time they were arguing that, they were already in the construction of the rigs that were necessary for deepwater drilling and that the decisions had already been made. Some companies decided they would bet on the gulf. Other companies decided they would go to the Caspian Sea. But the fact of the matter is the competition was hot and heavy.

For this Congress to have then just given away those royalties is a horrible mistake, and it is a mistake that the Congress must correct. Nobody, even the proponents of royalty relief, believed that there was going to be a complete escape from the royalties owed to the taxpayers for the development of this oil. They believed, as the administration has said, that at a minimum they were not going to get oil royalties relief, they were not going to get relief from the payment of the rent to the taxpayers if oil was over $34 a barrel. Well, as we all know, the world price of oil today is hovering around $60 a barrel. It has been as high as $70, and it has been in the mid-50s, back and forth.

The fact of the matter is these very same oil companies that are seeking a royalty holiday, freedom from the payment of these royalties, have just reported the biggest profits in the history of these companies, in the history of the world in the oil industry. And at the same time, they are suggesting that they have no obligation to pay the taxpayers of this country what is due

them for the privilege of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Today, some of us introduced legislation to prevent any future royalty holidays for the oil companies, to seek and direct the Minerals Management Service to renegotiate these leases so that it does include the provisions of a minimum of a trigger but hopefully even a better royalty policy than that, and if those companies do not want to cooperate with that renegotiation, then they should be barred from future bids on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Now, to their credit, some of the major oil companies are suggesting that, in fact, they do owe the royalties, that there is a trigger mechanism. But Kerr-McGee and apparently some other companies have decided that they are going to challenge the whole law. They believe they are not obligated to pay any of these royalties, there is no trigger in this law. If that is the case, the taxpayer is just going to be hung out to dry by the major oil companies, and the major oil companies are going to abscond with the natural resources that belong to the people of this country.

It is wrong and Congress ought to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Coretta Scott King, who, sadly, passed away last week at the age of 78.

Mrs. King will be greatly missed and fondly remembered as a remarkable woman who passionately worked with her husband, Martin Luther King, Jr., in America's nonviolent struggle for equal rights and who pursued the vision of equality and justice long after his tragic death in 1968. While I and constituents throughout my district, including those in Richmond, California, mourn her loss we remember her achievements, her courage, and what she symbolized to people across the country and throughout the world.

While she was Dr. King's partner in the struggle for equal rights, Coretta Scott King was also a civil rights activist in her own right. Dr. King once said, ``I wish I could say . . . that I led her down this path. But I must say we went down it together, because she was as actively involved and concerned when we met as she is now.''

An inspirational woman to so many already, Mrs. King will remain a role model for generations to come.

When her husband's fight for equality was cut short by the brutal shot of bigotry and hatred, Mrs. King's fight had only just begun. And now with her death, we face the same question she faced so many years ago. President Clinton eloquently spoke about this question yesterday at Mrs. King's funeral service in Atlanta when he said,

. . . the most important day in her life for everyone of us

here at this moment in this church, except when she embraced

her faith, the next most important day was April 5, 1968, the

day after her husband was killed. She had to decide, ``What

am I going to do with the rest of my life?'' We would have

all forgiven her, even honored her if she said, ``I have

stumbled on enough stony roads. I have been beaten by enough

bitter rods. I have endured enough dangers, toils and snares.

I'm going home and raising my kids. I wish you all well.''

None of us, nobody could have condemned that decision. But

instead, she went to Memphis--the scene of the worst

nightmare of her life--and led that march for those poor

hard-working garbage workers that her husband [advocated

for]. Now, that's the most important thing for us. Because

what really matters if you believe all this stuff we've been

saying is, ``What are we going to do with the rest of our

lives?''

Indeed, she went on to work so hard for all of us. In addition to her efforts to build the Martin Luther King memorial in Atlanta to establishing a national holiday in her husband's memory, Coretta Scott King worked tirelessly so that her husband's struggle, and the struggle of the millions of Americans who worked with him and shared his vision to bring equality to all people, was never forgotten.

She took upon herself the responsibility of keeping alive Dr. King's civil rights legacy but also found her own causes. She advocated equality for all. She became active with the National Organization for Women and said, ``Women, if the soul of the Nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul.'' In 2000 she spoke at a fundraiser sponsored by the Metropolitan Community Church, a predominantly gay denomination in San Francisco, where she gave a powerful speech expressing that ``until everybody has equality; no one has equality. We can't just be for civil rights of one group.''

The King family has a strong history with the community in Richmond,

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for offering this resolution recognizing the contributions of Catholic schools to our communities and to our Nation, and join in the remarks of those who have spoken before me on this measure.

Clearly, as we travel our congressional districts and we recount our own life experiences with Catholics schools, both in attending them and in interacting with them in our congressional roles, the magnificent and incredible contribution they make to our communities and to building the lives of young people in the fullest sense of the word, not just the academic performance of these young people, but the efforts that they make to integrate them into the community in terms of community service and building their character and building their moral values and building their recognition of the community in which young people live, and the diversity of that community and understanding the need to be accepting of that community, these are characteristics, these are values, these are principles that we hold dear as a Nation, and Catholic schools have been fundamental to building those within the young people that attend these schools.

I had the honor of attending Catholic high school, but only for 1 year, Bellermine High School in San Jose, and I just wanted to express my support of this resolution and the continuation of the contribution of Catholic schools to our Nation's education system and the character- building of our young people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, I am honored to join in support of this resolution offered by our colleagues from West Virginia and to join our colleagues in paying tribute to these 16 brave miners who lost their lives last month in West Virginia, and also to the miner who lost his life in Pike County, Kentucky, who died during the mine roof collapse, and to express the condolences to their families and to their friends who have lost loved ones.

We continue to hope and pray for the full recovery of Randal McCloy who lived through this ordeal at the Sago mine disaster, and wish him well. I join, I am sure, our entire Nation in recognizing the sacrifice of these individuals. And I want to salute the efforts of dozens of brave rescue workers who volunteered to risk their own lives to save others and the efforts of citizens of the affected communities who continue to help and to support the families of victims and to deal with their loss.

Despite a half century of improvements in mine safety, the truth still remains that underground mining continues to be one of our country's most dangerous occupations. It is also an occupation that we recognize many people would have a very difficult decision to make to join this occupation. It is one of the reasons we talk about the bravery, the courage, and the sacrifice of these workers and those who entered the mines after the disaster to join them, because we recognize that many of us would not want to do this.

But we also understand that just a week ago the President was here telling us the importance that coal would make if we really want to achieve energy independence for this Nation for a whole host of reasons that are very

good for this Nation. Then we continue to need to have the sacrifice and the courage and the bravery of the mining community and of these communities to send their young men and women into the mines. But if it is about their bravery and their courage and their sacrifice, then our obligation is to meet their bravery with the duty of care.

There is no question that our progress in making mining a safer and healthier occupation than it has been in the past has been remarkable, but the Sago tragedy shows us that our job is not done. Death, injuries, and serious illnesses remain a very real part of those who go down into the mines and to their families and their communities and the brave men and women who help when the safeguards fail.

The men and women who need the solid incomes provided by mining jobs face difficult choices every morning before they go to work and see their loved ones at the door. I think the way that we truly honor their courage, their sacrifice, and their bravery, and these miners who have lost their lives and the volunteers who helped out and the grieving families and the communities, is to make the promise, as the gentlewoman from West Virginia said, that part of their legacy is safer mines and a safer occupation and a safer future for their children and their grandchildren and others who will go down into the mines. That means that we must meet our duty of care to these miners to make sure that we fully understand where the failures took place, where the improvements can be made, and where the risk is unacceptable.

Mr. Rahall and his West Virginia colleagues have already introduced legislation that deserves immediate consideration to make certain improvements in standards and operations of the Mine Health and Safety Administration. I am delighted that they already received a partial response to that with the Agency engaging in emergency temporary standards to require coal operators to maintain additional self- contained, self-rescue devices in storage areas within underground coal mines, and to require coal operators to notify the Agency within 15 minutes of an accident. This is quite properly done on an urgent and emergency basis. I have urged the Education and the Workforce Committee to immediately commence oversight hearings to help us to determine the actions that would help strengthen the agency so that it can carry out the important responsibilities we have vested in it and what they owe the workers in the mines.

Next week, Monday, February 13, my colleagues and I are sponsoring a mine safety forum. We have invited the miners and their families and mine safety experts to share their views on how Congress and the Department of Labor can make mine safety enforcement more vigorous and effective.

It seems clear to me that there are serious questions regarding this administration's track record on mine safety that the employees and families of the Sago and Aracoma Alma mines have a right to know. I think we have to know the impact of the changes in the regulations and the regulations that were withdrawn in 2001 and the regulations that were implemented in their place. What was the margin of safety? Was there a change in that margin of safety, and did they have impact on the overall mine safety in the mine? We know that some of those regulations that were withdrawn at that time are now seen as urgently needed, as I just recited, from the response to the West Virginia delegation by the mining agency, safety standards for oxygen and breathing devices, standards for flame-resistant conveyor belts that Mr. Rahall has raised, and that their withdrawal may have undermined the safety at Sago and Aracoma Alma mines.

We want to know what is the relationship between the drop in maximum fines and the usage of fines. Are fines helpful? Do they deter bad behavior? Do they, in fact, make for improvements to take place?

What is the relationship between the mines and those who are repeat offenders of serious violations of the current mine safety regulations and the protections that are put in place for those miners? Should they be dealt with in a different fashion? Do we fully understand the voluntary compliance assistance program that is currently in place? Should that continue to be extended to those mine owners that, again, repeatedly violate the law?

What is the relationship between the voluntary nature of the program and the compliance and the margins of safety that we expect for these miners?

Does the administration have the right people in the right place for the running of this Agency? Are their qualifications commensurate with the duties that they have to the miners in the field, and are we sure that we have the best people to continue the downward trend of mine fatalities in the mine, but also the general safety environment within the mines?

And we want to make sure that, in fact, the Department of Labor has kept pace with existing mine safety technologies, such as electronic tracking and communications devices and reserve oxygen chambers, technologies used in other countries, in some cases in other mines in this country, but clearly are not mandated. But we now see, as we start to do the forensics of what took place here, that maybe these things, had they been in place, these miners would have had the opportunity to walk out of that mine. These miners may have had a chance to shelter in place until rescuers could have gotten to them if they did not understand their ability to work their way around the danger that presented itself.

So these are the questions that the miners and their families will address in the forum. These are the questions that must be addressed by the administration, and these are the questions that must be addressed by this Congress, and must be addressed by this Congress in an independent fashion.

I am not sure I entirely agree with my colleagues on the other side that we must await the administration's doing its own investigation and hearings prior to our embarking upon that effort. I think that we ought to ask these people to come before the Congress and to explain the situation that we see.

Again, this is about the legacy of these miners' lives. It is about the future of mining in this country. It is about our responsibility to these individuals, to their families, to these communities. Again, it has been made clear that coal is going to play an evermore important role in our energy future, so we must understand that these individuals were patriots in that effort to achieve energy independence in this country. And I would hope that we would understand that as we pay tribute to their courage, to their sacrifice, and to their bravery to go down in these mines, that we inherit on their behalf and on behalf of their families a duty of care to these individuals and a responsibility to make sure that we have done all that we can do, as the government, in assuring their safety and making sure that they are working under the best safe environment that is possible for them and their colleagues.

Again, I thank the members of the West Virginia delegation for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge the support of it by all of our colleagues in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Jean Siri last week. I knew Jean well, enjoyed our conversations, and highly valued her opinions on local and national concerns.

Jean Siri was born Jean Brandenberg on March 11, 1920, in Lakot, North Dakota. She grew up in a farming family her father was a prominent veterinarian. She earned a bachelor's degree from Jamestown College in North Dakota, then did graduate work at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley. Jean was a staff biologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from 1945 to 1952, then a board member and Chair of the Stege Sanitary District in El Cerrito from 1975 to 1979. She also served on the El Cerrito City Council from 1980 to 1985 and again from 1987 to 1991, including two terms as Mayor.

At the time of Will Siri's passing in 2004, the couple had been married 54 years. Mr. Siri was renowned as both a scientist and mountaineer. From 1943 to 1945 he worked as a member of the Manhattan Project. In 1963 he was the co-leader of the first American expedition to climb Mount Everest. Will was a leading researcher in biophysics at Lawrence Berkeley Labs. During the 1960s and 1970s he also served as President-Director of the Sierra Club.

The impact of Jean's life-long work on behalf of the environmental movement, public access to recreational resources, and public health is immeasurable. Among the long list of agencies that Jean supported with her time and endless energy were the West Contra Costa Conservation League, County Hazardous Materials Commission, the League of Women Voters, the West County Toxics Coalition, the Contra Costa County Public and Environmental Health Board, the Gray Panthers, and the Fresh Start Homeless Board of Directors. Along with her husband Will, Jean was instrumental in the creation of Save the Bay and was a long-time member of the Sierra Club. Jean will always be remembered as a staunch environmentalist and lover of the outdoors. Together, she and Will were recipients of many awards, including the Feinstone Environmental Award from Syracuse University in New York for their work on corrective legislation for air pollution, land use and solid waste treatment.

Perhaps though, her greatest advocacy role was her representation on the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors. She was elected in 1992, and re-elected in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Jean loved the District, its staff, her colleagues on the Board and those who advocated on the District's behalf. She was passionate about the parks and contributed not only her great leadership experience, but a sharp wit and a wonderful smile for all who had the good fortune to work with her.

To Jean's two daughters, Lynn Siri Kimsey of Davis and Anne Siri of Philo, and their families, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared by all who came to know and admire Jean. All Californians will benefit for generations to come from her work born of an uncommon passion for people of all walks of life and our fragile environment.