Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to hear from America about the severe loss of private pensions. Tonight, I would like to share with my colleagues some of the testimony my Democratic colleagues and I have received through the first-ever congressional E-hearing.

It is clear from United Airlines' attempt to dump $6.6 billion onto the Federal pension agency known as the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and to cut over $3 billion in pension benefits from its employees that the Federal pension laws are seriously broken.

Like United, other large companies have also abused Federal law to terminate their employees' pension plans and to deeply reduce the retirement security that hard-working Americans had every right to expect to have. These runaway pension terminations threaten employees, investors and taxpayers.

In the case of United, if it is allowed to dump all of its pension obligations onto the Federal Government, then its competitor airlines will seek to do the same. This is a real crisis, and it demands action. This crisis is about hard-working employees who in many cases will lose half or even more than half of the nest egg promised by their employers.

United failed to put away enough for the hard times, but it is the employees and taxpayers that are suffering the consequences. Congress needs to hear from United employees and from other Americans suffering from the collapse of private pension plans.

But, as with so many other important pocketbook issues, this Congress, under the Republican leadership, does not listen. It does not afford average Americans an opportunity to be heard.

Democrats are listening, and we want to hear from America.

To do that, my Democratic colleagues and I on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and also with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), held the first-ever congressional E-hearing. We set up an online forum to hear from experts on the United pension crisis and from the employees and the retirees themselves.

The response has been overwhelming. We have received some 2,000 heartbreaking e-mails. These statements demonstrate what a real crisis looks like. I want to share with my colleagues and the public some of these e-mails. On my Web site you can read all of the testimony at house.gov/georgemiller.

Here is the testimony of Mynette Wijnveldt, of Mililani, Hawaii, who writes: ``My husband and I were both employed as United Airlines flight attendants for 27 years. In 2001, he was diagnosed with a rare illness and became totally disabled. At age 50, he had to medically retire because he was no longer able to work. While I am still employed by United, I am seriously concerned about our future.

``If United is allowed to dump this pension our family will be hit very hard. My husband's medical retirement was severely reduced due to the early retirement factors, and I have lost 35 to 40 percent because of cuts in the plans resulting from the negotiated changes to our contract.

``If United is able to dump our pensions on the PBGC and walk away from its promise, we stand to lose our home and I will be working until I can no longer do so.''

Here is another testimony, from Proctor Lucius in Carlsbad, California: ``I sit in jeopardy of losing over 70 percent of my monthly income and with financial obligations not only for my immediate family but assisted living care for my elderly mother. Our future is very ominously bleak. As you are well aware, the costs for everything, especially medical care, are increasing astronomically and Social Security is pitifully inadequate to compensate. Now Social Security is in jeopardy of being thrown into the giant casino of Wall Street. Where does it end?''

Mr. Speaker, today, with my colleague from Washington, Mr. Baird, I am introducing the Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2005. In the 5 years since its enactment, the Act has helped protect threatened primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. This reauthorization is needed to continue progress in this important field.

The funds provided by the Great Ape Conservation Act have gone to such diverse projects as: protecting chimpanzee habitat from logging operations; establishing anti-poaching enforcement units; starting conservation education programs; coordinating gibbon population surveys and threat assessments; and implementing ape health monitoring programs.

And every federal dollar spent under the Great Ape Conservation Act has been matched many times over by local and international funds. The $2,940,000 Congress appropriated between FY 2001 and FY 2003 was leveraged by $4,275,032 in non-Federal matching funds or in-kind contributions.

To take just one example, in 2003 the Fish and Wildlife Service invested $45,000 in the Mengame Reserve for Chimpanzees and Gorillas; this investment leveraged more than $100,000 from other sources, funding which has helped the Jane Goodall Institute study a promising area for great ape conservation on the border of Cameroon and Gabon.

But despite the ongoing successes of the Act, the threats to these noble primates continue.

Press accounts and reports from the field indicate that these species continue to be placed in jeopardy by habitat loss, poaching, logging, and the bush meat trade. The Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2005 specifically authorizes funding to address these root causes of threats to great apes.

In addition, natural disasters and their aftermath can have a devastating impact on wildlife. Efforts to rebuild after the 2004 tsunami have led to increased logging, putting further pressure on already-threatened orangutans and other forest species. That is why the legislation we are introducing today authorizes funding to address critical great ape conservation needs in Aceh Province, Indonesia.

The Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Act extends the program's authorization through the year 2010. The contributions of the Great Ape Conservation Act have been very important, but there is much work yet to be done.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, together with 100 of my colleagues, we are introducing legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years. Senator Edward Kennedy is introducing identical legislation in the Senate. Two reports that are also being released today, one by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and one by the Children's Defense Fund, make obvious the importance of raising the minimum wage for workers, children, and families.

American workers are long overdue for a raise. Real wages are actually declining for the first time in more than a decade, while

prices for healthcare, 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 per hour since 1997--$5.15 per hour. These days, a gallon of milk can cost half that much in some parts of the country. Imagine working for the better part of an hour and only being able to afford a gallon of milk--how do you ever make ends meet? The answer is: you don't.

One of the reports issued today, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, shows that most minimum wage workers make significant contributions to their total family income. Half of them are between the ages of 25 and 54. The report also shows the importance of increasing the minimum wage to prevent families from falling further into poverty. Too often minimum wage jobs are not transitional. As the report makes clear, many workers find themselves trapped in minimum wage jobs; more than one-third of 25- to 54-year-old workers in minimum wage jobs are still earning the minimum wage after three years. The report is entitled ``Not Up, Not Out: Few Prime-Age Workers Move Out of Minimum Wage lobs'' and is available at http://www.cepr.net/ publications/labor_markets_2005_05.pdf.

The other report, from the Children's Defense Fund, shows that importance of increasing the minimum wage for more than 10 million children. The report, entitled ``Increasing the Minimum Wage: An Issue of Children's Well-Being,'' states: ``The annual income of an individual working full-time, with two children, at the $5.15 an hour minimum wage leaves them $4,500 below the poverty level. An increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 would benefit many of the 9.7 million children who live in households where at least one worker earns between the current minimum wage and $7.25 per hour. Furthermore, 1.2 million of these children live in households where two or more workers earned less than the proposed minimum wage.'' At $5.15 per hour, a worker who works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year earns $10,712. In 2003, the poverty level for a family of two (a parent and a child) was $12,682. The Children's Defense Fund report is available at http:// www.childrensdefense.org/familyincome/obs/minimumwagereport2005.pdf.

Every American deserves a decent wage for the work they do, and most Americans agree that we should raise the minimum wage. 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 fulltime and still live in poverty.

The Miller-Kennedy legislation also extends the minimum wage to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean. For years, the Congress has allowed basic labor standards to be denied to workers in the Marianas. We cannot continue to allow workers to be trapped in virtual involuntary servitude under sweatshop working conditions, indebted by usurious recruitment fees, paid inadequate wages and too often cheated out of what little they are owed. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 2298, to protect workers from recruitment abuses and to hold recruiters and employers responsible for the working conditions they have promised. This bill goes a step further to ensure a decent minimum wage.

Among the 7.5 million workers earning between $5.15 and $8 an hour-- the people this bill is intended to help--84 percent of them are adults over the age of 20. Nearly half of them are married or have children. Over half of them are women; 59 percent are white; 13 percent are black; and 23 percent are Hispanic. Sixty percent of them work full- time.

The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has declined 20 percent since 1997. The legislation we are introducing today, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, increases the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 within 60 days; then to $6.55 1 year after the first increase; and finally to $7.25 1 year after that.

I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the circumstances described in the following report from Monday's National Public Radio program clearly indicates the urgent need to overhaul the child welfare system in order to improve outcomes for children aging out of foster care.

A recent study by Harvard Medical School and Casey Family Programs measured some of the aftereffects of foster care. That study concluded that fewer than 27 percent of foster youth who graduated high school went on to college as compared to 52 percent of the general population. And for those who do begin college, the dropout rate for foster youth is extremely high. More than eighty percent of all foster care youth who enroll in college will drop out before graduation.

In addition to lack of funds and the inability to access the limited federal and state funds that are available, foster youth suffer other unique disadvantages. While other students are concerned with academic pressures, foster care youth are worried about housing and being alone during holidays and breaks when dormitories are closed.

Next week I will propose legislation to address the shortcomings of the child welfare system by improving outcomes for children leaving foster care by awarding grants to colleges and universities to recruit foster care students; provide academic counseling; provide financial aid counseling; and provide other appropriate supportive educational services.

The article follows:

[From the Minnesota Public Radio, May 9, 2005]

Foster-Care System Often Ends Up Hurting The Kids It Was Designed To

Protect

(By Hilary Wicai)

May is National Foster Care Month. The foster-care system

was created to care for children who are abused or neglected

or whose parents can't care for them, but a recent study of

former foster-care kids finds many end up hurt by the

system that was supposed to protect them, and once they

turn 18, they're on their own, often without the skills

they need to fend for themselves. The damage takes both an

emotional and an economic toll as MARKETPLACE's Hilary

Wicai reports from the work and family desk.

Jessica Lindsay was 14 when a couple of police officers

pulled her out of class.

Ms. JESSICA LINDSAY (Former Foster Child): My mother is--

she's a schizophrenic, and she's been that way my whole life.

WICAI: Jessica and her mother had a bad fight the day

before and the police told Jessica she couldn't go home again

ever.

Ms. LINDSAY: `Well, why can't I go home?' `Well, your

mother threatened to kill you, so we have to remove you from

the home.'

WICAI: That began Jessica's three-year journey through

three social workers, two foster families, four group homes

and four high schools. Moving around a lot is part of the

system. If kids are in care for four years or more, 37 moves

are the median.

Ms. MARIAN HERRICK (Former Foster Child): I mean, I have

another friend who's lived in over 45 homes when she was in

foster care. Yeah.

WICAI: Marian Herrick spent seven years in foster care

after her dad went to prison. Herrick says many don't know

what foster children go through because they learn not to

tell their stories. Her best friend in middle school taught

her that.

Ms. HERRICK: Her mom told her that she needed to find a

normal friend because I was in foster care. So it's like

there's definitely that stigma. Just answering the most basic

questions are difficult, like, `Where are you from?' `Well,

I'm not really from any one city.'

WICAI: Foster children aren't from any one city in large

part because the system is out of balance. There are only

about a hundred thousand foster families for 600,000 children

in care. That's why many, especially teen-agers like Jessica

Lindsay, end up in group homes where they're looked after by

low-wage shift workers. Care in a group home can cost

taxpayers nearly 10 times more than family foster care. At

one group home, Jessica had trouble sleeping. The doctor put

her on sleeping pills which made her sleep through class but

she took them.

Ms. LINDSAY: If you don't comply with what they tell you to

do, you can't get any of your rewards that you're supposed to

get, like going outside. They reward you for good behavior,

but you're not a criminal. You're here because something

happened to you, not because you did something.

WICAI: A recent study showed post-traumatic stress disorder

rates among foster-care alumni are almost twice as high as in

US veterans of war. The study by Harvard Medical School and

Casey Family Programs measured some of the aftereffects of

foster care. Ruth Massinga is president of Casey. She says

the picture is grim for young adults now out of care.

Ms. RUTH MASSINGA (President, Casey Family Programs): Only

80 percent of the study participants were employed as

compared to 95 percent of the general population. One-third

of the participants had incomes at or below the poverty

level. One-third had no health insurance, and nearly a

quarter had experienced homelessness after leaving foster

care.

Mr. GARY STANGLER (Co-author, ``On Their Own''): At 18, we

say, `Happy birthday. You're on your own.'

WICAI: Gary Stangler used to run Missouri's foster-care

system. He recently co-authored a book called ``On Their

Own.''

Mr. STANGLER: There are literally places in the country

where young people are emancipated from foster care and they

are delivered to a homeless shelter.

WICAI: He says there's nothing magic about turning 18 if

you're undereducated, lack job skills and have nowhere to go.

He says as they're shuffled around, many foster kids don't

learn anything about paying bills, finding an apartment,

filing taxes, even tying a tie for a job interview. Now 19,

Jessica Lindsay has her own apartment in Michigan but only

after a couple of false starts with college and financial

aid.

Ms. LINDSAY: This is what I needed and this is what I got,

and now look at what I have to deal with.

WICAI: So she works full time, seeing that other foster

youth get a better start.

Unidentified Woman: Clap once if you can hear me!

WICAI: She was recently accepted to the Child Welfare

League of America's National Foster Youth Advisory Council.

The group advocates and lobbies for better foster-care

policies.

Unidentified Woman: . . . worked so hard we've already put

in a seven-hour day with . . .

WICAI: This month, they met in Washington, DC, to discuss

how to promote the idea of more permanent placements for

foster children. With groups like this behind her, Jessica is

more hopeful that her third attempt at college will be more

successful. Jessica's goal is to graduate. That would help

increase the number of foster-care alumni with bachelor's

degrees. Right now, it's only 2 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2005. At a time when the President and many Members of this House are discussing legislation to greatly expand the number of foreign workers who come to the United States legally for work, we must ensure that they are not indentured servants who owe unconscionable fees to recruiters.

One hundred and forty years ago, the American Civil War ended. Slavery and involuntary servitude were prohibited throughout our nation by the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. And yet, as has been well documented in the press, thousands of men (and especially women) endure abuse as indentured servants because, as a condition of securing a job, they must pay exorbitant fees to labor recruiters--fees it can take years to payoff. The problem of recruiter-related indentured servitude has been well publicized in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, but it is a problem throughout this country, and it will grow as more guest workers are permitted. Foreign labor contractors lure workers to the United States by promising them a better life with decent wages and good jobs in exchange for thousands of dollars in fees. Instead, workers arrive in the U.S. only to find that they were cruelly deceived. They earn unlivable wages for menial jobs to which they never agreed, with no insurance or health care, and deeply in debt to the recruiter for bringing them to their new home.

Sadly, those are the least of their worries. Workers endure sweatshop conditions and back-breaking work for inhumanly long hours. They are forced to work through illness and injury with only one day of rest per week. Employers automatically deduct the majority of their weekly pay for room and board, often for living situations not fit for animals and starvation rations, leaving workers with a few dollars if not further in debt. And that is when their wages are not withheld, a frequent occurrence. Most distressing of all, many workers suffer physical violence at the hands of their employers and are threatened if they should try to leave. Unable to pay off debt manufactured by the recruiters and their employer and fearing for their lives, workers are trapped.

This is not an exaggeration: it is the disturbing reality for thousands of workers in this country. This is not employment opportunity: it is indentured servitude, and it should not be occurring in the United States in 2005. Just this week investigations into La Mode Inc., a Saipan company that unlawfully suspended operations while owing workers back wages of more than $395,000, revealed that Chinese employees were required to pay recruitment fees of $4,500 to $8,000 for the privilege of working at a job that pays barely $3 an hour, and then being unlawfully terminated before the expiration of their contract, cheated out of their pay, and abandoned in a strange land.

This deplorable practice not only undermines living standards, it ruins lives. It is a violation of basic human rights that leaves workers as indentured servants, forcing them to endure a form of modern day slavery. The Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2005 will end this cruel practice by providing for tough legal accountability for foreign labor contractors and employers.

The ``Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2005'' holds recruiters and employers responsible for the promises they make to prospective employees, and discourages employers from using disreputable recruiters. The bill requires employers and foreign labor contractors to inform workers of the terms and conditions of their employment at the time they are recruited. It makes employers jointly liable for violations committed by recruiters in their employ. It imposes fines on employers and recruiters who do not live up to their promises and authorizes the Secretary of Labor to take additional legal action to enforce those commitments. Employers and recruiters are prohibited from requiring or requesting recruitment fees from workers and are required to pay the costs, including subsistence costs, of transporting the worker.

The bill discourages disreputable labor contractors by requiring the Secretary of Labor to maintain a public list of labor contractors who have been involved in violations of the Act and by providing additional penalties if employers use a contractor listed by the Secretary as having been involved in previous violations of this Act and that contractor contributes to a violation for which the employer may be liable. The remedies provided under the ``Indentured Servitude Abolition Act'' are not exclusive, but are in addition to any other remedies workers may have under law or contract.

The legislation I am introducing has been endorsed by the Farmworker Justice Fund, the National Employment Law Project, and the AFL-CIO. The National Employment Law Project notes that ``labor recruiters currently enjoy a near total lack of accountability for the workers' job conditions'' and that the bill performs ``an important service by requiring both the users of the labor and the recruiters themselves to inform workers on the job conditions they can expect.''

The Farmworker Justice Fund notes that the legislation addresses, ``the new reality of global labor migration. . . . In many cases foreign workers who are recruited for U.S. jobs suffer harsh abuses in the form of huge debts, usurious loans, threats of violence, false promises, and illegal wages and working conditions. . . . We must gain control over labor migration and this is one important step toward that goal.''

Is it too much to ask that people who live on American soil, making products for American consumption, be treated like American workers? Our basic respect for human rights demands that we act now to protect these workers. I am pleased that 24 of our colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. I am hopeful that all of our colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, will add their support to this critical legislation to end the despicable practice of slavery in the United States once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the deepest sorrow that I rise to honor a woman who gave so much to the Congress, to children and students in America, to her family and friends, and to me as a trusted aide and friend.

Charlotte Fraas died today after a long battle with brain cancer. She leaves behind her loving and devoted husband Phil, her two beautiful and smart teenage children, Paul and Katie, her dogs, and many close friends at the Congressional Research Service and across the country.

Charlotte, full of grace and beauty, has left us her spirit to keep. In the pain and sorrow of her untimely death, we have the memory of her wonderful life to hold.

Charlotte was my legislative director for two years, between 1993 and 1995. And she was a class act.

There are many important skills a good congressional aide must possess--being smart, well-informed, good at writing and speaking, and so forth. But there is another quality that is rarer but especially important--being able to tell your boss that he or she might be wrong. Charlotte could do that. With a quick glance she could let me know whether I was on track, or off, and would be ready with an alternative.

Charlotte was instrumental in my work on so many issues, including Social Security, higher education, education for children with disabilities, but most importantly on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Her knowledge of the history of the law and the details of the issues involved in the reauthorization was outstanding. She was dedicated to getting it right. And she did so with such grace and class.

She was really a star.

After she left my office, Charlotte worked briefly for the Department of Education under President Clinton and then became the head of government affairs for the American Federation of Teachers where I continued to appreciate Charlotte's professionalism.

But the bulk of her career--more than 20 years--was spent at the Congressional Research Service at the U.S. Library of Congress, providing expert analysis and assistance to Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and to their committees and personal staff.

Charlotte had a distinguished career of active engagement in and in support of the legislative process while at the Congressional Research Service. She received numerous ``outstanding'' performance ratings, very infrequently awarded in the Service. Charlotte was unusually productive during her career at CRS. The CRS archives contain over 200 reports and substantive, confidential memoranda that she prepared over the period of 1970 to 1993. Her CRS reports were not only numerous but also of the highest quality. For example, Section management used Charlotte's work as a model for other analysts. She was also highly respected by her colleagues and was frequently chosen by her peers, as well as by management, to lead team efforts.

Charlotte worked in a wide variety of issue areas, beginning her career with responsibilities in the topics of veterans and the G.I. Bill, immigration and refugees, and crime, especially juvenile justice/ delinquency. She was the lead CRS analyst supporting congressional consideration of the Refugee Act of 1980. However, during most of her career at CRS, Charlotte was a specialist in education policy, serving as CRS' lead analyst on two of the largest, most complicated, and significant education assistance programs.

For many years Charlotte was the lead CRS analyst in the major and complex area of education for students with disabilities. This legislation--then called the Education of the Handicapped Act and now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--has myriad complex, and sometimes controversial, provisions aimed at improving educational opportunities for all students with disabilities. Charlotte was the lead analyst in this area during the 1980s, supporting congressional consideration of the Education of the Handicapped Act amendments of 1983 (P.L. 98-199) and the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-457). Her work was especially helpful to Congress as it considered legislation to expand assistance to include infants and toddlers with disabilities.

For the last several years of her service at CRS, Charlotte was the lead analyst on major programs of the Higher Education Act, the primary source of federal aid to postsecondary education. In the mid-1980s, she lead a CRS team that prepared a groundbreaking series of analyses of the relationships between federal aid programs and the growing for- profit sector of postsecondary education. She was responsible for and especially productive in preparing high quality analyses of the increasingly important higher education student loan programs. These are the most wide-ranging and complex forms of federal aid to education at any level. In particular, she lead the Service's support of congressional debates on student loans during consideration of the Higher Education Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-498) and the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-325). In the early 1990s she prepared ground-breaking analyses of the highly charged issues associated with the Administration proposal to replace or supplement federally guaranteed loans with direct loans.

Charlotte also supported congressional deliberations in a number of other education-related policy areas. For example, she was the lead CRS analyst on aid to libraries from late 1970s to mid-1980s and particularly supported congressional consideration of the Library Services and Construction Act amendments of 1983.

In addition to her numerous written analyses, during her CRS career Charlotte communicated her policy analyses through multiple consultations, briefings, and testimony in committee hearings; for example, she testified before the House Budget Committee on student loan issues before the House Budget Committee in 1991. Charlotte was one of the most articulate analysts that CRS has had. Other analysts sought her advice about how to approach any number of issues, even those outside her immediate areas of expertise. She understood the impact that analysis could bring to bear on social issues and enabled congressional committees to understand the policy dimensions involved in decisions that came before them.

In all of her work, Charlotte exhibited the highest level of professionalism in serving the Congress on some of the most politically charged issues in education policy. In her career at CRS, she exemplified the best that CRS has to offer the Congress, a consummate professional analyst doing work of the highest caliber on sensitive, difficult issues critical to the Nation's well-being.

Her great achievements at CRS were certainly supported and encouraged by close friends and colleagues, including Angela Evans, Wayne Riddle, Carol O'Shaughnessy, Karen Spar, Joe Richardson, Richard Price, Jim Stedman and Margot Schenet.

In the end, the cancer was too great for even Charlotte's power. But as a testament to the rich life she led, she spent the last weeks of her life in a hospice in Alexandria, Virginia, being visited by one friend and family member after another. The staff at the hospice remarked at how many friends Charlotte had.

To her family, I offer my thanks for giving us Charlotte for the time we had her. The members of my staff in Washington and California and at the Committee on Education and the Workforce join me in sending our deep condolences to her family and friends. We will keep you in our thoughts, just as we will hold Charlotte in our prayers and memories at this saddest of times and forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce ``The Pension Fairness and Full Disclosure Act,'' legislation to end the gross discrepancies between the way the retirement packages of a company's rank and file employees and top-executives are treated.

Executive compensation packages often provide lavish golden parachutes that are hidden from employees, shareholders, and regulators. Employees are told the company has little choice but to cut their pay and benefits, while being kept in the dark about the fortunes that companies shower on executives who have presided over the company's failure.

In fact, extensive executive packages are often increased at the very same time their employees' pensions are cut. As employees are asked to give back benefits they have

earned, executives are often padding their own retirement packages. The executives who make the critical decisions to save or scrap employee pension plan rarely share the pain of their decisions--but are perversely rewarded for cutting company liabilities to their workers.

My legislation brings greater equity to the private pension system by requiring full disclosure of executive compensation packages to employees, and by linking the benefits in executive compensation plans to those of the rank-and-file for whom these executives bear responsibility.

A 2003 Executive Excess report by United for a Fair Economy found that the median pay for executives at the 30 companies with the most underfunded pension plans in 2002 was $5.9 million, or 59 percent higher than the median pay for executives at the typical large company. These 30 companies had a combined $131 billion pension deficit in 2002, but paid their executives a combined $352 million.

While the underfunding threatened employee pensions, 19 of these executives saw their pay rise, and 10 saw their pay more than double in 2002. The executive pensions themselves are exorbitant. A review of 2004 proxy statements from 500 large companies by Corporate Library for the New York Times revealed that 113 chief executives could expect retirement benefits of more than $1 million per year. At least 31 would see $2 million or more per year. A list of some of the more recent and well-publicized outrages on how executive plans and rank-and-file plans are treated is attached to this letter.

``The Pension Fairness and Full Disclosure Act'' makes overdue changes in pension law to end these grotesque disparities in the way the retirement security of employees and executives are treated.

Corporations that file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and shift unfunded pension liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), or convert their traditional pension plans to cash balance plans in a way that does not protect older workers, would not be permitted to increase executive deferred compensation for directors and officers for a 5-year period without incurring a 100 percent excise tax.

Corporations with underfunded rank-and-file pension plans would be prohibited from providing any funding for executive pension plans unless and until their rank-and-file plans are at least 75% funded.

Corporations would have to disclose the full value of their executive compensation plans when they move to terminate the plans in bankruptcy or make amendments to the plan to freeze benefits or reduce future accruals.

For far too long, some companies have irresponsibly rewarded their executives while unfairly cutting or eliminating their employees' pensions. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing ``The Pension Fairness and Full Disclosure Act.''

Mr. Speaker, it has been 2 years since President Bush stood aboard the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier and declared, ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq. And in those two years it has become increasingly clear that the war in Iraq is far from over, and that the American people are paying the price.

Let's just take a look at the facts:

There are currently 150,000 American troops now serving in Iraq, including 8,000 Reserve and National Guard troops.

Tragically, 1,582 American service members have been killed in the Iraq war.

At least 12,243 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, many with grievous injuries that will require a lifetime of medical assistance and other types of support.

More than one in five Iraqi war veterans have some type of mental disorder caused by their wartime service.

In addition to the cost of life and quality of life for the brave American men and women who are fighting in Iraq, the dollar cost of the war is also taking its toll on the American people.

To date, $217 billion in American taxpayer dollars have gone to fund the war in Iraq. We were told our allies would share the cost of the war; we were told Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of the war. Now it is clear, there was no plan: the American taxpayer is paying for the cost of this war to the tune of $5 billion a month.

In fact, today's $82 billion supplemental is the fifth such supplemental Congress has passed at the request of the Bush Administration to fund the war on terror. That's billions of dollars not spent on pressing problems right here at home.

Problems, such as:

The price of gas at the pump. Gas prices remain at record levels at $2.24 per gallon nationwide, with some states topping $2.60. That means gas prices have risen 33 cents in just the last two months and are 42 cents a gallon higher than a year ago. The Energy Department predicts that gas prices will climb to a record $2.35 by Memorial Day--averaging $2.28 this summer.

The high cost of health insurance. Health care costs for families have skyrocketed almost 50 percent over the past five years.

A lagging economy. The economy grew at just 3.1 percent in the first quarter--the slowest pace in 2 years and down from a 3.8-percent pace logged in the final quarter of 2004.

Declining wages and benefits. Workers' salaries and benefits have suffered the largest 3-year decline since 1948 (as a portion of our economy) even as corporate profits continue to rise.

Fewer jobs. 446,000 private-sector jobs and 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost.

Record budget deficits. This year's deficit is on track to reach a record $427 billion.

Veteran's benefits. Over the next 5 years, the budget for veterans programs, primarily health care, is $14.2 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at current levels.

And, record trade deficits. The U.S. trade deficit surged to an all- time high of $61.04 billion in February.

Two years after President Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq, there is still no end in sight. Instead of just signing another multi- billion dollar check to the Administration, isn't it time to develop a real plan to stabilize Iraq so we can bring American troops home and concentrate on our problems here at home?

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

I also want to thank her for all of her work on behalf of our Members on this side of the aisle in helping to shape this legislation. And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for bringing this bill to the floor in a timely fashion, and to the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle) for all of his work and his dedication to the vocational education programs within our jurisdiction.

I rise today for two reasons: One, I am hopeful that bringing this bill to this floor at this time and all of the statements made by Members on both sides of the aisle as to the successes of vocational education and the various components of vocational education in their districts and in their States will forever put an end to this idea of the administration that it is going to somehow zero out this legislation or that it is going to take this money for some other initiative when Members of Congress recognize in such an overwhelming fashion the importance of vocational education to the students in their districts, to the success of the educational programs, and certainly to their local economies and to their State economies.

That is really the second reason that I rise, and that is to again reiterate the idea that this is not our fathers' or our grandfathers' vocational education. A dramatic transition and a transformation has been made within many of our educational establishments in high schools and community colleges that now provide for the linking and the merging and integration of academic programs and vocational programs and skills-acquiring programs so that students now not only are taking vocational education or participating in vocational education to get a job.

What they are getting is a set of skills that will allow them to get that job but also to have the options to create career paths within that industry or within that vocation, within that sector of our economy. Far different than has been done in the past.

In the integration of the academic skills, again, building upon the research that has been developed over the last decade, and that is that really for people to be proficient, to continue to maintain a middle- class life-style, to be able to continue to maintain their opportunities in employment. The set of skills that they need on the academic side and on the vocational skills side really are equivalent of what one needs to have an AA degree.

So now students are put on that path. They are given the opportunity to relate the academic skills that they need to acquire for the job opportunities, for the career opportunities, and for the academic opportunities in their future lives. And that is a dramatic change from what many people view as vocational education of the past or of their experiences when they were in school.

We now talk to young people. I just recently visited a program at the Serendipity training program in Mr. Diablo High School in my district, where Chevron Corporation just made a major grant to the county schools for the purposes of enhancing these kinds of economic opportunities and educational opportunities for young people. And when we talk to the young people, whether they are participating in the health academies or they are participating in the fire academies or the food service academies or the technical academies, the fact of the matter is they now see themselves having multiple options. For some it is just to simply get a job. A number of students said they were go to become EMTs because they wanted to be able have that work and that work schedule and that income to pay for their college education. Others decided that they would go just to the fire academy and try to get a job. Others thought that they would go to the fire academy and go on to Humboldt State and to the 4-year programs in terms of fire sciences.

So what these students now see are the multitude of opportunities that are available to them, the opportunities for career and advancement and providing for them and their families into the future.

I would hope that we would support this bill. I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules, in its continued abuse of power, simply could not provide for the debate of the amendments that many on this side of the aisle wanted to offer. Again, it is not like the Congress is running at maximum RPMs here day in and day out and there is no time for that debate. It is unfortunate that the Committee on Rules continues that abuse of power, but we will have an opportunity to debate a couple of amendments and then push this bill forward to conference committee, where a couple of its modest shortcomings can be hopefully corrected.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Boehner and Castle for bringing this bill the floor. The V ocational and Technical Education for the Future Act reflects a bipartisan work product and I am pleased to be able to join the chairman, Chairman Castle and Ranking Member Woolsey in supporting this reauthorization.

Career and technical education has traditionally been a bipartisan effort in Congress and that continues today. Unfortunately, the President, for the fourth year in a row has tried to eliminate this program, and this is a mistake.

Career and technical education programs make high school matter for many young people, offer college students pathways into productive employment and new hope for displaced homemakers and workers reentering the workforce.

Now, is not the time to retreat on our investment in career training. The global economy demands a highly skilled workforce and the Perkins program has been instrumental in building that workforce.

H.R. 366 moves the successful Perkins Act, named after the distinguished Senator from Kansas, to the next level in career and technical education. This program may have started out as second tier education program for students who sought employment after graduation from high school, but today, these programs are changing the face of secondary and

post-secondary education. Perkins equips America's workforce with the skills they need to compete in a global economy.

More and more schools are using career and technical education programs to develop highly challenging and academically sound education systems, combining secondary and postsecondary education elements. H.R. 366 adopts this model.

Successful career tech programs allow academic and vocational teachers to develop curriculum together and teach together so that students can apply academic content in a real world context. In order to make high school matter, learning, must become more meaningful to students. Career technical education programs do this.

H.R. 366 also ensures that students learn the identical challenging academic content as students who are in a purely academic program further reinforcing the goals of No Child Left Behind: that all students should be taught to high standards.

We know that students who are enrolled in career technical programs are less likely to drop out before graduation. Students who graduate from these programs perform better than their academic-only counterparts in math and science. And, students who complete these programs are able to obtain higher salaries than their counterparts.

Mr. Chairman, while I will support this bill, I remain concerned that it fails to address two critical issues: the bill eliminates the separate authorization for the Tech Prep Program and cuts State Administrative funding far below what states need to carry out the new responsibilities that have been added to the bill. These problems can and should be corrected in conference.

The Perkins Act is a critical workforce development tool and the bill before us represents sound education policy. It contains critical improvements in the areas of accountability, integration and coordination and is supported by a range of organizations to include the Association for Career Technical Education, the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical'' Education, the NEA, and the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education.

I want to thank these organizations for their input on the bill and I want to thank our staff for their efforts in bringing this bill together in a relatively short period of time.

I will vote in favor of final passage and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Members have heard, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that no monies expended under this act will be used to pay for propaganda by members of the media.

Specifically, my motion requires that the prepackaged news stories put together with Federal funds must be disclosed to viewers. This portion of the motion was offered as an amendment to the supplemental by Senator Byrd and was passed 98 to 0.

The motion also prohibits using public funds to pay journalists or media commentators to promote the views of the agency, which directly addresses the Armstrong Williams propaganda fiasco.

The Department of Education Inspector General recently issued a report that I requested that concludes that the Department squandered hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in a contract with Ketchum Communications and a subcontract with media commentator Armstrong Williams.

Specifically, the Inspector General found that Department officials involved in the Armstrong Williams contract made poor management decisions, exercised poor judgment and oversight, and paid for work that did not reach its intended audience, and paid for work that the Department never received. The report notes that the covert editorial comments by Armstrong Williams in support of No Child Left Behind were specifically required by Department work orders, and confirmed by activity reports submitted by Mr. Williams.

In my view, the Federal Government was defrauded out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in this case. An even greater concern is this may not be an isolated case in the Department of Education. The Inspector General is preparing the release of a second report in coming weeks that will review a number of highly questionable activities regarding the use of propaganda by

the Department of Education officials. We must stop this act of the abuse of taxpayer funds.

This motion to recommit is very simple. Members can vote for it and report the bill back to the House, and then we can pass the bill. It is a simple choice. Do we want to use education dollars for the education of our children, or do we want to use it for propaganda? This amendment says we shall not use it for propaganda; we shall not pay news commentators to engage in propaganda on behalf of the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her support. Again, the choice is very simple here: whether or not at a time when education programs are being cut in the Federal budget that we passed last week, whether or not we will now decide not to use these hard-earned education dollars, hard-paid-for education dollars by the taxpayers that we represent to develop propaganda that they shall be restricted to the uses for which this program was passed, and that is the vocational education of our students in this country.

I urge the support of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, this last weekend I held a town hall meeting on Social Security in my hometown of Martinez. I must say that the audience was quite stunned to learn that not only was President Bush continuing his drive for

the privatization of Social Security, which would borrow trillions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund and drive it deeper into debt and imperil its opportunities to achieve solvency, but now he was offering something called progressive indexing, which would be a substantial cut in benefits under Social Security to middle-class recipients.

They were quite stunned to learn that those individuals who pay into Social Security every week from their paychecks, every month from their paychecks and all year long from their paychecks, that the President was now suggesting that they should take a cut in their benefits as a way of restoring solvency. They were not just stunned that the President was suggesting this one-two assault on Social Security, but they were also quite alarmed to learn that the President apparently has no intention of paying back the some $700 billion that his administration has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, that the trust fund is, in fact, not being honored, the people that pay into that trust fund every year to the tune of some $160 billion, that that money is now being taken out to use for other functions of the government, whether it is the war in Iraq or whether it is the general spending of the government.

It is very clear that they want that trust fund restored. It is a trust fund. They are paying into it because they believe that that money is going to be put there, loaned to the government, replaced by Treasury bills, but it will be there for their use, for their annuities that they are buying every week when they pay into the Social Security fund.

But that is not what the President is suggesting. The President is suggesting, as he does in the budget that this House passed last week, that he will continue to borrow $160 billion out of the trust fund and, as he said when he went to West Virginia, it is really not a trust fund, there is no trust there, so apparently he is the first President since we started Social Security who has suggested that he may not pay the trust fund back.

That is just unacceptable to my constituents at the town hall in Martinez. I think it is unacceptable to the overwhelming number of the American public who believe that the reason they are paying into Social Security is so that they can have some level of financial security upon their retirement.

Social Security, for the current retirees, supplies over half of their retirement income. Sure, we all want to make it easier and better and more likely that Americans will save for their retirement. But that has not happened. Hopefully it will happen in the future. But Social Security is a very important part of people's retirements. When they look at the efforts by corporations to get rid of their retirement plans, when they look at the difficulty they are having as middle-class families to save not only for their child's education but for their retirement, they recognize how important it is that the Social Security trust fund be maintained.

But now this President comes along and suggests that that is not the case, that he is going to put an assault on that trust fund with the privatization of Social Security and then he is going to come along and cut the benefits to middle-class Social Security recipients who have paid into that trust fund throughout their entire working life. I think it is very clear that not only is this plan unacceptable to the vast numbers of Americans who have had a chance to take a look at it, but hopefully it will become unacceptable to this Congress as stewards of that trust fund.

But first and foremost, what the American people want us to do is to stop taking the money out of the trust fund to fund the rest of the government. We have got to honor what we set out to do in 1983 under the bipartisan agreement of Speaker Tip O'Neill, an icon of the Democratic Party, President Ronald Reagan, an icon of the Republican Party, when they sat down and hammered out a bipartisan agreement.

Part of that agreement was to create a trust fund, not some honey pot that any Member of Congress could go into and take out for whatever purpose they want but a trust fund for the retirement of millions and millions of Americans and their families.

It is important that we honor that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues Mr. Platts, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Payne, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Stark, Ms. Tubbs Jones, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Carolyn McCarthy, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Brown, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Danny Davis in introducing the FOCUS Act. This bill would increase the overall quality of child care by elevating the skills and pay of early childhood education providers. This is a proven successful model, first developed in North Carolina, and critical to helping all children reach kindergarten ready to succeed.

Between 1970 and 2001, the percentage of mothers in the workforce rose from 38 to 67 percent. The change for mothers of young children has been even more dramatic. According to the New America Foundation, the labor force participation of women with children under age 6 has more than doubled--from 24 percent in 1960 to 65 percent in 2000. Over 9 million children between the ages of birth and 5 are in child care in this country. With so many of our children in early care and education settings, it is more important than ever that child care can support the developmental needs of children.

High quality child care plays an important role in healthy child development and school readiness. Research on brain development demonstrates that the experiences children have early in life have a decisive, long-lasting impact on their development and learning. Unfortunately, child care program evaluations indicate that the quality of most care ranges from mediocre to poor. This country must make changes in its child care system.

Just as it is the parents who matter at home, it is the teachers who matter in child care--a stable, educated and qualified teaching staff is one of the most critical components of quality child care. Staff training and experience are the most important components of child care quality. Research shows that children learning from more highly educated teachers perform better on tests of verbal and math achievement.

Studies repeatedly show that one of the leading causes of poor quality child care is low pay and high turnover among child care staff, who on average make just over $17,000 annually. FOCUS improves the quality of child care by boosting training, reducing turnover, and attracting qualified staff by providing stipends of $1,000 to $3,000 to qualified child care providers based on their level of education. FOCUS also would grant funds for scholarships in early childhood development and education so providers can continue to improve their knowledge and skills. FOCUS also provides grants to States to provide better access to health coverage for child care workers since lack of health benefits also impedes retention of qualified early education teachers.

We cannot expect children to transition to kindergarten and succeed in school if we do not take the necessary steps to provide quality care in the years prior to school entry. The average quality of child care is far poorer than what it should be in a country as wealthy and committed to our children's future as is ours. It is time we work to make quality child care for all children a national priority. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Focus Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1636.

Mr. Chairman, of all of the subsidies and all of the giveaways in this bill, this one itself may be the most egregious. This is royalty relief to those companies who are drilling in deep water. These companies are drilling in deep water no matter what they do because that is where the oil is, and it is very lucrative to do so.

The gentleman from Louisiana defends this provision saying they have a cutoff when the price of oil goes up. When this provision was put into law, the cutoff was $28 a barrel, but the Secretary did not cut it off. When it got to $30, the Secretary did not cut it off. When it got to $40 and $45, the Secretary did not cut it off. When it got to $50, the Secretary did not cut it off. And today, when it is $52, the Secretary has not cut it off.

This is not about royalty relief, this is about a handout to the most profitable companies in the United States. This is about a handout to these companies to drill the public's oil.

Of the 132 million barrels of oil they have produced, 76 percent are royalty free. That means Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer in America did not get the royalties that these companies should have paid them to drill on the public lands that the taxpayers of this country own. That is why this amendment should prevail.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is right. He is a hero to the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this point of order.

Simply saying in the legislation that this is not an unfunded mandate does not make the fact that it is not an unfunded mandate. Failure to provide the resources by which the directed activity is required under the law is what makes it an unfunded mandate.

We have communities throughout California that have had environmental and economic havoc wreaked

upon them from the use of MTBE, in many instances, as the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) pointed out, after the knowledge was available and was continued to pursue the use of this compound as an additive to the fuels of our automobiles.

Those communities now are stuck with the costs of either cleaning up that drinking water supply, finding an alternative source and dealing with it, and they must do so. To suggest now that we are going to provide a safe harbor, that we are going to restrict the liability or prohibit the liability from those who knew of the dangers of this to our environment, to our drinking water supplies, to our citizens, and on the other hand, we are going to direct communities to clean this up when, in fact, the resources will not be available to do that, they are not there at the local level, and they are not forthcoming from the United States.

MTBE is just another way in which this Congress, this Republican leadership, wants to corrupt the process by which these communities can be made whole. They want to corrupt the process by which these companies can be protected from the liability that they assumed when they knowingly did that. It is just a continued process of corruption of the process of this Congress that we cannot deal with this straight up.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This bill, first and foremost, should be rejected by this Congress, because it is very bad for the consumers, it is a very bad deal for the taxpayers, it is lousy for the environment, and it certainly does not do much for the American economy.

This bill is another missed opportunity to take America into the future, to take America into the leadership around the world in energy production, energy innovation, and energy technology; to create a new generation of important products, and a new generation of jobs.

But what this bill does not understand is that energy sufficiency and sustainability is very different from energy oil independence. The first is achievable in the national interest and the other is not. Oil independence is not achievable in this bill or in any bill you can bring to the floor.

If we were really seeking to strengthen America's hand with respect to energy and our economy, we would do all that is possible to develop a national sustainable energy policy that would minimize our dependence on foreign oil. That is not this bill.

Rather than placing too much of our emphasis on new oil supplies, we would build a national energy policy that is based upon the strength of our country, rather than its weaknesses. Those strengths are the marketplace, innovation, technology, and capital. If these economic forces were truly unleashed to provide a national energy policy, the role of coal and oil would be greatly diminished and would still be important, but diminished.

America's energy policy would evolve into one where business decisions, capital allocations, research commitments, and environmental policy would coincide to make businesses more efficient and productive, develop new products and services, would expand and cover the environment, would be easier and less expensive and clean.

Such a policy demands a synergy of most parts of national energy policy. To date, these ideas have been treated as a stepchild, as they are in this bill. To do so, the Congress would have to stop thinking about energy policy as an extension of the past. They would have to think about it as going out to embrace the future, with American technology, American ingenuity, American talent, American capital, and the American marketplace. America should go out and embrace the future, rather than dumping billions and billions of dollars into trying to bring the past a little bit further forward, to bring the fossil fuels a little bit further forward.

That is the mistake of this bill, that is the tragedy of this bill, and that is the missed opportunity. That is the reason why this bill does so little for the consumer.

In fact, it harms the consumer at the pump by increasing the price of gasoline. That is why it is such a bad deal for the taxpayer, because the taxes are used for old production, for old ideas, not for innovation, not for the future, and not for a sustainable energy policy. That is why it is so bad for the environment, because they use tax policy to drive environmental decisions that otherwise would not be made and, of course, that is why it is bad for the economy, because it continues our dependence. In fact, it drives us deeper into the dependence on the most unstable countries in the world, into the hands of those countries that simply cannot provide stable environments for the production of those energy resources.

That is why a different policy would be about a sustainable energy policy, not trying to achieve oil independence, or foreign oil independence as this bill does. It is unfortunate, because what we do is we miss the opportunity to bring about what the best and the brightest prospects of America have always offered, and that is new innovation, new technologies, new discoveries, new capital formation, and a new economy. But this bill does not do it.

This bill resides in the past century. This bill resides with the old industries. This bill resides with the old ideas, and it certainly resides with the old and tired subsidies that milk the taxpayers, to turn around and give them to now the most profitable companies in the American economy at this time.

It is very unfortunate, and it should be rejected.