Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Billie Middleton as she retires as Executive Director of Youth and Family Services after twenty-two years.

Billie Middleton has served her entire professional career in the provision of public mental health services beginning in human services. She obtained her Masters of Science Degree in Clinical Psychology from San Francisco State University, graduating as an Honor Student of the Department, and Summa Cum Laude. She later obtained her Marriage and Family Therapy License.

Mrs. Middleton began working in outpatient mental health programs and later focused her work on adolescents; for three and a half years she directed residential treatment programs for emotionally disturbed, and drug and alcohol-using adolescents. In 1982 she decided to develop a private practice as a psychotherapist. She also spent a year as a consultant in organizational psychology.

In the early 1980s Mrs. Middleton went to work as a Program Counselor/Coordinator for a fledgling organization called Youth and Family Services (YFS) in her hometown of Benicia. YFS was incorporated as a private non-profit in the State of California with an annual budget of $10,000. Mrs. Middleton later became the Executive Director and twenty-two years later YFS has a budget of three million dollars and a staff of fifty-six employees.

In addition to her leadership of YFS, Mrs. Middleton has always found creative ways to change systems and fund and provide services. She has served on many committees including the Solano County Children's Network as vice president; Chair of the Solano County Drug and Alcohol Advisory Board; a founding member of Fighting Back Partnership; served on the City of Vacaville Youth Roundtable; the Benicia Youth Action Task Force; the Child Abuse Prevention Council; and the Mental Health Children's System of Care Redesign Committee. She also served on the Community Services Task Force which is an arm of the Solano Coalition for Better Health. Mrs. Middleton was also the principal force behind the formation of the Solano County Community Cancer Task Force.

Her vision of ``Building Relationships, Building Community'' has guided her work throughout her career. Mrs. Middleton believes that relationships and community are critical for healthy development, and are what heals problems. This was part of the original strategic plan of YFS that services dealing with substance abuse have to be multi- faceted, family-focused and be strongly rooted in the community with organizations working collaboratively to solve problems.

Mr. Speaker, because of Mrs. Middleton's innumerable contributions to her community and the residents of Solano County, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to recognize her today.

Mr. Speaker, in my 30 years in the Congress you have the honor and the privilege of meeting so many people from so many different walks of life, not just my colleagues that I have served with in the House of Representatives but obviously the people that I represent and the people who come to the Nation's

capital to seek our help in so many endeavors that they are engaged in their families and their livelihoods, but there are a few who are very special. They stand out in our professional life. They stand out as our peers and our colleagues.

Bob Matsui was a very special person, for all of the reasons that my colleagues have said here tonight. We all know that at his core was the gold standard in conviction, in morality and integrity and in giving us the unvarnished truth from time to time when we did not agree with him.

I think that is one of the reasons we were so fond of him. When you had a disagreement with him, he sought you out and he wanted to discuss it with you, face-to-face, person-to-person, colleague-to-colleague, trying to work out the difficulties to make this a better country, but when you discussed it with him, you understood that he was clinging to principle, and he was clinging to integrity because it was the core of his existence.

Many have referred to the fact of this family's experience in the internment camp, and I do not think there is any question but that gave him a compass to set a course on the issues of social justice and opportunity in this society and civil rights. It is unparalleled, I think.

We all work in these fields, and we have some outstanding individuals in this Congress that I have served with over 30 years who have fought these fights. Bob was one of those.

I had the opportunity to work with him on the reparations bill and in the Manzanar Historic Monument bill of one of the internment camps so that this country could remember what happened in the Tule Lake and the other internment centers.

I do not know what else to say except that this is the loss of a really, really special person who was a wonderful friend, who was a great, great credit to this institution and who leaves behind a magnificent legacy along with a magnificent family, a family that no spouse or father could have been more proud of than he was of Doris and Brian and daughter-in-law Amy and this new granddaughter Anna.

To see him and Doris at public events, engaged in their community and the partnership that they had and their conferring back and forth on the issues and the battles that he was engaged in, was a wonderful experience. I am going to miss him greatly. I think this country is going to miss him even more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules package.

Every House Member should vote to put the House on record against ethical and procedural abuses that contaminate this institution.

The stench of special interest corruption is overwhelming Congress, and repulsing the public. It is time the House Rules reflected the ethical standards and common sense of the American people.

I came to this House 30 years ago, and our historic incoming class brought with it one of the strongest tides of reform ever seen: rules were changed, chairmen were replaced, procedures were modernized so that the voice of the people was heard, and respected, in this House of the people.

Ten years ago, the Republicans took control of the House, promising a new era of reform. To read the national newspapers, it is evident to everyone--except themselves--that the Republicans have betrayed their promise of reform. They have tolerated misconduct and enshrined special interests as never before.

Today, we give them, and all Members, an opportunity to restore public trust by voting for

two commonsense amendments to the House rules.

First, no sitting Member should negotiate for a new job with any organization that has had business before his or her committee for a year. That's not hard to understood: no one should be shaping public policy with an eye on a future private sector salary.

Second, no bill should be brought to the House floor unless Members have had 3 days to read it first. That's not hard to understand: we should not be passing bills that are hundreds of pages in length-- sometimes over 1,000 pages--without ever having seen what is in the bill. Ronald Reagan thought it was a bad idea; surely today's House Republicans can agree.

Let's be honest about it: 99 percent of the American people outside the Beltway will agree with both of these principles--no negotiating for new jobs with special interests; Members should know what they are voting on before it becomes law. We shouldn't even have to have a debate. But we do.

Less than a month ago, the Nation was stunned to learn that the committee chairman who had fashioned a blatantly pro-drug industry, anti-senior, anti-consumer prescription drug law was retiring and taking a job with the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, our former colleague assumes his job with PhRMA today, just as we are taking our oaths of office.

Mr. Tauzin will reportedly be earning a salary nearly 13 times what he earned when he wrote that pro-industry bill--one of the best paid lobbyists in Washington.

He earned it. That prescription drug law will enrich him, but it takes billions of dollars out of the pockets of America's senior citizens--by prohibiting them from purchasing cheaper drugs from Canada, and by prohibiting the Federal Government from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry--his new employer--for lower drug prices. That's worth billions to the drug industry.

While the deal was not announced until last month, the discussions began a year ago, as was widely reported at the time. In fact, a top aide to the Republican leadership was quoted last January 24 on CNN.com as saying that Republican Congressman Tauzin's negotiation with PhARMA ``doesn't look very good.''

It doesn't look ``very good'' today either, as millions of seniors face higher drug prices thanks to the Tauzin bill, and Bill Tauzin takes office to improve the tattered image of the drug industry.

We all know this stinks. And so do our constituents. Let's put an end to it today by barring negotiations for private jobs by Members of Congress. That's what our constituents would want us to do.

And at the same time, let's put an end to the outrageous practice of voting on complex and lengthy bills before Congress has had time to read them--bills like that prescription drug bill Bill Tauzin wrote while he was listening to PhARMA's whispers in his ears.

Isn't it bad enough that Republicans majority writes the bills in secret, without input from the Democrats who represent 48 percent of the country? Without scrutiny by the press? Without review by the public

Must we also vote on secret legislation, without reading it, without knowing the tax breaks and earmarked spending for special interests that have been stuck in without any review?

I urge all Members to put party aside and vote the way your constituents would want you to vote: an end to private job negotiations while serving in public office, and full disclosure of the contents of legislation before we vote.

Mr. Speaker, I also vigorously oppose the proposed rule change that would allow an ethics investigation to end after 45 days of the Ethics Committee of five Democrats and five Republicans remained deadlocked.

Today, the Republicans are once again putting partisan politicians ahead of ethics by moving forward with their plan to shield their embattled majority leader--Tom DeLay--from any further investigation.

The goal of this change is to block the Ethics Committee from considering pending and future matters that could prove to be damaging to their party.

Under the present rules, if the chair and the ranking minority member of the Ethics Committee cannot agree whether to investigate a complaint, the committee begins an initial investigation into the matter.

But, under the Republicans' proposed rule change, the Republican chairman of the Ethics Committee--who is handpicked by the Speaker-- could simply refuse to examine a complaint.

After 45 days, the complaint would be dropped, without even an initial investigation into the matter.

This new rule would allow Republicans to block pending ethics matters and prevent future investigations from moving forward. And the reason is very simple: there are at least two matters currently pending against Republican leaders, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Contrary to this morning's press reports, the Republicans haven't backed away from their attempts to shield DeLay from further investigation, they've simply become a little more deceptive in how they're doing it.

Last year, when the Ethics Committee admonished DeLay three times, it deferred action on another serious charge--his role in funneling illegal soft money into Texas races through his State PAC--until after the investigation against him had been completed.

The rule change now proposed by his Republican colleagues would allow the Republican chairman of the committee to block any further investigation of DeLay's activities, shielding the minority leader from further admonishments even if he is indicted by a grand jury.

Also pending is an investigation of Republican lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and former DeLay staffer, Michael Scanlon, and their ties to several Republican members. Changing the ethics rules would permit the Republicans to halt any investigation of the Abramoff scandal and the Members who could be implicated in their outrageous looting of Native Americans.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this unbalanced and improper rules package.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and, as we all understand, the Committee on Appropriations plays the cards that they are dealt. In this instance, they have been dealt a set of cards with a great big deficit and not much room to work.

I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for the effort they have made to bring this bill together, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his stewardship of this committee.

I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the figures for education. From kindergarten to college, this legislation disappoints America's children, its families and its educators.

In title I education, we see a reduction of almost 50 percent or a little over 50 percent of the money that the President asked for that is not in this legislation.

In special education, where we have constantly pledged that we were going to move toward full funding, and in fact provide full funding, this year we see now we have backtracked on the effort that was being made, because almost $600 million is cut out of that request for an additional $1 billion.

There are after-school funding cuts, and some 85,000 students will lose their Pell Grants and tens of thousands of others will because of the eligibility reconfigurations by the administration. A bad bill from kindergarten to college.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by also thanking people because I think many people are surprised, myself included, that we are here today.

This has been a rather toxic season in the political arena and in this Congress. There is not a lot of evidence that there is a lot of bipartisan action taking place in the Congress of the United States. But in this committee on this subject we were able to work through all of those environmental concerns about the atmosphere and arrive at legislation that is going to be very good for those children with special needs.

And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our chairman, for all of his time, his effort, his political skill within his caucus and I think within my caucus, too, to get us to this point. And to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who, as we all know, is absolutely committed to getting good legislation on the books, to write good law, and to do it on behalf of our Nation's school children to see that they get a good opportunity at the education that should be offered to them.

I want to thank Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Judd Gregg for their cooperation in deciding even before the election that we would take a shot at getting this passed before this session closed down, and we were able to do it. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) on our side, who managed this legislation for the minority, who took it from the early days when it was clearly very confrontational, to smoothing out some of the rough spots and finally helping us arrive at the compromised positions that maintain the integrity of IDEA, to also improve IDEA and make sure that our commitment to these young children and their educational opportunities are clear as a matter of Federal law.

I want to thank the staff on our side, Alex Nock and Alice Cain, Ruth Friedman and Lloyd Hoowich, for all of their help. This was long hours by the staff. And on the Republican side, David Cleary, Sally Lovejoy, Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce for all of their help in working with people on the Democratic side. And on the Senate Republican side, Denzel McGuire, Bill Lucia; Senate Democrats Connie Garner, Roberto Rodriguez, and Michael Yudin for their help.

This would not have been done had these people not been able to come together and work their way through bills that were different in many ways. But the fact of the matter was it did happen, and I think the children with special needs who need this law are going to be well served, as are their parents, as are their schools, and as are their teachers.

I have a special connection to this law because I was in Congress and served as one of the original authors of this law when it was first passed in 1974. And in 1974 when we surveyed the Nation's schools and the State systems of school, we found that children were, on an ordinary basis, on a regular basis, excluded from the classrooms of this Nation. They were put into basements. They were put into segregated schools. They were put into separate classrooms. They were not allowed to come into classrooms if they were in a wheelchair, if they needed assistance for their physical disabilities; and a dramatic percentage of minority students, were labeled as retarded, were labeled as having an inability to take advantage of an education in numbers that defied any statistical understanding that any population would be labeled in that fashion.

Hundreds of thousands of children mislabeled and therefore not allowed to go to the schools of this Nation. And at that time we passed the Education for all Handicapped Children, as it was called in those days. And from that time forward, this law has become one of the basic civil rights laws of this Nation for those children with special needs, for their families, and for those schools, recognizing the commitment that this Congress made to these children and their families, that they would get a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to make sure that, where possible, these children would be in the mainstream classrooms of our Nation's schools. They would be able to participate with their peers on a regular basis. They would be able to enjoy the benefits of that educational opportunity, that no longer by simple reason of their special needs would they be segregated, no longer by reason of their special needs would they be discriminated against.

This has not been a smooth road to make sure that these children would have educational opportunity and have access to that free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. It has been a struggle. It has been a struggle for our school districts. It has been a struggle for our taxpayers. It has been a struggle for the families of these children.

But each and every time we have made progress, and we do so again with this legislation. We make sure that they will, in fact, have qualified teachers. But we make sure that we do not drive the teachers from the teaching field by the law that we have passed here. We have provided that kind of flexibility so we can have the best of both worlds.

We can have qualified teachers, and we can make it workable for those teachers and for the school districts. We make sure that those children who might act out in class, who might be a discipline problem can be separated from the general population if they are a danger, but we also make sure that we do not discontinue their educational opportunities in that separate setting, however restrictive it might be. And there is a process for doing that, both to protect that child, to protect their educational opportunity, and to protect the general school population, a very important change.

We make sure that, while trying to enforce this law, that we make every effort to make sure that the child has access to a workable, individualized education plan. But we also want to make sure that, in the enforcement of those efforts, we do not engage in frivolous lawsuits, we do not engage in trying to extort the school district into positions. So we make sure that you can have access to those programs, but you do not get to take advantage of the taxpayers and the efforts that are being made.

From 1974 onward, I have had hundreds and hundreds of parents who have come to me and said, or written to me from all over the country, that, but for this law, my child would not have gotten an education; but for this law, my child would not have been able to be in the public schools. Some of those were long letters of the detailed effort by parents, taking months and thousands of dollars, to challenge the right of their child to be in an educational setting, along with the rest of the schoolchildren in this Nation.

But it is this law that made it possible, and it is law that we extend with this reauthorization. It is this law that we extend the civil rights protections of our Constitution to the Nation's schoolchildren, to those children with special needs, and it is this law that gives their parents a voice and a say in the direction of their education. It is this law that makes sure that the educational establishments of this country respond to those needs. And it is this law that tries to provide the means to work that out by offering alternative dispute resolution, by offering mediation, by offering a means by which parents and teachers and school personnel can sit down together and, at the end of that day, that child will have a chance at that educational opportunity, and the district will be in a position to provide it.

But there is something that is still lacking in this law, and that is the funding of this legislation. This is the funding of this legislation. Back in 1974, we said we would pick up 40 percent of the excess cost of the education of these children, and we have not done it. We have not done it as Democrats. We have not done it as Republicans. In the last few years, we have made a rather substantial march on that effort, but we still never get there under the budget.

Yet we have Members of Congress voting for full funding and mandatory funding of special education. We have Members signing letters to the President asking for full funding of special education. We have votes in the Senate, a majority, bipartisan votes demanding full funding for special education. But somehow we can never get there. And even in this legislation, I am glad to see that we have laid out a roadmap for over the next 7 years, I believe it is, we will arrive at full funding.

But I am worried that later tonight, as we pass an omnibus appropriations bill, we will not even meet the target in this legislation before the ink is dry or even before the President has signed it.

The President said he has not fully funded No Child Left Behind because he did not read the bill. I want the President to read this bill, because the compact with these parents and with this Congress is that we are going to reach full funding in 7 years. And if we do not, if we do not, the full educational opportunity for these students and for the other students is not going to be realized because the funding is not following this legislation. It is very important that that happen and that we start to keep our commitments on special education, that we start to keep our commitments on No Child Left Behind.

It is not enough, and we cannot continue the practice. We did it when we were in control. It is not enough to put figures into authorizations and tell people that is the law, that is what we have done, and then look behind and say we never intended to do that. We should say what we mean, and we should mean what we say. If we cannot do it in 7 years, then tell the public when we are going to do it. But this is the statement of the Congress that we will reach full funding in those 7 years, and I think that is most important.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial from this morning's Washington Post.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2004]

Making Progress

It is a rare piece of legislation nowadays that makes it

through the House and the Senate, let alone a House-Senate

conference, without ill will, partisan shouting and layers of

added pork. For that reason alone, the Individuals With

Disabilities Education Improvement Act, now heading toward

the House and Senate floors, deserve a moment's attention.

From the beginning, Republicans, Democrats and advocates were

all part of the debate about this law, which reauthorizes the

federal rules and funding for special education. Staffers for

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate education

committee, as well as those working for Sen. Edward M.

Kennedy (Mass.), the ranking Democratic member, also

solicited the opinions of outsiders who were not part or

organized groups, to better understand the real problems

faced by students, parents and teachers. Congressional

offices on the House side, notably those of Reps. John A.

Boehner (R-Ohio) and George Miller (D-Calif.), did the same.

The result is a law that doesn't address every problem with

special education but that does grapple with some of the

tougher ones. Unlike most education bills, this one involves

civil rights issues, namely the right of disabled students to

receive appropriate, free education, just like other

children. While reinforcing this principle, the law also

addresses, for example, the contentious question of whether

schools can discipline or expel unruly students with

disabilities: they can, but only after an appropriate process

and only if they ensure that the special services the child

was receiving are not discontinued.

While attitudes cannot be legislated, the law also tries to

reduce some of the adversarial tension that has built up

between schools and parents in recent years by reducing

paperwork, by providing alternatives to litigation and by

eliminating some of the more trivial bureaucratic

requirements. The law also brings special education in line

with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act,

establishing the qualifications required for special

education teachers, providing funding for teachers to get

those qualifications if they don't have them already and

taking some steps toward establishing alternatives to assess

the progress of disabled children.

Ultimately, the test for Congress is not whether this bill

finally becomes law, which seems likely, but whether the

goodwill surrounding it continues. The special education

debate is not over, nor should it be. It is legitimate to ask

about the costs of this law, both in terms of time and money;

equally, it is legitimate to ask whether schools comply with

it because they genuinely believe that special education is

worthwhile or because they have to. The answers to both

questions will affect the quality of the education all

children receive. As different lessons are learned about what

works best, for disabled children and for schools,

legislators will need to keep the law flexible, and their

naturally partisan tempers under control.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee--the gentleman from Delaware, the gentlewoman from California, and the gentleman from Ohio--for all of their hard work on this legislation and their genuine efforts to make this a bipartisan bill.

IDEA is a program that is very important to me personally. I was one of the original authors of the legislation in 1975 that made an historic commitment to the special needs children of the country--and their parents--to assure them the opportunity for a public education that would allow them to take full advantage of their gifts and have a full opportunity to participate in American society.

In opposed the IDEA bill passed by the House last year because I believed it undermined that bond between Congress and the special needs community. For me and for millions of American families, IDEA is more than an education law; it is a pact that never again will we abandon special needs children and cut them off from the educational services they need and deserve.

While I voted against the House version of the bill, I am pleased that the conference committee reversed many of the House positions opposed by longtime supporters of IDEA.

As a result, I support the conference report before us today because it maintains the basic civil rights of children with disabilities and their families. I am hopeful that our changes will improve their quality and access to a free and appropriate education.

One of the most important decisions we had to make in conference was whether or not children could be, in effect, punished because of their disability. I am very pleased that we took the necessary steps to ensure that children cannot be unfairly punished.

We had the good sense to include one of the most important provisions in current law: The manifestation determination requirement that school districts consider whether a child's behavior was the result of their disability when considering disciplinary action.

It is only fair to consider whether the child could control their behavior and whether they could understand the consequences of their behavior. These questions are clearly relevant and I am pleased that they will continue to be treated as relevant.

Our agreement also ensures that children who are subject to discipline cannot be put in alternative placements for unlimited periods of time and that, if suspended, they will continue to receive educational services. These measures will help these children continue on the path toward graduation rather than dropping out--and provide for the safety of other children and school personnel.

Let me also mention two improvements to current law that I believe are particularly beneficial. First, I am pleased that the conference report addresses long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and enforcement. The Department of Education is required to monitor key IDEA issues.

These issues include making sure States educate children in the least restrictive environment and take steps to prevent minority students, from being disproportionately identified, as is too often the case. Once identified, these children are more likely to be placed in lower quality, substantially segregated environments and are more likely to be suspended or expelled.

When a State is out of compliance for two years, our agreement requires the Secretary to take an enforcement action.

These changes give the Department of Education the means to both identify problems and the authority and tools necessary to help solve them through a range of options, including advice, technical assistance, and support.

Second, I support the improved outreach and services for children who--through no fault of their own--move and change schools frequently. It is only right that we take steps that protect the 500,000 children in foster care and the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness each year.

Children who are homeless suffer from disabilities nearly four times more than children who are from stable homes, but they have great difficulty accessing special education services. Even when they have Individualized Education Plans, their IEPs often have not moved with them and the process must start over.

After months without adequate services, a child may regress so far that she or he can lost a whole school year. Our agreement improves coordination between schools and ensures that the child's IEP must transfer with them and be used until the new school district and parent can develop a new IEP.

Despite these important improvements, a fundamental problem continues to jeopardize all of our best efforts. Congress continues to ignore our 30-year old pledge to fully fund this law.

When we originally passed it in 1975, we made a simple promise: The Federal government would provide states with 40 percent of the total costs of special education--not 100 percent--just 40 percent. But we have never fulfilled our promise. As of today, we are providing nearly 20 percent of special education costs--less than half of what we promised three decades ago.

Our conference report tries to help. I'm pleased that it recommits Congress to providing States with the full 40 percent by laying our authorization levels each year that would allow us to meet the goal by the year 2011.

Obviously, this is not as soon as I would like or our children need, but at least it is a blueprint for getting us there. But the blueprint involves substantial increases each year, including this year--and I am dismayed that this year's increase may already be in jeopardy.

We must mean what we say and say what we mean--it's time to put our money where our mouth is and appropriate these funds once and for all.

I urge all of my colleagues, especially those on the appropriations committee, to make this a top priority. What could possibly be a better investment in our country than helping our children develop and grow to their full potential?

We have just gone through the experience of No Child Left Behind where the President and Congress promised to fund the new law at levels that were necessary to ensure schools would be able to meet the new goals. And before the ink was dry on that law the president broke his promise on funding. Now we are $27 billion in the red on our commitment to No Child Left Behind and America's public schools.

As Members vote to approve this conference report, and I hope they do, we must be prepared to stand by the commitment this bill makes to properly fund special education.

The bottom line for me is to ensure that all children--including all children with disabilities--have access to public education that propels them toward participation in American society to the fullest extent possible. I believe that this conference agreement moves us in that direction, and I am pleased to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys' fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys' fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the Conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith.

Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Pension Fairness Act to bring some equity to bear between corporate executives and rank-and-file workers when those executives seek to dump underfunded workers' pension plans onto the Federal Government or cut older workers' pensions through an unfair cash balance plan conversion.

Far too often, we hear of cases where executives demand concessions from their workers when the business struggles and, at the same time, sweeten their own pension and deferred compensation deals. It's past time that executives understand that the pension promises made to their workers are sacred. It's past time that executives understand that a breach of those promises carries consequences. Employees cannot be asked to absorb the full brunt of bankruptcy by having their pension plans terminated and dropped on the Federal Government. Executives should share in that pain.

When companies terminate their underfunded pension plans, the federally established Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) takes over those liabilities. Today, the PBGC suffers from a $10 billion deficit. Already in bankruptcy, United Airlines, which recently defied the law and stopped making legally-required contributions to its pension plans, would add $6.4 billion to the PBGC's obligations if the company terminates its plans. United's workers and retirees would lose $1.9 billion in earned pension benefits. US Airways has asked a bankruptcy court for permission to skip a $110 million contribution to its pension plans, due last month. Plan terminations at these companies would pose serious threats not just to the retirement security of their employees but to the retirement security of other airlines' employees and to the ongoing solvency of the PBGC. When executives are faced with the choice between terminating or saving company pension plans they also should have a stake in that choice.

In recent years, we have seen companies break their pension promises by converting their traditional pension plans into cash balance plans. Many of these conversions do wonders for a company's books--to the great delight of executives and directors--but end up cutting older workers' pension benefits. Many of these conversions have given workers no choice between the cash balance and traditional pension plans. Just last year, a court found that the cash balance conversion at IBM, which all employees were forced to take, would result in a 47 percent reduction in older workers' pensions. The Government Accountability Office found similar losses of up to 50 percent of older workers' promised pensions.

Under the Pension Fairness Act, if a company terminates an underfunded workers' pension plan or converts a workers' pension plan into a cash balance plan that cuts older workers' benefits or takes away their choice to stay in their original plan, the company's executives and directors may not enhance their own deferred compensation deals for the next 5 years. If any new deals for executives or directors are cut the year prior to an underfunded plan termination or a conversion that hurts older workers, payments to executives or directors under those new deals are also suspended for 5 years. It's very simple: If the business or the pension plan is in such dire straits that a termination or conversion is necessary, then executives and directors should not be showering themselves with new and improved benefits.

This bill is about fairness and common sense. It places the retirement security of workers and executives on more equal footing. And it sends a rightly discouraging message to those executives who would seek to cut and run from their pension promises, leaving the federal government to pick up the tab.

Mr. Speaker, increasing the minimum wage is a vital issue for working families across the country. The minimum wage has not been increased in 7 years. The value of the last minimum wage increase has been fully eroded. Today, the minimum wage is worth less than it has been in 46 out of the previous 48 years. As a percentage of the hourly wage of nonsupervisory employees, the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 55 years. This decline is causing serious hardships for low-income families.

To address this problem, I introduced H.R. 4256, the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004,'' which increases the minimum in three steps from its current level of $5.15 to $7.00. Ninety-four of my colleagues have joined me in sponsoring this legislation. On Wednesday, more than 562 prominent economists--including 4 Nobel Prize winners in economics and 7 past presidents of the American Economic Association--are joining us in endorsing an increase in the Federal minimum wage to $7.00.

In their endorsement, these economists say, ``We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed.''

They go on to state:

As economists who are concerned about the problems facing

low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of

2004's proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum

wage to $7.00 falls well within the range of options where

the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall

economy would be positive.

Below is a copy of the economists' statement. A complete list of the cosigners can be found on the Economic Policy Institute's WEB site at: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/minwagestmt2004.

It's Time for a Raise--Hundreds of Economists Support a Minimum Wage

Increase

The minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's

economy for 65 years. It is based on the principle of valuing

work by establishing an hourly wage floor beneath which

employers cannot pay their workers. In so doing, the minimum

wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that

low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage

is also an important tool in fighting poverty.

The value of the 1997 increase in the federal minimum wage

has been fully eroded. The real value of today's federal

minimum wage is less than it has been in 46 out of the last

48 years. Moreover, the ratio of the minimum wage to the

average hourly wage of non-supervisory workers is 33%, its

lowest level in 55 years. This decline is causing hardship

for low-wage workers and their families.

We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would

improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have

the adverse effects that critics have claimed. In particular,

we share the view the Council of Economic Advisers expressed

in the 1999 Economic Report of the President that ``the

weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the

minimum wage have had very little or no effect on

employment.'' While controversy about the precise employment

effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown

that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female,

and the vast majority are members of low-income working

families.

As economists who are concerned about the problems facing

low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of

2004's proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum

wage to $7.00 falls well within the range of options where

the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall

economy would be positive.

Twelve states and the District of Columbia have set their

minimum wages above the federal level. Additional states,

including Florida, Nevada, and New York, are considering

similar measures. As with a federal increase, modest

increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to

$2.00 can significantly improve the lives of low-income

workers and their families, without the adverse effects that

critics have claimed.

Mr. Speaker, last night Vice President Cheney said he was proud of the record in Iraq, and this is exactly what he said: ``We did in Iraq what was exactly the right thing to do, and I recommend it all over again, I would.''

And yet in today's Washington Post we learned that the most definitive accounts of Iraq's arms programs will show that Saddam Hussein possessed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess or have concrete plans to develop nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

This investigation found that the state of Hussein's weapon development program and knowledge was less advanced in 2003 when the war began than it was in 1998 when the international inspectors left Iraq. The fact of the matter is over 1,000 Americans have died in this war; thousands and thousands of Americans have been wounded; thousands and thousands of Iraqis have been killed and wounded, and they have been killed or wounded in a war of choice because Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. But this administration chose, in spite of all of the evidence to go to war, to put our young people at risk and to lose their lives because they wanted to manipulate the evidence. They wanted to manipulate the war on terror, and they wanted to frighten this Nation.

Mr. Vice President, if you had to do it all over again, I hope you would not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for their assistance, and leadership, in moving this legislation, along with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) from our side of the aisle. I also want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein for helping to get this successfully through the Senate.

I just want to raise a couple of points, and that is that this past summer, when an earlier version of this legislation was on the House floor, I offered a motion, along with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) to correct what I believed was a fatal flaw in that legislation, the so-called preauthorization provision of the House, that would have granted a

blank check to Federal agencies to spend billions of dollars on dams and other projects in California. It was our strong belief that this provision would in fact never pass the Senate; it would become controversial and bog down this matter in the legislative process.

Fortunately, that provision of this legislation was removed at the insistence of members of the Senate. And the discussion that somehow, if we removed it, it would blow up the Calfed program has turned out to be the opposite. The removal of that has allowed Senators from other parts of the country to let us proceed for this long overdue legislation and hold together the coalition that was put together in the House in support of this legislation on both sides of the aisle.

Again, I want to thank all of the tireless efforts that Senator Feinstein put into negotiating this legislation in the Senate. There is no question this was most difficult for the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) in the House. I just asked him whether or not various Members of the House were happy, and he told me happiness was not the test in this legislation, but perhaps relative happiness was the test. And I think maybe, that being the goal, we have put together support for this legislation. And I want to thank him for those negotiations.

The bill we are considering today contains one complicated provision having to do with the balance in the Calfed program. Concerns have been raised that the finding of imbalance in this provision would be disruptive to the Calfed program. This should not be the case. Congress might indeed exercise its prerogative and refuse to authorize a surface storage project if a less expensive or less damaging water supply alternative exists. That action would trigger this rebalancing provision, which includes a specific remedy and report to the Congress that should include those alternative supplies. As in the case of surface storage facilities, these alternative water supplies should be financed by the principle of ``beneficiary pays,'' just like every other aspect of the Calfed program.

Finally, it is important to note that the bill reflects the fact that ecosystem restoration and several other Calfed activities, that have not received new authorization in this bill, are already authorized under Federal law. As the program moves forward, the authorization will include the balanced funding for these program elements as well.

Again, I want to thank all of the members of the Committee on Resources, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who we share areas covering the great Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in our State, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was able to get some people to slow down and give some serious consideration to the problems that have plagued the users of the delta, both the agricultural interests and our municipal users and the environmental concerns in the delta to make sure that in fact we could come up with the most balanced program possible to meet all of those needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) who has been very active in this matter for several years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

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

Again, I want to rise in support of this legislation, but I do want to note some concurrent problems that concern me with respect to this legislation because the goals of this legislation were to strike a balance in the operation of this water system, a balance in the development of facilities and the utilization of this water between the consumption of this water, whether it be in industry or whether it be in the agricultural industry or in our municipalities or for the environment, to make sure that there was balance to those efforts. I think to the extent it was practicable, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and others have worked that balance out.

I am concerned that as we get ready to pass this legislation and send it to the President, we now see other activities that are taking place along at the same time, and, that is, we see the emergence now of the operations criteria and plan which is the new document that sets the stage for California's most far-reaching, according to the Sacramento Bee, the most far-reaching plumbing shifts in a decade.

Under the plan, water contractors would increase the pumping from the very same delta that this legislation is designed to help protect and preserve both for its local economies, for its agricultural industries and for its environmental assets, would increase the pumping from the delta by some 27 percent to Southern California.

The suggestion is that that has to be done. Part of it is because there are contracts that have to be met. We know that many of these contracts are up currently for renewal in a number of the water districts south of the delta. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Government has within its authority to modify those contracts. All of the evidence suggests that they are not prepared to do that, that they are going to maximize the water deliveries under those contracts even though those contracts envisioned a water delivery at a time that California had 20 million fewer people than it does today and when the demands on water north of the delta are different today than they were then. They are not going to modify those contracts, and they are going to try, I think, contrary to the law, they are going to try to extend those contracts for another 40 years.

The fact of the matter is that that is contrary to the protection of this Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and as outlined in this new operations criteria means less water flowing into San Francisco Bay. After a decades-long struggle to protect San Francisco Bay, you can start to see the reignition of a whole series of battles starting to take place because there is this rush by the State administration and the Federal Government to maximize the amount of water that can be sent south.

The concern is that when we have tried to make sure that all of the evidence was on the table, with both of our Senators and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and other members of the California delegation, we asked for a continuation of the public hearings on these contract terms, the bureau has ignored our request. When we asked the bureau to extend that public comment period until those important questions were answered, the bureau ignored our request.

What worries me is this ignoring of the public interest, of the public input into this decision now fits into what we now see, that the political operations within NOAA and the scientists who are there to develop the standards for the protections of the salmon runs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, in the American River, we now see, according again to the Sacramento Bee this last weekend, that there is an overriding of the setting of those standards in terms of the adequate water flows and releases that are necessary to protect those endangered runs of salmon. We see that that is now being done for political reasons.

What worries me the most is this is the same cast of characters that arbitrarily and capriciously in the court case, it was determined, overrode the scientists on the Klamath River and led to one of the largest kill-offs of salmon in the history of the west coast, if not the largest, because they decided that they did not want to live with good science, they decided they would override it.

So all of a sudden as we pass CALFED today, we see that in fact the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Bay, the American River, maybe the runs in the Sacramento River, the fisheries runs there, may be more imperiled than at any time in history.

Why is that happening? Because what we see in spite of the agreements of cooperation, of balancing that we see in the CALFED, we see there starting to be a repetition of the same old habits which is to try and maximize the pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to send it south for the purposes of fulfilling these contracts or other needs.

My concern is that at a time when the chairman really held up this process until such time as the delta water agencies and others could come in and make sure what the impacts were going to be on delta water quality, on delta usage, we now see a parallel process taking place that has all of the earmarks of another devastating blow to delta water quality, to the usages in the delta, to the protection of the environment, and to the protection of the delta economy.

I raise these at this time because, as we celebrate the long effort and the successful effort with the passage in this House of the CALFED legislation, we see that the forces who continue to have a design on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, on the impacts on San Francisco Bay by increasing the diversions from this very complicated and fragile environment, we see that they never rest. And they are back now, apparently with the cooperation of the Schwarzenegger administration in Sacramento, with the cooperation of the Bush administration, in fact, with not only the cooperation of the Bush administration but the Bush administration's political appointees now coming in and overriding the scientists who have done the studies designed to protect the delta and protect its fisheries.

So I guess the bottom line and the end of this story is, there is an awful lot of work that remains to be done. There is an awful lot of concern that we have over the long-term protection of the delta, and I would hope that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) would look at these articles that are in the ``Sacramento Bee'' because they raise the most serious concerns about our economy and about our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles that I alluded to.

[From sacbee.com, Oct. 2, 2004]

Rewrite Softens Report on Risks to Fish

(By Stuart Leavenworth)

Officials at a federal fisheries agency ordered their

biologists to revise a report on salmon and other endangered

fish so that more water can be shipped to Southern California

from the Delta, according to interviews and internal agency

documents obtained by The Bee.

Biologists with NOAA Fisheries, an arm of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluded in August

that a plan to pump more water through the Sacramento-San

Joaquin Delta could jeopardize endangered salmon and other

fish.

NOAA administrators in Long Beach, however, overruled the

biologists and supervised a rewriting of their analysis.

That, in turn, removed the last major obstacle to a plan that

could send more water south, affecting how much is reserved

in Northern California, including for salmon in the American

River.

NOAA officials say the revisions were justified. Agency

biologists made some errors and ``unsubstantiated

conclusions'' in their original draft, said James Lecky, an

agency administrator in Long Beach who ordered the revisions.

Some agency employees, however, say some of the changes had

no basis in science and substantially weaken protections for

endangered winter-run salmon, steelhead trout and other fish.

``I haven't seen anything this bad at NOAA since working

here,'' said one agency biologist who asked that his name not

be used. ``The Sacramento office (of NOAA Fisheries) is

totally demoralized.''

At issue is a state-federal plan for operating the massive

network of reservoirs, aqueducts and pumping plants that move

water around California. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and

state Department of Water Resources are planning major

changes for those facilities, partly to free up water that

can be shipped through the Delta.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave its blessing to the

plan in August, but NOAA Fisheries has sought extensions in

releasing its own analysis.

Documents obtained by The Bee explain why.

In August, NOAA biologists issued a draft stating that the

plan ``is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley

Steelhead,'' as well as spring-run salmon.

The documents outlined several measures the Bureau of

Reclamation could adopt to reduce impacts on fish, but the

document was never signed.

Instead, Lecky delivered the draft to his counterparts in

the Bureau of Reclamation, who offered suggestions on

revisions, he said.

Lecky said such document sharing is commonplace as federal

agencies undergo what is known as a consultation under the

Endangered Species Act. NOAA officials wanted to ensure they

had appropriately interpreted the bureau's plans, he said,

and receive feedback on their own analysis.

A copy of NOAA's latest draft, however, shows that

administrators have altered the report in ways that go beyond

mere word changes.

The updated version, 289 pages and dated Sept. 27, no

longer concludes that winter-run salmon or other fish could

face extinction by the extra water diversions by state and

federal facilities.

The report concludes that the new operations would likely

reduce the juvenile population of winter-run salmon by 5

percent to 22 percent, but says that agencies can help

minimize those losses by monitoring and adapting.

The latest version also softens the wording for how the

Bureau of Reclamation can avoid future impacts on fish.

In the original report, NOAA biologists called on the

Bureau of Reclamation to reserve 450,000 to 600,000 acre-feet

of water in Folsom Lake by September to provide adequate

supplies for returning salmon and steelhead.

The latest version changes the wording from ``shall

maintain'' to ``shall target'' the extra water.

In addition, the latest draft no longer calls for a minimum

flow standard for the American River, as the original did.

The state

Water Resources Control Board called for an American River

flow standard in 1988, but federal officials haven't yet

agreed to one.

A former state official who now works for a leading

environmental group reviewed the two versions and said he was

stunned by the revisions.

``The September draft guts the minimal protections that

were in the earlier version,'' said Jonas Minton, a former

deputy secretary for the Department of Water Resources. ``The

new version includes commitments to talk instead of

commitments to protect fish.''

Minton, who now works for the Planning and Conservation

League, agreed that supervisors often make routine changes to

a scientific document. ``It's an entirely different thing to

change science for political purposes,'' he said.

In an interview, NOAA's Lecky disputed that political

appointees had pressed for changes. Everything has been

handled within NOAA's Southwest Regional Office in Long

Beach, he said.

Lecky declined to comment further on the revisions, saying

The Bee had obtained a ``predecisional document'' that was

subject to further review. Sources say a final version could

be released next week.

Formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA Fisheries enforces the Endangered Species Act for fish

that spend part of their lives in the ocean, such as salmon.

In recent years, NOAA has become embroiled in several

controversies over water allocations and fish.

In 2002, NOAA biologist Michael Kelly warned that the

Reclamation Bureau's water plans in Oregon could lead to fish

kills downstream on the Klamath River. Later that year, warm

water and disease killed about 77,000 returning salmon,

according to a report by the California Department of Fish

and Game.

Kelly later resigned from NOAA after another disagreement

with Lecky.

In recent months, the Bureau of Reclamation has been

pushing to sign long-term contracts with irrigation districts

and finalize plans for shipping more water through the Delta.

Some of California's most powerful groups--including the

Chamber of Commerce, Westlands Water District and the

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--are

lobbying for extra water.

Environmentalists suspect this pressure prompted some of

NOAA's recent actions, although they acknowledge they can't

prove it.

Bureau of Reclamation officials say the public will have

full opportunity to comment on any changes in water

operations. The Bureau and the Department of Water Resources

have scheduled an informational meeting in Sacramento on

Thursday from 9 a.m. to noon at the Best Western Expo Inn,

1413 Howe Ave.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Let me say at the outset, that the Members on this side of the aisle enthusiastically support this legislation brought to the floor by the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee. We only ask, what has been holding it up? Why were you not here earlier? But you are here now and we will celebrate the fact that you are here now.

I must say that we were excited when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) were able to get an amendment this past September onto the floor of the House so we could get this issue in front of the House, get it out into the daylight and let the Members work the will of the House, something that does not happen too often in this Chamber. The will is quite stifled most of the time.

But when this issue is put before the House by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the House got a chance to look at it, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives from the North, East, South, West, around the country, 414 to 3, they said, get rid of this loophole. It is unjustified, it is unconscionable, it is expensive and it is killing the credibility of this program.

Tonight, we answer that call by the House of Representatives to get rid of this program. But tragically tonight we only answer a part of that call because we do not deal with those provisions in this program that continue these unconscionable profits at the 9.5 percent loans due to the recycling. We are going to stop this loophole for this year, and we ought to stop the recycling.

This is not retroactive. But when you do not stop the recycling, the good purposes for which our colleagues across the aisle are going to put this money to use, and that is to help those teachers, provide loan forgiveness for those teachers in difficult districts who are making the special efforts, some 10,000 additional teachers, who could have access to loan forgiveness, now will not have access to that loan forgiveness.

All it would require is to close the loophole. That is what the House voted on when they voted on the Kildee-Van Hollen amendment. They voted to close a loophole, not sort of close a loophole, not part way close a loophole, but close a loophole. Maybe only for 1 year now, and that is the best we can do under these circumstances, but the entire loophole.

The difference is billions of dollars. The difference is 10,000 teachers in need of loan forgiveness. That is the choice.

I heard this was held up because we had all this power. We would like to use our power now to tell you and persuade you to join with us and close the entire loophole and get those other 10,000 teachers that are eligible. Power to the people, to the Democrats, because apparently that is why you have not done it now for 2 years. So we want to join with you. We can have a manager's amendment tonight to close the loophole like 414 of our colleagues urge.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for their creativity and tenacity in getting this before the House of Representatives, getting it into the full Chamber where the Members on a bipartisan basis have overwhelmingly repudiated this program. I am sorry we cannot go the whole way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), one of the sponsors of the original amendment to get this in front of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who again was the spark plug for getting this legislation before the full House and getting this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, could you advise the time remaining?

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. But it is interesting, you know, with the 10-year T-bill rate at 4 percent and the 2-year bill or the 3-year bill at about 1.5 to 2 percent, that a very select group of lenders can get 9.5 percent, the only place in the world you can get a return of 9.5 percent on your money, or the difference between the margin there. It is the only place in the world you can go to get this money, unless you are borrowing from the Mafia.

But what happens with this legislation is, while hiding behind a legitimate claim by nonprofits, they keep open the recycling loophole that is overwhelmingly used, according to the General Accountability Office, by for-profit lenders. Nothing to do with retroactivity, because we stop this practice in the future, and we can stop recycling in the future.

But they have chosen not to do it. They said, if the Democrats had cooperated, they would have done this earlier. Well, we are cooperating, so do it. It is earlier. Do it now. We have this newfound power bestowed upon us by the chairman of the committee. We want it now.

You said you did not do it because we did not cooperate. The more I think about it, it was a brilliant strategy because we did not have to take all that other stuff in your legislation, where these kids were going to lose their rights to low-interest loans and be able to lock in low-interest loans in repayments. We did not have to take all that, which would have punished millions of young people, and we are going to get this loophole closed, too.

Sounds like a brilliant piece of strategy. And here we are at the end of the session with the Republicans implementing, talk about bipartisanship, the Republicans are now implementing this Democratic strategy. It is a wonderful evening to be here at midnight to finally see where the Republicans are saying the Democrats made us do it.

Mr. Speaker, we enthusiastically support this bill. We hope that the Republicans next year will go the full steps to closing the loophole in its entirety.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the California Maritime Academy as it celebrates its 75th anniversary.

The California Maritime Academy was founded in 1929 under the name of the ``California Nautical School'' and was located in Tiburon, and is the third oldest active maritime

academy in the United States. In 1936 the U.S. Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act, which directed the creation and maintenance of an adequate merchant marine to support U.S. international and domestic commerce and to meet the needs for national defense. Responding to this mandate, the federal government and the California state legislature began contributing matching funds in support of the school's mission. In these early days, only three-year deck and engineering programs were offered.

In 1939 the school changed its name to the California Maritime Academy. In 1940, with war looming, the academy was relocated to San Francisco. During World War II, the course of study was accelerated to 17 months and many graduates served in the war. A new permanent site for the academy was found on a 67-acre site at Morrow Cove in Vallejo; in 1943 campus construction was completed, making the site the academy's permanent home.

In 1973 Cal Maritime became the first maritime academy to enroll women in a licensed maritime program, the first of whom graduated in 1976. In 1974 the curriculum was expanded to a four-year undergraduate program, laying the groundwork for accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Nautical industrial technology and marine engineering technology were the four-year majors offered at this time. In the late 1980's, two new majors in mechanical engineering and business administration were added, and the nautical industrial technology program was replaced by marine transportation. Cal Maritime currently offers bachelor's degrees in business administration, facilities engineering technology, global studies and maritime affairs, marine engineering technology, marine transportation, and mechanical engineering. A program of intellectual learning, applied technology, and leadership development prepares graduates for positions of significant responsibility in the areas of maritime, business, logistics, inter-modal transportation, and engineering.

In addition to earning a bachelor's degree, students earn professional licensing in one of several areas: Third Mate or Third Assistant Engineer, U.S. Coast Guard; Certified Plant Engineer-in- Training, Association for Facilities Engineering; or professional certification in transportation, management, or international business and logistics. The curriculum further expanded during the fall of 2003, when Cal Maritime introduced a major in global studies and maritime affairs--the first new major to be accepted after the academy's full transition into the CSU system. Also in the fall of 2003, Cal Maritime dedicated its new Technology Center.

In 1995, Cal Maritime became a campus of The California State University (CSU), which opened new opportunities for educational and institutional enhancement. By 1996 Cal Maritime expanded beyond its maritime curriculum, introducing a facilities engineering technology major. A new science and engineering lab building was completed in 1999. Cal Maritime is one of only seven degree-granting maritime academies in the United States, and the only one on the West Coast.

For the last several years, Cal Maritime students have enjoyed a nearly 100% job placement rate upon graduation and starting salaries above the national average. In addition, Cal Maritime's completion and time to degree rates are some of the best of any public institution in the state. At Cal Maritime, students benefit from a small student-to- teacher ratio and small class sizes--with an average of 18 students per class. Each student at Cal Maritime has the opportunity to participate in at least one 60-day international training cruise aboard the Training Ship Golden Bear. While at sea, students apply the skills learned during the school year and visit domestic and international ports of call.

As Cal Maritime celebrates its 75th anniversary, the future looks bright with applications for enrollment at an all-time high. The academy's strategic plan calls for growth to 750-800 students in the next few years and Cal Maritime is well on its way to meeting that goal.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we congratulate the California Maritime Academy for its 75 years of contributions to the maritime industry of our great nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Amendment.

The Sanders amendment would ensure that the Treasury Department does not use any of its funds to undermine the Federal court decision in Cooper v. IBM that held that cash balance conversions violate Federal pension and age discrimination law.

We've been here many times before.

In fact, this is the fourth time that the House is voting to protect older workers' pensions under cash balance pension plan conversions. The last two times the amendment passed by 308-121 and 258-160.

Instead of voting to prevent the Treasury Department from undermining workers' pensions, I wish we were voting affirmative legislation to set standards for cash balance plans.

This issue has been going on since 1999.

In 1999, IBM converted its pension plan to a cash balance plan. Luckily, its computer savvy workers quickly figured out that the conversions would reduce their expected pensions. The workers mobilized and got Congress to hold hearings.

The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on approvals of conversions in September 1999. But then, the new Bush administration tried to issue regulations lifting the moratorium and permit conversions without any worker protections.

Immediately 218 Members of Congress wrote to the President urging him to revise the regulations and protect older workers.

Four times the House and Senate have voted to require Treasury to withdraw its regulations and protect older workers.

Finally, this year, in 2004, the Bush administration relented and withdrew the regulations. The administration even sent up a revised legislative proposal that contained a modicum of older worker protections through it did not go far enough to protect older workers.

But, still the issue is not resolved. Either Congress or the courts must set standards for cash balance plans and conversions to such plans.

The Republican Congress has done nothing on this issue for almost 6 years. If anything, Republican leader would defer to employer lobbying and simply permit cash balance conversions without any protections for older workers.

That's why the courts may have to be the body that resolves some of these issues.

One court, the Federal district court for the State of Illinois, determined that conversions are illegal. Other courts have disagreed. These cases and others still waiting to be heard will take years to resolve.

This amendment makes clear that the Treasury Department shall not interfere in these cases.

Today worker pension security is in crisis. This administration has done nothing to protect worker's pensions and done everything to undermine them.

They didn't protect workers after Enron and Worldcom from employers loading pension plans with employer stock and letting the executive protect themselves while leaving the workers stuck with worthless stock.

They didn't protect participants in 401(K) plans from a broad range of mutual fund abuses that have decimated retirement nest eggs.

And they are not protecting workers now from rampant pension underfunding. The PBGC, the agency that insures traditional pensions, has a $10 billion deficit. And if the airlines go under, the deficit will increase by another $30 billion. Over 1,000 pension plans are more than $50 million underfunded. And workers don't even know because the PBGC is required to keep the information secret.

The administration and the Republican majority are doing nothing to protect worker pensions.

I urge my colleagues to vote once again and remind the majority that it is the will of the Congress that older workers be protected in cash balance pension plan conversions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Sal Roselli, a friend of mine and a good friend to working people throughout the Nation, who will receive the honored title of Labor Leader of the Year in Contra Costa County, California by the AFL-CIO, on September 17, 2004. Sal is receiving this honor in recognition of the contributions he has made to bring high quality health care to all Americans.

Sal is the President of the Service Employees International Union Local 250, AFL-CIO. Since he became President in 1988 that Union has become the fastest growing health care union in the Nation, having seen its membership rise from 25,000 to 100,000. During this time his union has established new standards on wages, benefits and quality of care issues through the collective bargaining process. SEIU Local 250 has played a leading role in advancing social justice issues such as immigrant rights, health care access, peace and affirmative action.

Sal's commitment to working people began in the late 1960's when he worked with Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker's Movement, followed by a year of community organizing with VISTA. He moved to the Bay Area in the early 1970's, and by 1984 he was president of the Alice B Toklas Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club, which grew to be the largest in the country.

As a national vice-president of SEIU, Sal has helped bring a new sense of urgency within the labor movement to address one of our Nation's greatest shames--the lack of health insurance coverage for 45 million people. His union's 100,000 health care members are committed to bringing quality health care to every American.

I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting Sal Roselli in recognition of his service to America's health care needs.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in saluting Alex Mehran, who will be named Corporate Leader of the Year for Contra Costa County at the AFL-CIO's Labor-2- Labor dinner in my congressional district on September 17, 2004. Mr. Mehran earned this honor due to his continued leadership within our community on such issues as housing, transportation and the creation of quality jobs for America's working families.

As President and Chief Executive Officer of Sunset Development Company, Alex has built the largest, most diverse business center in the San Francisco Bay region. That development, Bishop Ranch, contains over 350 companies that employ over 30,000 people. In order to provide the housing and transportation choices these employees, and others throughout the region, need, Alex Mehran has provided dynamic leadership on a number of initiatives to address these issues.

As Chairman of the Contra Costa Economic Partnership he has helped to create a unique collaboration of public and private partnerships to promote economic development strategies that support a higher quality of life for the region's residents.

Alex has shown his commitment to making the ``American Dream'' available to all of our community's residents by creating learning opportunities for immigrant workers at his job sites so they can gain the English skills needed to fully participate in our society.

For our system to truly work, we must have corporate leaders like Alex Mehran who understand our great society's health depends on each of our hard-working residents having the opportunity to enjoy the quality of life we all work so hard to create.

Mr. Speaker, every now and then nice things happen to those in need. This is just what happened to the students at Helms Middle School after Joe Zawadski visited the school and saw the terrible conditions that existed. Joe Zawadski made a command decision that the students deserved better and he and his company, Signature Properties, were going to do something about it.

With the support of Jim Ghielmetti, the owner of Signatures Properties, Helms was able to make major improvements to its safety, sanitation and playing field conditions. What a wonderful example for those who want to help improve the educational environment in our schools.

Thanks to Joe Zawadski and Signature Properties, the students at Helms Middles School will start the year in a safer and brighter learning environment. Thank you Joe Zawadski.

Mr. Speaker I would like to share with my colleagues a news story and editorial from the Contra Costa Times.

Pick Up A Paint Brush

Signature Properties Vice President Joe Zwidski usually is

responsible for developing the foundation of neighborhoods,

building things from the ground up. Recently, however, he

stepped in to help in the maintenance of a school in San

Pablo, one of the

areas in which his Pleasanton company builds.

He donated supplies and his company's services to paint the

exterior, repair the lawn; install sprinklers, and fix

bathrooms and broken windows at Helms Middle School.

He looked at this dilapidated school--scheduled for

overhauling from Measure D money and that he has tried to

earmark his fees to West County School District for--and

decided the school's needs shouldn't be put off. He said:

``This is something we can do.''

That's true. Good for you, Mr. Z. Now why didn't people

right there in the community say that? Why didn't neighbors

and parents do something? Do plumbers and painters and

handypeople not have children going through the schools?

As schools throughout the area, throughout the state, wait

for state funds or for local bond money, parents and

businesses in the community could be giving money, supplies,

time and skills to make sure their area schools aren't

falling down, that their kids and their neighbors aren't

going to schools that bring grown men to tears.

When the state or bond money comes, it will go further and

more will get done in the long run. But in many cases,

attention is needed now.

A decrepit school can have psychological connections and

results. As Zawidski said, to kids in attendance at schools

like that, ``it's apparent no one cares about them.''

That's how their young brains process it anyway. Then the

kids in turn don't care about themselves and don't strive to

get the benefits that a good education brings.

Parents and the community must be involved. They must be

active in all aspects of youths' education. That means:

making sure your kids do their homework, meeting their

teachers, seeing that they are learning. It also means making

sure money for schools is spent as it should be; it means

volunteering so that teachers have help and extra curriculum

programs remain available; and there is certainly no reason

it shouldn't mean that every couple of years you pick up a

paintbrush and a screwdriver, to keep the school up to par.

Our schools, all of them, can use the extra help.