Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Fighting Back Partnership of Vallejo, CA, as it celebrates its 15th anniversary.

The relationship between a city and its residents is a vital and interdependent one, deriving its strength from the quantity and quality of civic involvement and public spirit generated by such organizations as Vallejo Fighting Back Partnership.

Concerned citizens and members of the Vallejo City Council expressed alarm at the increasing use of drugs and alcohol during the late 1980's and formed a Red Ribbon Committee to address this problem and to explore programs and services that could potentially result in a meaningful reduction of substance abuse and related crimes and violence. The city of Vallejo successfully applied for a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to unite the community to comprehensively address substance abuse as one of 15 Fighting Back Partnerships nationwide.

Vallejo Fighting Back Partnership, an independent non-profit coalition, developed a continuum of care approach including education, prevention, treatment, and after-care services. The Partnership, in an effort to adhere to its mission, has organized more than 50 partners and thousands of residents including support from city, county, State and Federal agencies, private non-profits, corporate and foundation donors, who emanate from an array of diverse backgrounds including law enforcement, health care, social services, government, public education, treatment facilities, neighborhood organizations, business, criminal justice, and faith-based groups.

The Partnership began to make noticeable and measurable reductions in substance abuse related crimes, primarily on the strength of renewed funding from the Johnson Foundation in 1995 and a more focused strategic plan that endeavored to create positive outcomes in three key areas:

Neighborhoods, Treatment, and Youth and Families. Local data obtained between 1995 and 2000 validated the successful outcomes of Fighting Back's mission of reducing substance abuse and related mayhem in the community, enabling the Partnership to be chosen as 2001 Outstanding Coalition by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, CADCA, which was presented to Fighting Back Partnership of Vallejo on December 14, 2001, in Washington, DC.

After 12 years of funding from the Johnson Foundation ended in 2002, totaling over $6 million, Fighting Back Partnership continues to be a dynamic coalition working to reduce substance abuse through innovative and successful programs thanks to its dedicated staff and board of directors. Today, Fighting Back provides counseling and services to families through its three Family Resource Centers, employs science- based educational programs in cooperation with the Vallejo School District, develops leadership skills in young people through its Youth Partnership, and unites residents to improve deteriorating neighborhoods through its Neighborhood Revitalization Program.

I know I speak for all Members of Congress when I congratulate Fighting Back Partnership for its 15-year commitment to decreasing substance abuse and related crimes thereby improving the quality of life for all Vallejoans, and wish its board of directors, staff, and community partners many more years of success.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

What we tried to do in the committee bill is to make sure that there was a clear line of accountability on some of these fiscal matters. We struggled long and hard on this committee with the question of fiscal management and mismanagement of a number of these programs. While the vast majority of Head Start programs are well-run programs that provide excellent services, the services that we have come to expect from those programs on behalf of these children in Head Start, we have had some problems.

This is not about reducing the parents' role. It is about increasing the accountability, increasing the accountability of this board, so they will understand the gravity of the situation, which they have. We have also strengthened the parent policy council to be involved in all aspects of program authorization, and we require that the board act on those priorities. Whether they agree or disagree, they must act on it.

The fact of the matter is, I think many, many people involved in Head Start believe that this is a very substantial improvement that will avoid the kinds of problems that we have seen in the past that have drained resources from this agency, taken away from the services provided to these children.

Parents have been an integral part of this program from the beginning, they continue to be, and, in fact, their position is strengthened in this legislation. But we must deal in a forthright manner with this question of fiscal accountability, and we are making those boards more accountable in this legislation; and I hope that we would reject the Souder amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is a bad amendment.

The fact of the matter is, if there are these kinds of savings to be had, either the grant is not right or the money should be put back into the services. When we have a program here that is failing to meet the demand for Head Start, it would seem to me if this is a high-quality program and it has the difference between 13 percent and 13.5 percent and 15 percent, which could be a couple hundred thousand dollars on a $10 million grant, which is not that unusual, that ought to be plowed into the program to extend the opportunity of this high-quality program to these children.

This program does not exist to create a profit. That does not mean that people cannot bring profit-making ideals and principles to these programs for efficiencies, but we ought to plow it into the unserved population or to improve quality programs.

When we look at the low pay and the profit-making in the nonprofit sector of Head Start, you would think that we would put that into quality to try to raise the pay so we can attract teachers with more education and child development experience and all of the rest of those issues. This is what we have been arguing and discussing and trying to improve. To now suggest, because somebody has put in some efficiencies, that money should now go to the for-profits, instead of services and extension of the benefits of Head Start to this population that is in so much need of these services, just does not make sense.

One could argue if we were meeting the need and the demand all across the country, maybe there is some argument for this. But when we know how programs struggle, and we see programs with utilities and gas going up, that is going to cause even more difficulties. And to suggest that you can somehow eke out a profit that is not returned to the benefit of the program, that just does not make any sense.

I appreciate vendors are dealing with a government grant and very low-income children and it is very difficult to make a profit, but I do not think that we should eke out the means by which that profit can be taken out of the services rendered to those children. I know these are called administrative costs, and we have been debating administrative costs for a long time. Administrative costs also go with other concerns, the question of accountability and auditing and structuring of these facilities, all of which are part of that, too. I think this is an ill-considered amendment, and I would hope that we would reject the Musgrave amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see the majority is acting quickly to provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

I believe it is moments like this that we see the greatness in America, when Americans join together and help one another in a positive, can-do spirit. As we know, much help is needed, home, jobs, school, counseling, the list goes on and on. I am also glad to see the Department of Labor is on the frontlines of providing job assistance and arranging jobs for and estimated 400,000 unemployed.

The bill before us today takes the first step by permitting the Secretary of Labor to provide National Emergency grants outside the disaster area so that the individuals who have been evacuated throughout the country can receive assistance. It permits the Secretary to help individuals who may not have proper documents with them. It permits the Secretary to give grants to States to place individuals in public sector jobs. And it permits the Secretary to provide income support for those individuals if they exhaust their unemployment benefits and are in training programs. Changes made today would permit States to use unspent funds for protective safety equipment.

I laud the majority for recognizing and supporting the role of the public sector jobs and income support play in getting the unemployed into the workforce and into good jobs. However, I do want to note that there are a lot of unanswered questions about this bill and how it will be implemented, and I am hopeful that these questions will be answered in the coming weeks and months as additional legislation is needed and as we work out this legislation.

The first question is, in what types of jobs will individuals be placed? Will displaced individuals be placed in low-wage jobs? Under the Department's existing regulations, unemployed individuals can be employed in jobs earning up to a maximum of $12,000 over 6 months. That means a maximum of $8 an hour.

Will all individuals be placed at the maximum rate, or will some jobs be dead-end, minimum-wage jobs? Will the focus be on short-term cleanup jobs or jobs that can lead to a decent standard of living?

These are important questions to those individuals in the area who are trying to restore their lives and restore the ability to maintain the standard of living for their families.

The second question is, how much money will the Department of Labor seek for providing job assistance to the Katrina victims? The bill expands the Department's national emergency grant authority, but the DOL does not have any grant funds remaining. The fiscal year 2005 budget by the Department of Labor appropriates $157.8 million in national emergency grant funds, and DOL has already promised $191 million to help Katrina victims.

House 2006 appropriations would only award DOL $212 million. Any significant effort to assist Katrina victims will require additional funding. DOL has not yet sent up or in any way indicated how much additional funding it will seek for these efforts, nor has the Department of Labor indicated how much, if any, of the already appropriated $62 billion will be used for training or job creation.

Third, what health, safety, and labor protections will be afforded displaced workers assigned to this work? The administration has issued an executive order taking Davis-Bacon wage protections away from construction workers who will rebuild the gulf coast, suspended many affirmative action rules for reconstruction contracts, and suspended regulations limiting the number of hours truck drivers can drive while transporting fuel.

After September 11, many workers at and near the cleanup grounds of Ground Zero did not have proper health and safety protections. A change made this morning permits States to use unspent emergency funds on protective safety gear. And this is a good beginning, but the bill still does not make this a requirement. This is especially disturbing in light of the fact that the bill creates public employment in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which do not have health and safety protections for their State and local workforces.

Fourth, will the funds be used to oppose extended unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed or an expanded disaster unemployment assistance program? The bill permits States to provide income-related payments to individuals who are unemployed and have exhausted unemployment benefits. It also expands the current authority from just individuals in training to those who are seeking work, but not in training.

In the past, the Bush administration proposed similar initiatives as a way of preventing Congress from providing extended unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed. Will DOL grants be used as a vehicle to weaken the unemployment insurance system? Will this program be a substitute for an expanded disaster unemployment assistance program which would provide unemployment benefits to all workers unemployed as a result of the disaster? If this program is a substitute for extended unemployment insurance or expanded disaster unemployment assistance, and the administration seeks only limited WIA national emergency grant funding, far fewer workers would be helped. These requests must be answered soon.

Finally, what accountability requirements will apply? Many speakers, some

today, talked on the floor about their concern about the rate at which we are spending money and whether or not there is an accountability system for the expenditure of that money. These grants are made by the Secretary of Labor on a discretionary basis. There is no requirement for adequate coordination with the State's needs and activities. There must be standards by which Congress and the public can monitor the use and the effectiveness of these grants.

I urge the majority to answer these unanswered questions. And in closing, again I commend the majority for making this a very important first step to try to get these funds to help these individuals who need employment and need the income from that employment.

We need a comprehensive and thoughtful plan to address this crisis. This bill is that first step, and I look forward to the majority's consideration of a comprehensive, long-term effort to rebuild the affected southern coastal States.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Thompson of California and I rise today to recognize the tremendous contributions made to Napa and Solano Counties in California by Child Start, Inc. (CSI) as that organization celebrates its 40th anniversary. CSI is a single purpose child and family services agency that operates the Head Start program in this two-county region.

Head Start began in Napa County in 1965, and in 1986 its cachment area expanded to include neighboring Solano County. In 2000, CSI was formally incorporated as the legal entity overseeing the Head Start programs.

CSI strives to create partnerships with parents and public, private and corporate entities to promote social, economic and intellectual growth for families and to promote community change that values each child and family in their diversity and supports them with dignity, pride and compassion.

The Head Start programs in the two-county area serve over 1,000 children and their families. Their successful projects include central and home-based child development activities, children's literacy projects, an early childhood education program and Early Head Start.

Early Head Start provides comprehensive services to pregnant women, infants and toddlers. The Therapeutic Child Care Center in Napa serves families in a center-based infant mental health model. Home-based services are provided in collaboration with Healthy Moms and Babies, Black Infant Health and Child Have, all very successful local programs.

In March 2005 the National Head Start Association recognized CSI as one of the top 40 outstanding Head Start programs in the United States and in August 2005 the California Head Start Association presented CSI with a Distinguished Program Award.

Mr. Speaker, CSI is an invaluable part of the social service network in Napa and Solano Counties and it is appropriate that we acknowledge CSI at this time for its many contributions to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, later today the House will have under consideration legislation to create a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina. This would be a good commission if, in fact, it was bipartisan. But it is not bipartisan in the sense that both parties do not have equal access to the information or subpoena power or equal numbers on the committee to do the investigation.

Therefore, what we really need is a 9/11-type commission. The public overwhelmingly supports a 9/11 commission, an independent commission to

look at what the failures were that led to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, an independent commission that can look at the administration, can look at the Congress of the United States, because both bodies, both entities, made decisions.

The Republican leadership in the administration, the Republican leadership in the Congress made decisions about resources, about talent, about personnel, about the deployments and all of the rest of this.

The idea now that they can come and investigate themselves, and they alone can hold the subpoena power, is a horrible mistake on behalf of the victims of Katrina and the American people. It should be rejected, and we should have a 9/11-type commission.

Mr. Speaker, for so many reasons my colleagues on this side of the aisle have articulated, this resolution should be rejected. Because it is neither bipartisan in terms of its authority, nor bipartisan in terms of its power, nor bipartisan in terms of its subpoena power. That will all rest with the majority.

The question that must be answered is how is it that FEMA, which 5 years ago was a world-class agency that was being praised by Republicans and Democrats alike, by local officials, by governors, by mayors, by the international community, who were coming and visiting and taking lessons from FEMA, how in 5 years was that agency so incredibly hollowed out that it could not respond to Hurricane Katrina?

This President and this administration made some horrible decisions about putting political hacks and their cronies in charge of the agency that is in charge of the safety of the people of the United States, whether it is western fires, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes or hurricanes. He appointed political hacks. Is he going to investigate that himself, as he says?

This Congress, powerful Members of the Senate and the House, made decisions about using FEMA as a honey pot to take resources out of and divert them elsewhere. The Committee on Appropriations chairmen of both houses, the leadership, the Republican leadership of both houses, are they going to investigate that themselves?

That is like asking Enron to investigate corporate ethics, baseball to investigate steroids, Dick Cheney to investigate energy policy. It just cannot happen, and the American people know that. That is why, when they are asked on this question, 75 percent of the American people want a 9/11 Commission. They want a 9/11 Commission because they saw that the 9/11 Commission was the only way that the citizens of this country were going to get the answers, not the answers the politicians wanted them to get, and that is what this bipartisan, phony committee is about. They want to give you the answers they want you to get. The citizens want the answers to the questions that they want to ask.

The power in our democracy is with the citizens, and the citizens want a citizens' committee. They want a citizens' committee to answer these questions because the questions are going to have to be asked of a Republican President, a Republican Congress, a Democratic mayor, a Democratic governor, a Republican governor and that simply will not be able to be done.

The President has said he takes responsibility. The question that must be asked is: Did he act responsibly as the President of the United States to protect the people of this country? So far, the question is a resounding, no.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Fair Wages for Hurricane Victims Act. This legislation reverses the unconscionable proclamation by the President last week to suspend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage protections for workers in certain areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that Federal contractors pay their workers at least the prevailing wage--simply the wage that is typical for their kind of job in their community. The prevailing wage requirement ensures that the Federal Government does not drive down workers' wages when it spends taxpayer dollars. The President's suspension of the Act is the wrong policy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of the workers subjected to these wage cuts have lost everything--their homes, their property, their jobs, and even family members. The best way to help them rebuild--not just the Gulf Coast but their lives--is to provide them with a decent job at a fair wage. America owes it to the victims of Hurricane Katrina that they can play a role in cleaning up and rebuilding their devastated communities at a wage that will allow them and their families to get back on their feet.

Suspending the Davis-Bacon Act, however, means that Federal contractors receiving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars can pay their workers whatever wage they can get away with. Lower pay not only means unnecessary further hardship for working families, it means less quality work for taxpayer dollars. It means bigger profits for big contractors at the expense of working families. It means less money being pumped into the local economy, as local workers have less money to spend. As a New York Times editorial, which I attach to this statement for the record, succinctly put it, the President's suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act is ``a shameful proclamation.''

The Fair Wages for Hurricane Victims Act will restore Davis-Bacon prevailing wage protections to the workers who have lost so much. The victims of Katrina are not a source of cheap labor for big contractors looking for big profits. They are American workers whose hard work and commitment to rebuilding must not be undervalued.

I urge the President to rescind his executive order on Davis-Bacon, and in lieu of his taking such action I strongly urge my colleagues to support my bill and I urge its speedy passage.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 10, 2005]

A Shameful Proclamation

On Thursday, President Bush issued a proclamation

suspending the law that requires employers to pay the locally

prevailing wage to construction workers on federally financed

projects. The suspension applies to parts of Louisiana,

Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

By any standard of human decency, condemning many already

poor and now bereft people to subpar wages--thus perpetuating

their poverty--is unacceptable. It is also bad for the

economy. Without the law, called the Davis-Bacon Act,

contractors will be able to pay less, but they'll also get

less, as lower wages invariably mean lower productivity.

The ostensible rationale for suspending the law is to

reduce taxpayers' costs. Does Mr. Bush really believe it is

the will of the American people to deny the prevailing wage

to construction workers in New Orleans, Biloxi and other

hard-hit areas? Besides, the proclamation doesn't require

contractors to pass on the savings they will get by cutting

wages from current low levels. Around New Orleans, the

prevailing hourly wage for a truck driver working on a levee

is $9.04; for an electrician, it's $14.30.

Republicans have long been trying to repeal the prevailing

wage law on the grounds that the regulations are expensive

and bureaucratic; weakening it was even part of the

Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. Now, in a time of

searing need, the party wants to achieve by fiat what it

couldn't achieve through the normal democratic process.

In a letter this week to Mr. Bush urging him to suspend the

law, 35 Republican representatives noted approvingly that

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and the elder

George Bush had all suspended the law during ``emergencies.''

For the record, Mr. Roosevelt suspended it for two weeks in

1934, to make time to clear up contradictions between it and

another law. Mr. Nixon suspended it for six weeks in 1971 as

part of his misbegotten attempt to control spiraling

inflation. And Mr. Bush did so after Hurricane Andrew in

1992, two weeks before he was defeated by Bill Clinton, who

quickly reinstated it after assuming the presidency.

If Mr. Bush does not rescind his proclamation voluntarily,

Congress should pass a law forcing him to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a true hero, Terence Lionel Martin, of Richmond, California, and call attention to the valiant actions that led to his tragic death on August 23, 2005.

Raised in Richmond, Terence was known throughout the community as a born leader, a ``peacemaker'' and a ``problem solver.'' The son of Clara and Lonnie Martin, Terence, known as Terry by his friends, followed his parents' career path to work with the West Contra Costa School District. He had been a valued employee for 22 years and an esteemed member of our community.

It was his natural ``peacemaker'' instinct that he acted upon while driving home from work one day this past August. Mr. Martin spotted a young man beating his pregnant, sixteen-year-old girlfriend. Without regard for his own safety, Mr. Martin pulled over, demanded the young man stop and offered his assistance to the young woman. The young man pulled out a gun and shot and killed Terence, just blocks away from his workplace. The community was shaken by this senseless killing and is poorer for this loss. In Terence's name, I ask my colleagues to join me in recommitting ourselves to the principles of peace and safety on our city streets.

Terence Martin is survived by his parents, his sister Sharon Johnson, his young daughter Brittney Martin, his extended family, and many treasured friends. To all of Terence's family and friends, I offer my sincere condolences and hope that you are comforted by knowing that he died trying to make a difference, that he was truly respected and loved by so many and that he will not be forgotten.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3169, the Pell Grant Hurricane and Disaster Relief Act recognizing the state of emergency that the country is in in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of thousands of people have been left homeless with hundreds, maybe even thousands, dead.

Nearly 100,000 college students have been displaced in some 30 colleges in the gulf coast region that have been severely damaged by the hurricane. In addition, countless more student borrowers have been left without jobs, without any income, and yet must

repay their college loans. I support this legislation because it is the right thing to do, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for introducing this legislation and responding in this manner so quickly.

It authorizes, as the gentleman said, the Secretary of Education to waive the requirement for students to repay their Pell grants if they withdraw from college due to a disaster. The Secretary can use this authority to ensure that the Pell grant recipients affected by Hurricane Katrina are not punished financially as a result of this national emergency.

While this is a necessary and appropriate step, we also must recognize that Congress should be doing more to provide relief for these 100,000 students. I say that not as a point in contention. I say that as part of the dialogue that we have been having between the two sides of the aisle on this committee as we start to assess the situation that these students find themselves in. There is great urgency to this bill for these Pell grant recipients so they can quickly calculate the situation that they are going to be in and the question of how they continue their education in another location.

But I would hope that we would go further quickly, because this only deals with the recipients of Pell grants, and yet we know that we have hundreds of thousands of students that have student loans and student campus-based loans available to them, all of which have been thrown into question.

Today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and I will introduce the Katrina College Relief Act to provide expansive relief for college students, their families and student borrowers affected by the hurricane. In addition to H.R. 3169, the Katrina College Relief Act would allow affected student borrowers to defer their loans for 6 months so they do not have to make payments and are not charged interest on those loans.

Under current law, student borrowers affected by the disaster may apply for a 3-month forbearance on their college loans. However, loans in forbearance continue to accrue interest, which raises the overall cost of the loan. We should not be forcing students who have been ravaged by Hurricane Katrina to pay more for their college loans.

The Katrina College Relief Act would also allow students and families affected by the hurricane to have their student aid award immediately readjusted to better reflect their financial situation. This is important to tens of thousands of these students, because currently many of these students and their families no longer have the necessary resources to pay for college even after their current Federal student aid is taken into account.

Congress should direct the Secretary of Education to immediately readjust how much these families are expected to pay toward college for their current term and for the next academic year.

We must do everything we can to ensure that 100,000 college students affected by Hurricane Katrina are able to continue their education immediately. While the initial efforts of college alumni and donors to help relocate displaced students should be commended, we must do more. It is not enough to support a bill that says that we care or accept the status quo. We should support efforts to help all of the students affected by the hurricane, not just those who receive the Pell grants.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would be able to pass this legislation in a very timely fashion, and I would hope the Senate would give its immediate consideration. Then I would also hope that we would move forward to see what we can do to financially alleviate the burdens that this hurricane has placed on the students and on their families; and that we can in a timely fashion, and I understand that the colleges support the effort, recalculate the financial contributions that these families will be able to make. Given the fact that many of the families and students have been devastated in terms of the loss of their homes, their jobs, their places of business, and students who were working have lost their jobs in these areas, the jobs may or may not be available to them.

These students are now having to quickly decide whether or not they can continue their education at an alternative location, in many instances far away from their home, or where their home used to be, and we have to do everything we can so they will be able to resolve that decision in favor of continuing their education, not losing a semester, not losing a year, and certainly not having the cost of their education increased to them by virtue of the fact that they are the victims of this largest national disaster to befall our country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman again for addressing this problem in this very, very timely fashion. I hope that we can work together for these other students who are not the recipients of Pell grants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

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

Again, I just want to thank the gentleman from Florida for introducing this legislation, for bringing it to the floor, and I hope that we can get the Senate to give its timely attention.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the people affected and harmed by Hurricane Katrina and to pledge my total support for their aid and recovery. There is so much to be done to help the people on the ground, and there is so much to do in Washington to scrutinize and improve Federal policy regarding disaster prevention and response, and we must undertake that review and those efforts.

But I am also deeply frustrated and angry by the Bush administration's failed response to this tragedy and its failure to take responsibility for its own mistakes. According to the New York Times, the administration, led by Karl Rove, has begun a political damage control operation to blame the local officials in Louisiana, the Governor and the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, for the Federal Government's failures.

No one can undo the damage that has been done, and I wish we could. We should be putting our efforts into helping these people and repairing that damage. I wish the administration would have put as much energy into an early and timely response, an effective response to Hurricane Katrina, as the energy they are putting in now to developing a political strategy to undermine the local officials who have suffered so much in their own communities.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2567.

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

I must say the Republicans are on a roll here. Last week they voted in the Committee on Education and the Workforce to raise the cost of education to those students seeking a higher education by raising the cost of the loans that they will seek to finance that education. In this legislation what we see them doing is taking away vital

health benefits that millions of Americans currently have but will lose if this legislation is passed. And later this week they are going to bring an energy to the bill to the floor of the Congress that The Wall Street Journal says will raise the price of gasoline.

What is it that the middle class did to them to make them so angry at them? They raise the cost of their education, they take away their health care benefits, and now they are going to increase the price of gasoline. Do the Members know what the price of gasoline is in California? It is $2.67, $2.77, $2.87 a gallon. Do the Members know how hard people have struggled in these States to have minimum health care benefits so that they can have a mammogram, so they can have diabetes testing, and now they are going to take that away. And now they raise the cost of college education. It just does not make any sense.

The theory is that Congress should be trying to extend meaningful health care coverage to families and to making sure that they have benefits that, in fact, are there when they need them. But that is not what this legislation does. This legislation overrides all of the hard work that was done in 40 or 45 States to make sure that people would have access to well baby care, to make sure that they would have access to maternity benefits, to make sure that they would have access to mammograms, crucial services that families need. This legislation says not necessarily so, they do not get that, on the theory that we have heard argued here that some plan is better than no plan.

But a plan without benefits is not worth much at all. And why would one keep paying premiums even if they are low premiums if they do not get the coverage that their family needs?

The point is for the people running that plan, that can turn out to be very profitable. That is why they do not want the insurance commissioners involved, because at some point the insurance commissioners would do what they have done in the past. They would blow the whistle on people running plans where they take premiums from middle-class workers, but they do not give the benefit that they want. The record is replete with that, replete with that in State after State after State. But that is stripped out of this legislation.

This legislation should be rejected because it just is not the benefits that people need. What we ought to be doing is extending that kind of universal access to plans that provide people the benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office in its most recent report, April of this year, analyzed the legislation two other times and concluded that 8\1/2\ million workers would end up in AHPs under this bill, and over 90 percent of them would come from existing health care plans where in all likelihood their benefits are better. The CBO looked at it once, it looked at it twice, it looked at it three times, and it said that is their conclusion.

This means that millions of Americans, working Americans today with health insurance, under this plan would get stripped of the health care coverage that they now have and that they need, that they need. They are talking about trying to cover a couple hundred thousand people. That is their argument, but they are going to strip the health care benefits away from almost 8 million people that have this kind of coverage. It is unacceptable.

We ought to reject this. Later this week we ought to reject the energy bill, and maybe we can do something to keep people in decent health care plans, lower their energy costs, and, when the higher ed bill comes, reject that, and we can save them some money on a college education.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a motion to recommit along with my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

This motion shows exactly what the issue is about. It is about the minimum standard of health care protection for all Americans, including those who work for small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, all employees, including the employees of small employers, may need access to pregnancy, to well-child care, to cancer treatment, mental health treatment, or even diabetes treatment. We should not encourage insurers to offer bare-bones treatment that does not protect anyone.

Everyone gets sick at some point in their lives, and everyone will need access to a meaningful package of benefits. That is why I am offering this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that people would support this motion to recommit. This is fundamental and basic. It is about whether or not people will have coverage that works for them when they or a member of their family becomes sick.

CBO has looked at this legislation three times, and three times they have determined that almost 8 million people who today have health care coverage that is good coverage, they will be stripped of that coverage and put into these AHPs. In fact, they expect that 90 percent of the new enrollees will be people who come out of better plans who will lose that coverage that people have fought hard for in almost every State in this Union, to have those kinds of health care protections that our three colleagues just spoke about in support of this motion to recommit.

I would urge the House to support the motion to recommit and reject this legislation that is harmful to the health care coverage of millions of Americans and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans must have thought that the world was turned upside down the other day when they turned on their TV in the morning and they saw former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was convicted of lying to the

House of Representatives and fined $300,000, calling Joe Wilson, who President George Bush the first called a great patriot for standing up to Saddam Hussein; here was a convicted liar Newt Gingrich calling Joe Wilson a liar. Something is terribly wrong with that picture.

The question of Karl Rove's continuation in the White House is not a question just of a legal matter. It is of ethical and moral consequences. Does the President continue to rely on the advice and keep employed in the White House a man who sought to destroy the reputations and perhaps put in danger a CIA agent and her contacts and her fellow workers? Does the President continue to employ that person recognizing that that was done for the sole purposes of trying to get retribution because they provided the evidence that what the White House said about weapons of mass destruction was not accurate, it was not truthful, in fact, it turned out to be a lie?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

And I must say that never have I seen a resolution that demonstrates so completely the lack of understanding by the other side of what is necessary to maintain and improve America's competitiveness in the world economy.

They go through all of their whereases, but when they get to the therefores, this resolution does nothing, does nothing. They ignore what those people who are on the cutting edge of trying to improve America's competitiveness, those companies that are on the cutting edge of competing in a world economy, their recommendations, one of the first of which is to fully fund No Child Left Behind. They are $40 billion behind the curve. But that is what the American Electronics Association says should be done first and foremost in education.

Improve math and science teaching, you do nothing to improve math and science teaching.

They go on to say support research and development. The permanent, the permanent R&D tax credit, not the year-to-year funding that you provide, but the permanent, so companies can count on this, can make their economic decisions, can make their financial decisions. Improve the business climate, the stock options, which your side failed to provide for. Stop having the raids on the patent and trademark offices of the United States Government to fund the general fund.

The fact of the matter is that this provides nothing, provides nothing that the industries that are on the cutting edge identify as their most important objectives, their most important priorities, and that is to provide for a dramatic and sustained improved investment in education; a dramatic and sustained improvement in the R&D of this country, nondefense related, basic R&D on a permanent basis, something you have not done in 6 years.

And also they recommend, after doubling the National Science Foundation, a sustained effort at doubling the National Science Foundation. You thought it was a one-time target, and now you are cutting. You thought sequencing the human genome was a one-time event. That is the beginning, not the end of the story. That is the beginning, is the doubling of the National Science Foundation, then maintaining it. What we are talking about and what the companies have constantly recommended to us is a sustained effort and investment in education, in innovation, in health care. Universal access to health care, universal access to affordable health care, something not discussed in this resolution, something not done in the 6 years. More people are without health care now than in the 5 years that this administration has been in office.

This resolution so completely misses the mark that we wonder why we would spend an hour of our time on the floor dealing with this when there are such important items. The problem is that the other side of the aisle already voted for a budget that does not make the R&D tax credit permanent, voted for a budget that cuts higher education, voted for a budget that cuts elementary secondary education. A budget that does not even get close to funding No Child Left Behind, as, again, the companies who are out there competing, not the political rhetoric on the floor, but what they have made after years of discussion.

It does not even get close to an immigration policy that allows our universities to continue to attract the highly skilled students that we were before 9/11. That is not working. Those young people now are going to India. They are going to China. They are going to France. They are going to Germany. The are going to England, and they are not coming to the United States because this administration failed to take that action.

Finally, the protection of our intellectual properties. The protection of our intellectual properties is so terribly important. We continue to see them hijacked on a daily basis from the automotive industry, to the film industry, to the music industry, to the computer industry, and the effort has not yet been made.

That is the report on what has happened over the last 4 or 5 years in this country. That is the report of what this Republican-led Congress has done. And what does the Republican-led Congress do? They give us a resolution with a lot of ``whereases,'' a lot of ``whereases.'' No action, just ``whereases.''