Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, for his leadership on the Committee on Rules, and for being such a stalwart on behalf of worker protections.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question on the rule and allow this body to have an up-or-down vote on an increase in the minimum wage. By refusing to take up this bill over the past 9 years, the leadership of the House must take responsibility for what effectively is a repeal of the national minimum wage.

American workers are long overdue a raise. Real wages are declining for the first time in more than a decade, while prices of health care, gasoline, and other necessities are rising, making it even more urgent that we raise the minimum wage now. The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour since 1997. That is $5.15 an hour since 1997, and that is what this Congress has done to the American worker.

Every American deserves a decent wage for the work they do, and most Americans agree that we should raise the minimum wage. They see it as a matter of fairness for their fellow workers. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress disagrees, and the Republican Congress disrespects workers and violates the will of the people when it refuses to increase the minimum wage. We ought to respect workers by guaranteeing them a fair wage. Work should be the path out of poverty, but millions of Americans work full time every day all year long and still live at poverty because they work at the Federal minimum wage.

The failure of Congress has pushed millions of America's most vulnerable workers into poverty or near poverty. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005 we present today as an alternative to these bills which roll back health and safety protections would in fact raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps, $5.85, 60 days after enactment of the bill; $6.55 one year later; and $7.25 one year after that.

This would reverse the trend we now see where the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 4.3 million since President Bush took office. Nearly 36 million people live in poverty, including 1 million children.

A recent report by the Center of Economic Policy Research shows that most minimum wage workers make a significant contribution to total family income. Half of them are between the ages of 25 and 54. Many workers find themselves trapped in minimum wage jobs; more than one- third of 25-to-50-year-old workers in minimum wage jobs are still earning a minimum wage after 3 years.

Another report from the Children's Defense Fund finds that the annual income of a single parent working full time at minimum wage covers only 40 percent of the estimated cost of raising two children; 7\1/2\ million workers will directly benefit from minimum wage increases. More than 84 percent of those workers are 20 years old or older, 45 percent are married or have children, 60 percent work full time, 59 percent are white, 13 percent are black, and 23 percent are Hispanic, with 57 percent women and 94 percent, of course, not protected by union representation.

In the past 8 years, Members of Congress have had a COLA seven times. In those same 8 years, minimum wage workers have not gotten a single raise. They continue to earn $10,700 a year for working all year, all day long.

Mr. Speaker, we should vote against the previous question so that we will have an opportunity to offer this up-or-down vote on the minimum wage, one that is sorely overdue and one that has been kept from the American public, despite its overwhelming support by the Republican leadership of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him so much for his service to this committee and for his constant support of workers' rights, workers' health and safety, and the protection of their families if they are injured on the job.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act has substantially improved the safety of the American workplace to the benefit of the American worker. Far fewer workers are killed or injured today than was the case before the law was enacted. Despite this progress, too many Americans continue to be sick or injured or killed in workplace accidents that could or should have been avoided.

Every day, 15 workers are killed on the job. Another estimated 50,000 to 60,000 die every year due to occupational illnesses. Hundreds of thousands of workers face serious injuries on the job every year. Liberty Mutual, the largest workers' compensation insurance company, estimates that the direct cost of occupational injuries and illnesses is $1 billion a week.

Two major workplace tragedies, one in Texas this year and the other in Ohio last year, underscore the need to strengthen, not weaken, the health and safety laws of this country.

On March 23 of this year, a huge explosion at the BP Amoco Texas City refinery killed 15 workers and injured 170 others. Although BP initially blamed contract workers for the explosion, it now appears that faulty equipment played a major role in this catastrophic blast. As it turns out, the BP Amoco refinery in Texas City has been a repeat safety violator.

Repeat safety violations also played a key role in the deaths of four iron workers when a massive bridge crane collapsed near Toledo, Ohio, in 2004. The contractor Fru-Con failed to address urgent issues with anchoring the crane properly raised by the crane's European manufacturers. OSHA fined Fru-Con $280,000 and cited the contractor for willful safety violations.

Rather than taking decisive action on behalf of hardworking employees, like increasing the minimum wage, stopping runaway pension terminations or expanding access to health care, these bills do nothing more than jeopardize the health and safety protections of employees on the job.

H.R. 742 significantly diminishes the protections of Occupational Safety and Health by discouraging OSHA from even enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act and punishing taxpayers unless the agency, like Perry Mason, can win every case. That simply is not going to happen, and this bill weakens workers' protections.

H.R. 740 unnecessarily expands the size of the Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission, and H.R. 741 weakens the fundamental responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor. It contorts the law and confuses enforcement responsibilities of both the Secretary and the review commission.

Finally, H.R. 739 creates a legal loophole for employers' obligations to meet the 15-day deadline for contesting an OSHA citation or notice of a failure to abate a hazard. The deadline for an employer's response was set at the 15-day mark to encourage both a timely correction of cited workplace hazards and expediting the handling of cases. The commission already has the authority to review any missed deadlines on a case-by-case basis in a manner that protects both employers and workers.

We have an obligation to help hardworking Americans and their families to have a safe and healthy workplace. These bills do the opposite. Taken together, these bills will significantly weaken OSHA enforcement laws, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 742, 741, 740 and 739.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ms. Diana Jorgenson, a friend, constant supporter and advocate for the Contra Costa community, as she retires. Diana has a long history dedicated to improving the lives of families in my district and we are all beneficiaries of her service.

Diana's long career in mental health and disability services began after she received her Masters of Social Work from the University of California at Berkeley in 1968. From there, she went on to work in the Mental Health Agency in San Francisco and was liaison to Sonoma Development Center. She continued her work at the agency until 1971, when she moved to the Golden Gate Regional Center.

From 1973-1975 while her husband was in graduate school, Diana put her skills to work at the Family Service Agency in Honolulu, Hawaii, later returning to the Golden Gate Regional Center and serving as head of the Concord Office. It was in this role she played a major part in establishing the Regional Center of the East Bay, sharing the dream of integrating persons with developmental disabilities into the community.

By 1978, Diana had taken on the role of Manager and Acting Director of Client Services. From there she moved to the San Francisco School and facilitated services for the Visually Handicapped Program. Diana also provided services for the County Office of Education in both the Special Education Division and George Miller Center West.

The Developmental Disability Council welcomed her as a member in 1982 and for five years Diana worked simultaneously for Richmond Unified School District's as a mental health specialist and in the DD Council.

For the past ten years Diana has worked tirelessly as staff to the Development Disability Council of Contra Costa as well as the Director of the Medically Vulnerable Infant Program for Contra Costa County. Her role has been vital in the Home Visiting Strategy for First Five and the Consultation and Response Team for home visitors.

Diana has served on the Board of the Infant Development Association for twenty-five years and was at one time the State Chair. For four years she also provided training on working with young children exposed to drugs.

Mr. Speaker, Diana has made monumental contributions in the world of social work world and I am pleased to recognize her many accomplishments.

Today, I am proud to commend her for her service to the community, her dedication to those in need and her commitment to the people of Contra Costa County. In recognizing Diana's great contributions, I would also like to wish her a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Chairman, I believe, under the traditions of the House, the Chair is the Speaker of the Who1e House, and the Chair has an obligation to call the vote in the manner in which the vote was arrived at under the voice vote. It is not a question of whether the ayes or the noes will prevail on a recorded vote. The question is what happened on the floor at that particular time. In this instance, the yeas prevailed, and the Chair said the noes prevailed.

A number of years ago, we had very heated debates on this floor from the Republican side, from Mr. Walker, because they felt that they were insulted, especially when cameras came into this Chamber, that the Chair would call votes against their interests when they clearly prevailed on the voice. The Chair was admonished by the Speaker of the House, and we went back to what was the traditionally fair point of view.

So I would ask the Chair in the future, and future Chairs, to recognize that the Chair is calling the event that takes place in front of the Chair on the floor, not what the Chair perceives to be, and may be correctly so, the outcome of the vote later on in the day when the recorded vote is taken.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on the Chair's ruling.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I do not know what it is about the Republicans, but despite overwhelming opposition by the American people across the board against the privatization of Social Security, they bring out yet another plan to privatize Social Security. They bring out another plan to privatize Social Security, to raid the Social Security trust fund, and to undermine the solvency of Social Security.

Three points to their plan. Undermine the solvency of Social Security; raid what is left of the Social Security trust fund; and to privatize Social Security, all of which the American public overwhelmingly disagrees with and has disagreed with whether it is presented by the President or by the Republicans in Congress.

A Republican got up here a few minutes ago and said we want to do this because these people can spend their money better than the government. I would remind that young woman that she is the government. The Republicans control the White House, the House and the Senate. And since they have controlled those three bodies, they have taken $700 billion out of the Social Security trust fund; $700 billion they have raided to date, and now they want to close the deal and take the rest of the money out of the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I join the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) to offer an amendment which will be the first time that will allow Congress, and perhaps the last time, to save the hard-earned retirement benefits of 120,000 workers and retirees at United Airlines.

Unfortunately, United Airlines has become a poster child for what is wrong with the private pension in this country. United filed for bankruptcy over 2 years ago and forced one wage concession after another from its workers, and then it unilaterally decided

that it would stop making the legally required pension contributions to its plans. It dragged on the negotiations with its employees and then, in the middle of the night, got up from those negotiations and dumped those retirement plans into the PBGC, causing those employees to lose somewhere from 30 to 60 percent of their retirement nest egg, of their retirement assets, of their future standard of living. That is what these people lost because United decided it would no longer negotiate to try to find a solution to this problem.

We see Delta Airlines that has frozen its pension plan, has asked to stretch out its payments so that it can protect the assets of its employees. United chose another idea: It would simply dump these liabilities onto the taxpayers of the United States of America. What United was not telling anybody was the truth. They were not telling them about their funding of their pension plans, about their liabilities of their pension plans. They simply decided they would terminate these plans in the PBGC.

So this is our chance. This is our chance to try to save the retirement nest eggs of the flight attendants, of the ramp workers, of the pilots, of all of the people that have given so much to have this airline continue to fly. We held an E-hearing. Over 2,000 people participated and told us what the real impact of these cuts would be on their families, on their children, on spouses with illnesses, on their parents. People who had worked 30, 35, 40 years for this company now find out that they have been terminated with no chance to go back.

This amendment says United Airlines has got to go back to the bargaining table and work out a provision to take care of this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Just 18 days before United dumped its pension plans into the PBGC, the PBGC wrote and said that it would be in the best interest of the participants and the pension plan insurance program would be best served by the continuance of the flight attendants pension plan. United got up in the middle of the night, unilaterally threw this in.

What we are trying to tell United is go to the marketplace, go look for private solutions to this debt, get this debt covered, people do it all the time. Companies do it all the time, countries do it all the time, before they come to the taxpayer.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is right. We may very well be looking at the opening night act of a new savings and loan scandal because we let these people come in, because they unilaterally decided termination was their first choice, going to the taxpayer was their first choice. It should be their last choice.

This amendment simply says go back to the bargaining table and exhaust all of their remedies before they come to the taxpayer.

Vote for the Miller-Schakowsky-Crowley amendment and take care of people who play by the rules.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I would just like to make the point this does not turn over any court decisions. United has yet to file a business plan with the creditors committee. The fact of the matter is this is the only opportunity we are going to have to have them go back and negotiate and try to use private systems to solve this problem before they come to the taxpayers.

So this does not tamper with any court decisions or with the ability of United to go forward.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I believe, under the traditions of the House, the Chair is the Speaker of the Whole House, and the Chair has an obligation to call the vote in the manner in which the vote was arrived at under the voice vote. It is not a question of whether the ayes or the noes will prevail on a recorded vote. The question is what happened on the floor at that particular time. In this instance, the yeas prevailed, and the Chair said the noes prevailed.

A number of years ago, we had very heated debates on this floor from the Republican side, from Mr. Walker, because they felt that they were insulted, especially when cameras came into this Chamber, that the Chair would call votes against their interests when they clearly prevailed on the voice. The Chair was admonished by the Speaker of the House, and we went back to what was the traditionally fair point of view.

So I would ask the Chair in the future, and future Chairs, to recognize that the Chair is calling the event that takes place in front of the Chair on the floor, not what the Chair perceives to be, and may be correctly so, the outcome of the vote later on in the day when the recorded vote is taken.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on the Chair's ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. And first and foremost, we must understand that this amendment that is being offered has no impact on this process. These tribes will not know whether or not they are violating the law or not violating the law. This amendment does nothing for that.

The law as is currently interpreted continues to go forward. What this amendment does is suggest that somehow that those workers on a reservation, working in a casino, who are not enrolled members of that tribe have no rights; have no rights. In California they do, under a compromise that was worked out.

Last year we were working out a compromise for the first time ever. We had labor and the union and tribes sit down together. They left the room because this amendment was offered last year, and nobody has come back because this amendment continues to be dangled as somehow it is the answer to the concerns that they have.

This amendment does not answer a single concern. It just kicks the can down the road, and people are still in limbo if they are seeking to work out an arrangement for those tribal lands and for labor relations on those tribal lands. That has not happened.

We were engaged in those historic conversations when the gentleman offered this amendment last year. And nobody has come back to the table since then.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has exactly made the point. These casinos now hire thousands of workers who are nonresidents of the reservation, who are not enrolled members of the tribe. If the tribe chooses not to grant them any rights, then they have no rights.

We lecture countries all over the world that you cannot do this to workers, that you have to have minimum standards. But right here in the middle of the United States, under this amendment, a tribe can grant to their workers no rights. That is just untenable.

And we understand how strongly held sovereignty is. It is fundamental and basic to these tribes. We also understand how fundamental and basic the right to organize and the freedom of association is to the workers. We have been trying to work that out. This amendment is not helpful in working that out.

But the gentleman is exactly right. You can end up with thousands of American workers having no rights. This is like the situation you had in the northern Mariana Islands, where you had people who could not get a minimum wage, who could not get protection of immigration laws. This is re-creating this on these lands.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for offering this amendment. This is an outrageous practice that the government entered into in secret with Wal-Mart so that those employees who were concerned and want to file a labor grievance or a child labor protection law grievance with Wal-Mart who thought they were talking to the Department of Labor now find that they are talking directly to the Wal-Mart corporation.

So where do they get the protection in filing these complaints? You say, Well, they don't need it because Wal-Mart is a good employer and Wal-Mart is going to take care of them. Wal-Mart is a repeat serial offender and has been found guilty of violating wage-and-hour laws, immigration laws, child labor laws, discrimination laws, pay-equity laws and worker-safety laws. And this is the corporation that you give 15 days' notice to, that you give this kind of special privilege to?

As the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed out, the violations of child labor are ongoing. All Wal-Mart does is get a heads-up and finds out who is complaining against them who is employed by them. How are these employees supposed to register their complaints with this corporation under this agreement? It is an outrageous violation of these workers' rights.

Mr. Speaker, what is it that the Republicans really do not like about Social Security? The Social Security system has provided retirement security for millions of Americans. But every time these Republicans start talking about Social Security, things get worse for those retirees. In the Senate the other day they talked about a new plan for Social Security that drastically cuts the benefits of future retirees and current retirees.

Then the Republicans on the House side here decided they had a new plan yesterday, and what did they decide? After borrowing $700 billion from the Social Security trust fund, yesterday the Republicans in the House decided to end that trust fund, to get rid of that trust fund, to make the solvency of Social Security worse now than it is today. That was their plan.

In the Senate, they cut the benefits and here they end the solvency of Social Security by ending the trust fund. They have taken $700 billion out of the trust fund since George Bush was elected. Bill Clinton left them a $5.6 trillion surplus. They squandered it. It is gone. And the President has suggested he is not planning to pay it back, the first President in the history of the country that said he would not pay back the Social Security trust fund, and now these boys want to end the whole thing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Republican education appropriations bill because it makes huge cuts to our critical education programs.

The Republican education measure will force millions of students, elderly, disabled and veterans to foot much of the bill for billions in unprecedented tax giveaways to corporations and the super rich.

This bill compromises our ability to build a highly skilled workforce and strong economy, just at the time when we need the investment the most.

The Republican Education Bill Cuts No Child Left Behind

The Republican education bill actually cuts overall funding for No Child Left Behind by 806 million dollars this year.

The timing could not be worse. Schools are continuing to work to meet the challenges of NCLB.

In 2006, all students are to be taught by a highly qualified teacher for the first time.

These reforms are critically needed, yet we aren't meeting our commitment to fund them.

Since its passage, President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress have broken their pledge to fully fund NCLB by a total of nearly $40 billion.

Denying critical math and reading services to millions of school

children

The Republican education bill cuts the Administration's Title I funding increase by 83 percent.

As a result, more than 3 million children will be denied critical services to improve their math and reading skills.

Current funding for Title I grants--which help low-income children improve their academic skills--is now $10 billion short of what President Bush and the Congress promised under NCLB.

The Republican education bill makes it even harder to pay for college

Millions of students and families continue to struggle to cover rising college costs and soaring loan debt.

Yet this bill provides no real relief.

Instead, the Republican education bill provides a meager $50 increase to the maximum Pell grant scholarship--which doesn't even cover the rise of inflation.

In addition, it falls nearly $1,000 short of President Bush's $5,100 maximum Pell promise--despite the fact that last year's maximum Pell grant scholarship was worth nearly $800 less, in real terms, than it was 30 years ago.

As a result, students will shoulder huge new debts as college expenses continue to rise.

The Republican education bill also shortchanges teacher training by freezing Teacher Quality State Grants--which have been frozen or cut for 3 years in a row.

As a result, 56,000 fewer teachers would receive the high quality training promised under NCLB.

This education bill marks the first year in nearly a decade that we are actually losing ground on IDEA.

The Republican education bill funds IDEA at less than half of the amount we promised when we enacted the law.

Congress promised to cover 40 percent of the costs of education for children with special needs--yet this year, we'll only cover 18 percent.

We need to move forward to close the gap between the amount Congress promised and the amount that we provided--not backwards, as this bill does.

This bill raids critical services to children, the disabled, veterans and college students to pay for billions in unprecedented tax giveaways to corporations and the super rich.

I strongly oppose the Republican education bill because it will force massive cuts to our key education programs and shortchange millions of American children, students and workers.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican education appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, Senator Durbin spoke for millions of Americans who are horrified and shocked about the treatment, the mistreatment of prisoners who have not been given the right to be notified of where they are, prisoners who were hung by their arms, who reported homicides, the scandals and the cover-ups.

Yes, these are dangerous people that are in these prisons. Many of them may be guilty of very serious crimes. But the fact of the matter is America cannot be a beacon for freedom and justice and liberty when it is doing it by abusing prisoners.

As Senator Durbin said, if you have read these without knowing the country, you would be horrified because these are the practices that are associated with dictatorships and countries without the rule of law and countries of repression. The fact of the matter is, this administration should have an independent investigation of the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. They should do it immediately so that we do not continue to have these incidents become magnets for the recruitment of the insurgents.

If somebody is worried about our troops, maybe the Republicans and the President could apologize for sending them into battle without body armor, for sending them into battle without sufficient numbers to protect them, to send them in battle without properly armed Humvees, because that is what causes parents to grieve for the loss of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

We have been led to believe that the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were isolated incidents; that murder, sexual assault, and physical abuse were the work of a few low- ranking guards who are now being brought to justice.

The new evidence indicates we have been misled.

Recent news accounts have detailed the deaths of two detainees in 2002 at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan during interrogation by military intelligence. One man was hung by his arms in his jail cell for days and beaten so severely in the legs that he died, even though, as the newspapers reported, soldiers involved in the detention believed that the man was innocent.

Despite being ruled homicide by the coroners, the deaths were described by a military spokesman as resulting from natural causes. In the meantime, the officer was promoted and placed in charge of interrogations in Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison.

But this story is not about low-ranking soldiers who independently ran afoul of the system; it is not a matter of a few bad apples. It is one tale in what is emerging to be a pattern of systematic abuse carried out with the knowledge and approval of senior military and civilian officials.

How do we know that the Defense Department and senior military commanders knew what was going on? Because their own documents say so. Their own documents show that the general in charge of our troops in Afghanistan knew that unapproved techniques were being used in those interrogatories. So what did he do? He made

a list of these techniques and sent them to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were looking for ways to alter interrogations in Guantanamo Bay.

In fact, the only time the general in charge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan seems to have issued any written policy is when he recommended that the Geneva Convention techniques be removed for everyone, regardless of whether or not they were tied to al Qaeda or the Taliban.

So let me sum it up. Advanced torture techniques were developed and used in Afghanistan and resulted in the deaths of multiple detainees. The deaths were covered up and the investigations were stalled. The techniques were shared with the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and then spread to Iraq where the same people responsible for the deaths in Afghanistan were put in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison.

From Afghanistan to Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, torture, lies, and coverup. This is not an accident, this is a pattern of abuse.

I want to enter into the Record an editorial from my hometown paper on this.

That is why I join my colleagues in calling for the creation of an independent commission on detainee abuse. The leadership in the House and, more specifically, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services have proven both negligent and incapable of dealing with this issue as they have looked the other way and led the country to continue to believe that this is only a few bad apples, a few malcontents that went about it the wrong way when, in fact, the evidence from our own Defense Department tells us differently and has irreparably damaged the reputation of the United States, and has cast doubt on our foreign policy, and it is a new recruitment tool, as so many have commented, both in the intelligence community and in the Congress, that raises the likelihood that U.S. troops captured by enemy combatants or terrorists will be killed or tortured. It gives the radical opponents of the United States and the insurgents the fuel to feed the insurgency against U.S. soldiers and the new Iraqi Government.

The failure of this administration, which so often demands accountability of others to deal with this issue in an honest and forthright fashion, undermines our ability to implement the strategy for success in Iraq and Afghanistan and tears down our forces.

Suspicious Treatment

First, there were the sickening photos smuggled out of Abu

Ghraib prison a year ago that shocked the world and fueled

anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East. Then,

there were allegations from prisoners recently freed from

Guantanamo Bay that U.S. military guards had beaten false

confessions out of them and desecrated the Quran. Then.

earlier this month, the New York Times reported that military

interrogators at a U.S. prison in Afghanistan had killed

detainees during questioning, then tried to cover up the

cause of death. The interrogators didn't believe one of the

men was involved in terrorism, but had beaten him to death--

allegedly by accident--anyway.

Now, Amnesty International U.S.A. has released a scathing

report calling the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,

``the gulag of our times.'' The report's authors accuse

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto

Gonzales and other top U.S. officials of being ``architects

of torture.''

The human rights watchdog organization called on foreign

governments to use international law to investigate U.S.

officials for their abuse of detainees accused of having

terrorist ties.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press has obtained 1,000 pages of

U.S. government tribunal transcripts under a Freedom of

Information Act lawsuit that offers chilling, firsthand

accounts of alleged prisoner abuse. In one case, a Guantanamo

Bay prisoner told a military panel that American soldiers had

beaten him so badly, he now wets his pants.

Vice President Dick Cheney insists that the prisoners are

``peddling lies'' and that the Guantanamo detainees have been

``well-treated, treated humanely and decently.'' President

Bush blasted the Amnesty report Tuesday, calling it

``absurd.''

Yet, It is quite unsettling that prisoners in Guantanamo,

Afghanistan and Iraq have told strikingly similar stories.

Bush administration officials' unapolog- etic defense of

military conduct at Guantanamo and other U.S. military

prisons--in the face of mounting evidence of serious

problems--is symptomatic of its increasingly familiar refusal

to acknowledge mistakes and take responsibility. This

arrogant stonewalling must not be allowed, especially when so

much is at stake.

The well-publicized mistreatment of Muslim detainees at

U.S.-run military prisons has severely damaged the United

States' reputation abroad. It is the height of hypocrisy to

talk of spreading democracy while our government tramples all

over individual civil liberties. In the United States, a

person is innocent until proven guilty, yet Muslim detainees

are essentially guilty until proven innocent. Nearly 600

people have been held without charges. Up until a year ago,

they could not even challenge their detentions in U.S.

courts. The U.S. government had argued that as foreigners on

foreign soil, they had no legal recourse, which is absurd as

well as un-American.

It is high time that President Bush and Congress appoint a

bipartisan panel to investigate the allegations of abuse of

terrorist suspects. People on both sides of the ideological

spectrum have called for such a commission, ranging from

conservative former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., to the Center

for American Progress on the left.

If, as Rumsfeld claims, released detainees are a bunch of

liars, the administration has nothing to hide.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mrs. Tauscher and I, rise to pay tribute to Chief Ron Ace who is retiring from the City of Concord Police Department after 30 years of serving the residents of Concord and the entire region.

Ron Ace began his career in public service even before his work with the Concord Police Department when he served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1967 to 1971. As a Marine, he served a tour of duty in Viet Nam in 1969, attached to a Huey Gunship helicopter squadron as a door-gunner.

Chief Ace began his distinguished career with the City of Concord Police Department in 1975, having previously served as a Deputy Sheriff with Alameda County. In 1985, Ron Ace was promoted to Police Sergeant. Ten years later he became a Lieutenant, and in 1998, he was promoted to Captain.

In 1999, Ron Ace was promoted to Police Chief for the City of Concord. As Chief, he has been instrumental in helping the Police Department become recognized throughout the country as a model law enforcement agency.

During his tenure, Chief Ace helped to develop and advance the Department's generalist model of community policing. This approach has worked to support collaboration among police officers, residents, and civic leaders to ensure the safety of residents and the individuals who work to protect the City.

Chief Ace's efforts have resulted in an integrated philosophy of community policing that is visible throughout the entire community.

Chief Ace maintains membership in several peace officer associations and he is currently serving his second term as a Commissioner for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.

Chief Ace's work and commitment to Concord has been recognized by the Association of California School Administrators and the Northern California Juvenile Officer's Association. He also received the Warrington Stokes Award for Child Abuse Prevention.

Ron Ace has lived in Concord with his wife Carol and daughter Susan for more than 25 years. As a resident, he has gone far and beyond his professional responsibilities and served as an outstanding member of the Concord community. He has been active in school activities, youth sports and community organizations.

For 30 years, Chief Ron Ace has served the Concord Police Department and surrounding community. His hard work has improved the safety of the City, the community as a whole, and ensured an enduring legacy of public service in Concord. Today, we are proud to commend him for his service to the community, his dedication to duty and his commitment to the people of Concord.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with the majority of California's House delegation, I am introducing legislation to name a trail in a northern California redwood grove after former State Senate President John Burton.

With this legislation, we are honoring our former colleague in the House for his pivotal role in the landmark 1999 state-Federal agreement to protect the ancient redwoods of the Headwaters Forest Reserve.

In addition to being a great ally for those who have needed a helping hand, John Burton has been a powerful advocate for environmental values throughout his time in public service. His work to protect this important redwood forest was just one of the many highlights of his inspiring career.

Among other accomplishments, he was instrumental in forcing a debate over the appropriate use of the Headwaters. That debate eventually led to a 1999 negotiated agreement through which the Federal and State governments were able to protect a total of 7,400 acres.

That agreement was not only a victory for these threatened old-growth trees and all the fish and wildlife living in this ecosystem. It was a victory for all of us: generations in the future, Americans will be able to visit this amazing natural landscape.

Under this bill, all future maps of the Reserve will include the ``John L. Burton Trail'' designation, ensuring that visitors to the ancient redwoods are aware of Burton's leadership to help save the grove from destruction.

I look forward to the speedy passage of this non-controversial legislation to properly recognize John Burton for just one of his many contributions to the state of California and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce an important piece of new legislation, the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act, that is the next step our country needs to take to ensure that every teacher in every classroom, teaching every child, is highly qualified.

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

Let me also thank the organizations, and their members, who go to work every day with the commitment to help our schools and our students succeed. They are a great constituency for this legislation, and I welcome their support and their input in its development. Thank you to the Alliance for Excellent Education, the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Children's Defense Fund, the Council of Great City Schools, the Education Trust, the National Council on Teacher Quality, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, New Leaders for New Schools, the New Teacher Project, Operation Public Education, Teach for America, the Teacher Advancement Program Foundation, and The Teaching Commission.

We know the dismal effects on students when they lack the highest quality teachers. And we know that there are many reasons why people decline to enter the teaching profession, or decide not to remain there. Reasons such as low pay, lack of professionl development, unreasonable burdens, or little opportunity for advancement. Congress cannot afford to ignore this immediate and mounting crisis in the teaching profession that will grow exponentially as an unprecedented number of teachers retire in the next five years.

My 45 colleagues who are original cosponsors and I are prepared to respond to this challenge facing American education with an innovative approach that matches the seriousness of the challenge with the ``The TEACH Act of 2005''--the next step our country needs to take to ensure that every teacher, in every classroom, teaching every child, is highly qualified.

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

The TEACH Act will accomplish four critical goals: Increase the supply of outstanding teachers; Ensure all children have teachers with expertise in the subjects they teach; Identify and reward our best teachers; Keep the best teachers and principals in our schools.

This bill is a major legislative initiative that will attract our most talented teachers to the classrooms of our nation's toughest public schools--and encourage them to stay there.

When our nation's school doors close for the summer later this month, more than 200,000 teachers, nearly 6 percent of the teaching workforce, will leave the profession. Over the next decade, we will need to hire more than two million new teachers to serve in our public schools. Yet today, we have no national plan for attracting outstanding students into the teaching profession, or keeping them there.

A large proportion of those who do enter teaching remain a short time, discouraged by low salaries, inadequate opportunities for professional development, and low public esteem. By failing to address this problem, Congress is shortchanging our children and costing taxpayers more than $2.6 billion annually replacing teachers who have dropped out of the profession. We need to act immediately to assure that we have an adequate supply of exemplary teachers for the next generation of students.

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

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

The TEACH Act also helps new teachers transition into the classroom and build their skills through state-of-the-art induction programs that include proven strategies such as structured mentoring, common lesson- planning, and intensive professional development.

My bill also addresses the problem that poor children are far less likely to be taught by expert teachers. Nearly three-quarters of math classes in high-poverty middle schools are taught by teachers who lack a major--or even a minor--in math. The TEACH Act provides higher pay for exemplary highly qualified teachers and principals who transfer into the hardest-to-staff schools where they can help the children who need them most. Making sure these children are taught by a well-trained teacher is crucial because over a five year period, it can close the performance gap between low-income and high-income students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous career of Mr. John Neary, an educator and friend who will be formally honored on June 10, 2005, at his retirement celebration in Concord, California.

Mr. Neary has over thirty-three years experience as an educator for California's youth, including twenty-six years with the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. His remarkable commitment to the educational system began in 1972 as a classroom teacher and athletic coach. Since then he has served as teacher, coach, athletic director, vice principal and principal. In all of these roles he delivered high-quality education and maintained a strong commitment to his students. Mr. Neary works with incredible heart and has consistently placed ``the student first'' in all his endeavors. He routinely showcased his commitment by attending every school event from drama to water polo.

For the past seven years Mr. Neary has served as principal of Clayton Valley High School. The students and faculty have been fortunate to have him at the helm and will surely miss his presence. Mr. Neary has invested all that he has to give and is well loved and appreciated as a result of his dedication.

I congratulate Mr. Neary for his hard work and dedication to the students, faculty and community. I am pleased to join with Mt. Diablo Unified School District and Clayton Valley High School in recognizing his outstanding commitment toward education and send my best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, last night the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and I myself read into the Record statements that we have received from the employees and the retirees of United Airlines who were worried to death about the fact that their pensions are going to be severely cut as a result of United's decision to terminate their employee pension plans as part of its bankruptcy proceedings.

Tonight, we would like to again read many of the e-mails that we have received from these retirees and these employees outlining what the real human toll is of the actions of United Airlines and the inactions of this Congress to deal with this growing crisis in the American pension plans for workers.

As the Members will later hear, Mr. Speaker, some of these 2,000 people who responded to the first ever congressional E-hearing by my Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, through their ingenuity, we were able to extend an opportunity to these individuals to

be heard because there was no forum in this Congress for them to be heard. There was no forum that said that the average people who are being impacted by this policy will be heard. So we came up with the idea of having a congressional on-line E-hearing where the retirees and the employees of United Airlines could express directly to the Congress the concerns that these changes have made to them. I think these average Americans are beginning to notice and beginning to articulate the fact that this Congress has not dealt with these concerns, with the concerns that affect their daily lives.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an e-mail from Fred P. Euler from Santa Barbara, California. He writes to us in the e-mail: ``As a retired United Airlines pilot, I need your help to stop United Airlines from dumping our pension plan in the lap of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and possibly the taxpayers. The Retiree Pilot Pension Plan is adequately funded and should be paid by United Airlines, not the PBGC. The amount that the PBGC will pay out will have a devastating impact on thousands of retired pilots who devoted their careers to United Airlines and are now shocked, saddened and angry about the callous disregard displayed by United Airlines and the PBGC if it succeeds in seizing our pension plan. I am 69 years old with 32 years of service. It is estimated that my monthly loss will be about $2,000, which is over 30 percent of my pension.''

Jeanne Miller of Murrieta, California, writes: ``I am writing this in the hope it might save the termination of United Airlines pension plans . . . I worked as a dedicated flight attendant for over 33 years. I am a single mom with one child who has graduated from college, we are both still paying tuition, and a son who is in his first year of college. I retired reluctantly in June, 2003. United offered a deal to those flight attendants willing to retire early that was hard to resist: good medical benefits and a pension that was enough to support me and my son . . . Now they are threatening to take all of that away.'' Under the previous plan, she ``would have been able to be the caregiver for both of my parents, who are disabled and unable to live by themselves without care.

``If United turns over our pension to the PBGC, it will create a tremendous hardship.''

John Givens of Redondo Beach, California: ``I was a 36\1/2\-year employee who was forced into retirement when United closed my reservation office in Long Beach, California. My retirement was good enough that my wife, who is disabled, and I thought we could make it. We have raised seven children, two who are still in college. They work part time but will have to drop out because I will no longer be able to help them. I will lose approximately 55 percent of my pension due to the rules.''

Mr. Speaker, these are e-mails from United retirees and United employees who now see their economic future deeply clouded, deeply threatened by these actions by United. They see the fact that they worked hard for 30 years, for 33 years, for 36 years. There is no way now that they have retired where they can go and accumulate the necessary resources to have the retirement that they carefully planned for by their hard work on behalf of United Airlines. These are the people who are crying out for help before their retirement nest eggs are destroyed by the United Airlines.

The gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and I have introduced legislation to put a 6-month moratorium to see whether or not the pilots, the machinists, and the others can negotiate with United to try to protect these individuals' retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) joined me last night, and I yield to her tonight for her comments and for the letters that she has received through this e-mail hearing.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentlewoman has raised a number of people who wrote her from Illinois, the retirees and employees of United raised this point, that it was actually the President that said what is good for the crew is good for the captain.

What we see here clearly is what so many of these employees recognize, and what we have watched now is company after company that terminates these employee pension plans, that go into bankruptcy, at the end of the day the company goes on, less these liabilities, and the very people who administered the company into the bankruptcy, their pensions in many cases were guaranteed, they were moved outside of bankruptcy, they were put into trusts, or as the company is reorganized, they then go back to issuing stock options for themselves, issuing bonuses, as if nothing happened.

Yet what we see here is tens of thousands of United employees who are left in the dust bin. Many of these people cannot go back to work. They cannot go back and accumulate a retirement nest egg again, and I think it is something we see run through all of our letters. I want to thank the gentlewoman for raising that point.

Reclaiming my time, time and again these employees have given back on retirement, have given back on wages, have given back on hours to keep this airline flying; and yet at the end of the day, the executives walk out to the new company and the employees are stuck without their retirement, without their health care benefit.

I now recognize my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who was part of our e-hearing, the first-ever Congress e- hearing to provide this kind of access to ordinary Americans who are suffering the disaster, the personal disaster of the larger disaster of the United Airlines decision to go into bankruptcy and get rid of these pensions and health care plans.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Again, he has raised an important point. These employees of United Airlines, these employees for the last several years have worked with this company to give back part of their retirement, give back part of their health care, give back part of their wages, give back part of their hours, all the rest of it. They were struggling to stay in the middle class. These are good, middle- class jobs. They were struggling to stay in those jobs, to stay in the middle class with the assurance of that retirement.

Very often people think, well, the retirement is something you get at the end of your employment. The fact of the matter is, every hour of pay you have negotiated, you give something for retirement. You earn it on an hourly basis. Your employer decides how much they want to pay you and they figure in your benefits and all of the rest of it. It is a package.

Now, of course, here at the end, people after 30, 40 years, finding out that they have lost a huge percentage of their retirement and have no ability to replace it.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, over the last several years, the gentleman is quite correct, we have seen CEOs and other corporate officers who are retiring, and they have worked for the company for 3 years and they are given a retirement package as if they worked at that company for 23 years, if they worked at that company for 15 years. So they just make up the retirement package for the CEOs and they go on their way.

The CEOs that ran United into the ground here, that have destroyed this company, they get severance packages, they get golden parachutes, they go on their way. The employees who are left struggling trying to rebuild this airline to try to keep it competitive, they are the ones that take the slicing and the dicing of the loss of the pensions, the loss of the health care, the loss of the retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for participating in this.

I would like, before I recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), to read one last letter that we have here tonight, and I will read others in the coming days, from Ann Clegg of San Francisco, California:

``I retired as a flight attendant from United Airlines in 2002 after 37 years of

service. I was promised a pension and quit at age 58 after carefully considering the money I would live on, and my pension was a big part of that. Now, with the threat of the reduction of my pension, obviously, my standard of living will be greatly reduced. I ask you, if there is anything good, right, and honest in this country, why is this happening? I worked and believed a promise that should be upheld by my company and the government. I would not have retired early had I known that United Airlines would be allowed to renege on its promise. This is wrong and shameful. Please help.''

The point is, again, these people upheld their end of the promise. The promise was between the employees and the company, the handshake was between the employees and the company, and that is why these people are so devastated when the company made the decision to go into bankruptcy and to discharge these pension obligations and their health care.

I know the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and I knew the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) have read these letters.

So very often, these very same families that are losing their retirement income have serious health problems within their families, either their children, their spouse, their parents, who they are taking care of. Their own retirement benefits and their health care benefits for their family were very important to them, and now they are saddled with increasing health care costs, with a diminished health care plan, if any at all, and, obviously, a greatly diminished pension. So these people are really suffering a double hit by the actions of United.

We have written to our committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for several years now, asking them to have hearings, asking them to look at this problem, asking them to look into the PBGC. Only today, as the Senate held its hearings, did people start talking about the loopholes.

We have known about those loopholes on the committee for years, to bring to everyone's attention how the pension plan was gamed, how the real figures are not disclosed to the employees, not disclosed to the investors, not disclosed to the public, the conditions of these pension plans. Only when it is too late are those disclosures made as the company enters into bankruptcy and there is very little the employees can do about that.

It is absolutely a scandal what has taken place here and the inaction of this Congress. Only now do we start to see them take action. But no inquiry before, no discussion of the problem, and even as we start to take this action we will not have the full information before us about the extent of this problem, and not just United Airlines but in major corporations all across the country.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I just recently wrote to the chairman of the committee and, after reviewing that information that was given to us by the PBGC, I asked him, I think it is very important that the committee go ahead and have a vote and make this information public. Because, obviously, what we have seen is there is a huge disparity between what the public has been told of the pension problems of these companies and what the PBGC has been told in secret, out of the public eye, not for disclosure, what the real situation of these pension plans are.

So that we have millions of Americans who believe the conditions of their company's pension plan is one thing, and the company knows it is another. In many cases, as we wrote to the chairman and said, the difference is hundreds of millions of dollars and, in some cases, billions of dollars in terms of those liabilities. I think that those employees, when they see how this can happen with the United case, those employees are entitled to that information.

Interestingly enough, the President of the United States asked 4 years ago that this information be made public, but the companies are lobbying hard so it will not be made public, and, so far, the committee has not responded to our letter. But certainly before we begin writing a new pension bill we ought to have this information laid out on the public record so people can comment on it to see whether or not the bill that we are considering, the ideas that the President has will make this worse or make it better. I thank the gentleman for raising that point.

I would like at this time to recognize another member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a member of long standing of the Committee on Education and the Workforce who, in every session of this Congress, has taken on the responsibilities of this committee to look at these issues that confront working families in the workplace, in their health care, in their daily lives in the workplaces of America, and that is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for the purposes of this discussion and to read the communications from individuals from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight.