Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 245, 246, and 247. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of those votes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend two young men from Richmond, California, who will begin classes this fall at Tallahassee Community College in Tallahassee, Florida. Sounds pretty straightforward, I know, but these are no ordinary students.

What makes these young men from my congressional district stand out is their background. It's not just that most people thought they would never go to college--in fact, most people thought they would never make it out of the neighborhood. People thought they would end up in jail, or even worse.

D'vondre Woodard and Eric Welch are two senior fellows at the city of Richmond's Office of Neighborhood Safety Peacekeeper Fellowship, an office that does a remarkable job of changing violent lives. D'vondre and Eric are shining examples of what remarkable

transformation individuals are capable of when they desire to make positive change in their lives and when they're supported in that effort.

From a life dominated by gun violence in the streets of Richmond to noses buried in books at college, internships in Washington, D.C., and meetings on Capitol Hill, these young men have come a long way. I wish them the best. I hope their success will serve as an inspiration for many more to follow in their steps and leave the violent streets.

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a trip to Bangladesh where more than 1,100 garment workers died and 2,000 were injured in the Rana Plaza building collapse on April 24. Many Americans may remember the horrible pictures of workers being buried under tons of concrete from the collapsed building.

I learned a great deal about what must be done to improve safety conditions in the garment industry there. Bangladesh is the second largest garment-producing nation, employing over 4 million skilled and industrious workers, mostly women, at a minimum wage of $37 a month. I learned that many factories have continued to operate in unsafe residential or multistory commercial buildings even after the Rana Plaza collapse. I learned more about poor conditions created by a myriad of middlemen hired by retailers that pit one factory against the next, squeezing out the last few pennies per garment. I learned that Bangladesh garment workers subsidize those low prices with their lives.

I visited the hospital where there were scores of women, many with amputated legs and arms or who were suffering from brain damage from the collapse of that building where they were working and where they were locked inside. I met with a woman near Rana Plaza who was looking for her son even though the unidentifiable or the unclaimed workers had been buried in a mass grave.

And Rana Plaza is not an isolated case.

I visited with seven courageous women injured in the Tazreen Fashions factory fire that killed 112 workers last November. There were seven women who had to jump from the third and fourth floors of their factory because the factory supervisors locked the exits after the fire had started and had told them to go back to work or they would be fired, and the doors were locked. That was the policy of that factory and of many other factories. Just this week, we saw poultry workers in China locked in a factory after the fire had started; and they, too, perished in the fire. These were seven women who had to make the decision to jump from the third and fourth floors of this factory to save their lives. Tazreen produced garments for Walmart and many other American brands.

Listen to what the women told me:

Rehana jumped from the fourth floor window and was knocked unconscious. She broke her leg, and the doctors told her she will need to be on crutches for the rest of her life.

Reba was the breadwinner in her home. She jumped from the third floor. She cannot work because of the pain. Her husband is sick. She has two sons, one of whom just qualified for the military college, but she doesn't know if she can afford to keep him there; and until I prodded Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Export Association, Reba had not received the promised stipend for those who were injured--6 months later.

Rowshanara jumped from the third floor and still has severe pain in her back and legs. She was visibly in pain after sitting too long while talking to us. She is single and gets by on loans. She has two teenage sons in school and doesn't want to force them to go to work, but she worries how she will get by.

Deepa worked on the third floor. She saw the fire, and tried to escape to the second floor. The factory manager padlocked the door and told everyone to keep working. Workers were crying and searching for a way out. A mechanic yelled to come to the east side of the building where he had created an exit. She jumped from the third floor and fell unconscious. She broke her left leg. She was 4 months pregnant, and she lost her baby.

Sumi decided to jump from the third floor rather than perish in the factory because she wanted her family to be able to identify her body, and that wouldn't happen if she were consumed in the fire. She broke her leg and arm and could not move. Her family borrowed money to pay for her medical bills before the association funds arrived. Two weeks before Rana Plaza, she came to the U.S. to urge retailers and brands to join the enforceable and

binding Accord on Fire and Building Safety.

Nazma said she would have died if she had waited 10 more minutes to jump. She saw the manager locking the gate to the second set of stairs and grabbed him by the collar to stop him, but he ignored her. She cut her arms while trying to get through a window to reach the bamboo scaffolding. She broke her backbone. She can't carry anything or do housework. She has three children. Her stipend went to medical care and to her children's education. Her 14-year-old son has had to leave school to try to find work.

I am grateful that these women had the courage to tell me their stories.

There is widespread agreement that if the Tazreen fire and the Rana Plaza collapse workers had had the right to refuse unsafe work, they would be alive today. Nobody, not even the factory, denied that that's the case; but for too long, the Bangladesh Government has blocked new unions. Only now, in facing the potential loss of trade preferences, the government has opened the door a crack. Twenty-seven new unions have been registered recently, reversing the trend in which only one union per year was registered, and there are 5,000 factories.

I met the leaders of some of these newly formed unions--young and serious workers--but only time will tell if the government lives up to its promise of union rights. In addition, the Obama administration will soon conclude its review of Bangladesh's trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences. In my view, these preferences should be suspended.

The one message I have for the American holdouts who won't agree to these safety accords is: listen to the women from Bangladesh.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleagues to read the following article, titled ``East Bay Profile: Veteran of Richmond's neighborhood wars changes life,'' posted in the West County Times on May 21, 2013.

I've had the opportunity to meet this extraordinary young man, Eric Welch, a number of times, both here in Washington and in my district in Richmond, California, during visits with the City of Richmond's Office of Neighborhood Safety's Peacekeeper Fellowship program, of which Eric is a member.

Eric's only 24 years old but has had a long history of involvement with gun violence. At 14, he was almost killed in a shooting, and by the time he was 22 he had already been shot on four separate occasions. But now, he is on a new path in life now, and that is very encouraging.

I was so proud to read that this fall Eric will start classes at Tallahassee Community College in Florida, and that he hopes to later transfer to Florida A&M University. And just as exciting, Eric has been selected as a Summer Policy Fellow for the Campaign for Youth Justice in Washington, D.C. this summer where he will write for the group's blog, brief congressional committees on his experience, and work with grass-roots groups to reduce youth crime.

The Richmond ONS Peacemaker Fellowship exists to save lives--Eric is a living testament to that. It is designed to create a viable space for at-risk individuals ages 16-25 to contribute in a real way to building and sustaining community peace, health and well-being--with the express purpose of eliminating gun violence in Richmond. Time and again I'm blown away by the work these young men do to develop a positive life path forward and mentor other young men in similar situations.

I wish Eric all the best, both in Washington this summer and at school this fall. I hope his successes will serve as inspiration for many more to follow in his steps.

[From the Contra Costa Times, May 21, 2013]

East Bay Profile: Veteran of Richmond's Neighborhood Wars Changes Life

(By Robert Rogers)

Richmond.--Eric Welch's mind and heart are on a higher

plane, but the street reflexes remain.

He'll be in Washington, D.C., this summer, wearing tailored

suits and briefing Congress.

But for now, Welch still tenses when certain cars round the

block.

He has good reason. He was shot four times before his 22nd

birthday.

``At first, getting shot was a source of anger,'' Welch

said. ``Now I look back at it differently. I wonder why I got

so lucky in a place where people like me get killed all the

time.

Welch, now 24 but with the weary face and measured speech

of an older man, has gone from self-described ``goon'' and

survivor of multiple episodes of gun violence to celebrated

member of the Office of Neighborhood Safety's fellowship

program. The program appeals to about 50 violent residents

with incentives, including small cash stipends, if they give

up gunplay and pick up education and job training.

The program is unique in the region, a city-sponsored

department that stems violence through intervention in the

lives of violent offenders. For his efforts, Welch earned an

internship with the Campaign for Youth Justice, a Washington,

D.C.-based nonprofit focused on juvenile justice.

Welch will serve as a ``policy fellow'' from June 10 to

Aug. 9, writing for the group's blog, briefing congressional

committees on his experience and working with grass-roots

groups to reduce youth crime.

It's a far cry from Welch's teen and early adult years, a

haze of neighborhood beefs and sporadic gunfire, interrupted

by hospital and jail stints. He bounced between a dozen

schools, toting guns when most kids still were watching

Saturday morning cartoons.

Guns and violence permeated his rugged south Richmond

neighborhood. It was only when he enrolled in the Office of

Neighborhood Safety program after a 2010 jail stint that he

turned away from crime.

``Eric is a shining example to other young people in

Richmond and beyond that people can change, and in the virtue

of hard work,'' said program director DeVone Boggan.

Cheating death

Welch leans on a black gate in front of a California

bungalow home at 26th Street and Virginia Avenue.

``This is the spot where I got shot that first time, almost

died, man,'' Welch says, looking down the street. ``I was

14.''

Welch re-enacts the scene from a decade ago. He was

``hanging'' with another teen a few blocks from the apartment

where he grew up with his mother and sister.

One block west, a car glided around the corner. Rifles

poked through the windows and spit flames from the barrels, a

nanosecond before the crackle of gunfire.

``I don't remember the car, just the flame spit out in the

night; it was AK-47s,'' Welch said.

Welch and his friend dove to the sidewalk and crawled for

cover.

``The bullets was whistling by, and ricocheting all over

the concrete, too,'' Welch said.

The pain was an intense heat, Welch remembered. A large-

caliber slug struck Welch underneath his left arm, collapsing

his lung and breaking his clavicle. Welch's friend was hit in

the hip. The car screeched away.

``Lot of blood, out my mouth, out my chest. I thought I was

going to die,'' Welch said. ``I couldn't breathe.''

Three scars mark his upper torso. One is the entry point

near his armpit. One is the spot in his side where doctors

plunged a tube to help him breathe. The exit wound is on his

back, knotted into a mound of dark scar tissue the size of a

golf ball.

Low points

Welch survived, but his innocence didn't.

``After that, I was bouncing around schools, just living

the neighborhood life,'' Welch said. ``I was angry. I was

vengeful.''

His drive for vengeance intensified after the 2006 killing

of Sean ``Shawny Bo'' Melson, a pint-size 15-year-old police

say was a charismatic, up-and-coming neighborhood leader. To

this day, odes to ``Shawny Bo'' and old photos are posted on

social networking sites.

Welch and other friends vowed to ``keep it lit'' for

Melson, meaning to exact retribution on rival neighborhoods

they blamed for his death.

Welch was shot three more times, in both ankles, the

buttocks and the hip. He declines to get into specifics but

admits he has been involved in ``shootouts.''

``I have a chance at a peaceful life; I just don't want to

die or go to jail when I am so close.''

Welch said that in Richmond's toughest neighborhoods,

violent deaths of relatives and friends, shootouts and close

calls ``hang over everything.''

The future

The mere notion of a future is a far cry from where Welch

has been.

``Eric was on his way to prison or death, for sure,'' said

Sam Vaughn, an Office of Neighborhood Safety neighborhood

change agent who has worked closely with Welch. ``Where he is

now, about to go to college, is a miracle given what he's

been through.''

Welch spends little time in the old neighborhood, knowing

he could lose it all in an instant.

He plans to attend Tallahassee Community College in Florida

in the fall, and he hopes to transfer to Florida A&M

University. But first, he's on his way to the Capitol.

``I am really looking forward to a new start, a place where

I can be by myself and focus and not worry about my past

catching up with me,'' Welch said. ``I feel alone here, in my

neighborhood. My friends are mostly dead or incarcerated.''

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her work on this rule last night in the committee.

It has already been said that, in a little more than a month, the interest rates on loans for millions of the neediest students will double to 6.8 percent from the current 3.4 percent. This morning, unfortunately, the Republican majority has put forth a bill that is even worse than if the Congress does nothing.

Think about it. If Congress does nothing, the interest rates go from 3.4 percent for those most in need of the student loans, for those families most in need to finance their educations, and will jump on July 1 to 6.8 percent. We're trying to avoid that because we know what that means to students who have to borrow money and families who have to borrow money to try to pay for their college educations.

What's the remedy of the Republicans?

The remedy of the Republicans is to do something that is worse than letting the interest rates double. Understand that. They've made a choice that's worse than if the interest rates double. It's no wonder that, beyond the Republican caucus, it's very hard to find anybody who is supporting this legislation. In fact, yesterday, the President said, if this bill is sent to his desk--I hope it will not be--that he will veto it.

Why would we do that?

Because it's very clear that this is going to add $4 billion to the debt of our students who Members of Congress lament are so deeply in debt because of the money they have to borrow that goes to education. It's not necessarily a choice for students or families if you want to get a college education, but why would you add $4 billion onto the backs of these students and their families?

Now, the majority had a number of alternatives last night in the Rules Committee. Mr. Courtney went there and said, We'll pay for it. We'll raise additional revenues to keep it at 3.4 percent. Then the Education and the Workforce Committee of this House can do its job, which is to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and we can put in place a long-term program for helping families finance their educations. We have to also understand that we've got to do something about

the State support and the cost of college at the institutional level, but they turned Mr. Courtney down.

I offered to have the Obama amendment made in order, the legislation by President Obama, which actually saves students about $30 billion in interest rates over the next 6 years. It saves students and families over $30 billion. They wouldn't make that amendment in order.

Mr. Heck of Nevada came before them and said, Why don't we do like the market does? If you pay your loan on time for 4 years, we'll provide you an incentive to continue to be a good payer of your loan-- important to the Treasury, important to the students' credit ratings. Let's try that. They turned Mr. Heck down.

Mr. Rice came before the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina, and he said he would like to reduce the interest rates. He understands what students and families are struggling with. They turned him down. They turned down every attempt to try to help students and families.

I appreciate people talking about being through the recession. Well, let me tell you, for a lot of middle-income families, they're not through the recession yet. They've still lost the equity in their homes. They still have their credit problems. But do you know what? Recession or no recession, their kids are graduating from high school, and they want them to go to college. What the hell is this Congress doing making it more difficult for those kids to go to college? But that's the choice the Republicans have given us.

I would hope on a bipartisan basis we would reject this effort and that we would go to work on legislation that is long term, that's in the interest of the students, and stop crushing the aspirations of these families and these students, which this legislation does. It should be rejected. This isn't an interest in the market rates. This is using the market to crush these families by extracting billions of additional dollars off of their school loans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in little more than a month, the interest rates on loans to millions of the neediest students will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. With that doubling, those that can afford it least will be burdened with more debt. With total student loan debt already surpassing $1 trillion, this Congress needs to stop that interest rate hike, that doubling of the interest rates.

But rather than make it more affordable for students and families to pay for college, this Congress this day in this Chamber is debating a bill--I know people won't believe this--but we're debating a bill to make it more expensive for families and students to achieve a college education. At a time when college costs are rising and historic low interest rates, the majority is asking us to accept a bill that would increase interest rates. And even though the student interest rate is scheduled on July 1 to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, the bill presented on this floor today is worse than that for students and their families. It increases the drag on the economy that the student debt is to families and to young people trying to seek a job and to seek to form family.

This bill is so bad that it means more than the doubling of the interest rates. How do you think that has anything to do with the market rates? According to the Congressional Research Service, when they look at this bill, you can see that under current law interest rates, they would pay $4,000. And they are doubling to 6.8 percent, so they'd pay $8,800 in interest rates. And under the Republican bill, families would pay more than $10,000 in interest. How can that possibly be in the interest of these families? How can that possibly be happening in this economy when people are struggling with interest rates? It cannot be allowed.

You can see here that the parents who may have to contribute something, they would take out a loan to

help their child complete a college education, they are going to pay more than $35,000 over the life of those loans than under the current law, and that's what we've got to stop from happening.

And so what you see is when it is all said and done, this bill asks students over the next few years to pay more than $3.7 billion, almost $4 billion, in increased interest rates. No wonder this poor student has a headache. No wonder this parent is pounding on his head thinking, What am I going to do?

But what do they say? They say we have a market rate here. We have a market rate. Well, many in America, certainly middle class families and many low-income families, will remember the last time when we had this kind of market rate because what they have, they have a teaser rate. For your first year, they'll have a lower interest rate. So you have a teaser rate. But you know that next year that teaser rate adjusts so you don't get that rate because next year you get a new rate. And when you're a sophomore in college and you take out another loan, you get a new rate, a higher rate. And when you're a junior, you take out a loan, and you get a higher rate. And when you graduate, they take all of your loans together and give you a higher rate. Does that sound familiar to people? That's the marketplace. That's the marketplace when you choose to crush the people who are borrowing the money.

The President has the market rate. The chairman has said many times the President is looking to use the markets to set a realistic rate. But as he sets the rate, it's deficit neutral. As he sets the rate, the amendment we tried to offer was deficit neutral. He saves those students and families about $30 billion over the life of those loans. You get the difference? Yes, the market's the market. But you can pick the worst of the market, and you can pick the best of the market. They've chosen to pick the worst of the market for these students.

Now they had options. Republicans last night in the Rules Committee had options. Mr. Courtney offered an amendment to keep rates at 3.4 percent. They rejected it.

I offered the President's market approach. They rejected that.

Then Mr. Heck from the Republican side of the aisle from Nevada offered to say let's provide an incentive to make sure that students in fact continue to pay on time, as they should, as the market would do because you want to incent good behavior because you get more of it. They rejected that.

Mr. Rice of South Carolina went before them. He's a member of the Republican caucus, very concerned about interest rates in this legislation, very concerned about what's going to happen to these families. He thought he could lower the interest rates within their bill, within the market rates, stick with the market principle. They said ``no.''

So all you get today is whether or not you want a solution that is worse than the doubling of the interest rates on July 1. That's not an answer for America's families. That's not an answer for America's students.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee.

May I inquire of the Chair of the time remaining on both sides?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I have no further speakers.

Is the chairman the last speaker?

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

I want to thank all of my colleagues who entered into the debate here this morning on this legislation. I think it is clear that there is a very big difference between our positions on this legislation; there's a very big difference between the President's bill, who is trying to use a market system, and this bill before us, Mr. Kline's bill, that uses a market system.

The fact is that the President's bill saves students billions of dollars, but the Republicans would not make President Obama's bill in order for consideration. Why not? They say it's like they're doing the same thing as the President. Well, they're not. In fact, they're adding $4 billion worth of debt onto the backs of students over their program.

And how can they possibly do that? You've heard my colleagues on this side of the aisle speak to the issues that we hear all of the time when we go home. The struggle of students, the struggle of families, be they low-income, be they middle-income, to get access and to be able to complete a college education, to get access to a community college, to a State college system, to get a certificate, to get a degree that will allow them to participate in the American society, in the American economy. That's part of the American Dream.

Yes, we lowered the interest rates to 3.4 percent, and they've held over a period of years. And they held over those exact same years when families were under the most stress because of this recession that was created on Wall Street and the scandals that took away 70 percent of the wealth of African American and Hispanic families in this country, that destroyed the equity and good chunks of middle America because of teaser rate loans, subprime loans.

And what is happening today in the private market? The banks are getting money from the Treasury at 0.75 interest, and they're loaning it to families in private student loans. If you have good credit, they'll loan it to you for somewhere around 7 percent.

Bankers used to go die and go to heaven if they could get a 7 percent spread. That's how you become a billionaire. Get it at 0.75 and put it out at 7. And if your credit rating is not so good, those statistics sort of suggest you drift towards 13 percent.

Obviously, the students and middle class can't survive in that market for the most part, and that's why we have a student loan program. That's why we took this program away from the banks a number of years ago. We took the $60 billion that we were giving to the banks to loan the public's money to students and we said why don't we put that to use for families, and we did.

And we lowered the interest rates, and we increased the participation in the Pell Grants, made it available. We increased some loan limits. We gave people a chance to manage their debt after they graduated, so the more you earn, the more you pay, but you don't get crushed on your first job that may not have the best salary, even though it's the career you want to go in and it takes time to get that salary. We made it more affordable for America's families.

Yes, we lowered the debt to 3.4 percent. It was paid for, and that's all we could afford. Congress will make that decision. Last year, the Congress made a decision to extend it. This year, they've decided that they don't want to extend it on the other side of the aisle. So, fine, come up with a plan. But the plan they came up with is worse than having the 3.4 percent double on July 1.

How can you develop a plan that's worse for students? I guess maybe if you go home and everybody in your district is working and everybody is participating in this slow-growing economy that's getting better. I don't know. Families I represent, they're still struggling. The recession hasn't left town. The recession hasn't left the country.

If you pick up The Wall Street Journal today, there's greater concern about what's happening in China dragging down the world economy, there's greater concern about the Europeans dragging down the world economy. America is trying to struggle and the students are trying to struggle, and we're going to come along and more than double the rate.

We're going to give them a teaser rate, though. This next September when families go out and they get a rate, it will be probably somewhat lower than the current rate. But that loan will be adjusted, and they don't know what those rates are going to be. As long as they're paying on that loan, that loan will continue to be adjusted. We just saw that history in America. We saw what that did.

I don't have a problem going to a market system. How about a fair one? When the President went to a market system for the subsidized Stafford loan, he said on the market system we'll go to 0.9. They said they would go to 2.5--10 years plus 2.5. The President said 10 years plus 0.9.

There are a lot of ways to go to a market system. You don't have to punish the American family. You don't have to punish the students in school to go to a market system. I wish the President had a cap. The gentleman has a cap. This could be worked out, but we don't do things bipartisanly anymore in the Congress of the United States. So, because we can't get the President and the majority on the Education and the Workforce Committee to sit down and work out the market system--because that's not allowed and

we don't do bipartisan work--the victims are going to be the families and the students, and, in the long term, our Nation.

Every Member of Congress has come to this floor and has said how important this education system is to our future economic growth, to competing in a globalized world, to have innovation, to have discovery, to have job creation. We're now creating a drag on job creation. We're now creating a drag on the opportunities for families. We are creating a drag on the ability to achieve the American Dream--and a college education is part of that dream, but a college education is also critical to keeping this economy and this society moving.

I would hope that my colleagues, whether they are committed to a market rate or not, would understand that this is a very flawed market rate.

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

I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for offering this motion to recommit. I think she goes right to the heart of the matter, and that is the uncertainty that is being presented by the legislation on the floor today.

Other Members tried to deal with this issue of uncertainty. Mr. Heck from Nevada tried to deal with this uncertainty by providing an incentive for those students who borrowed money and were able to pay 4 years on steady payments to give them incentive to continue to do that. Mr. Rice of South Carolina sought to have a lower rate.

This lower rate isn't chiseled in granite. This isn't the market rate. This is a choice of the Republican Members of the committee to choose these rates. Mr. Rice thought this time couldn't we have the lower rate to begin with, but the Rules Committee turned that out. Then Obama's plan was offered, and they turned that out.

So now we're stuck, and that's why we need this motion to recommit, to do as the gentlewoman from Arizona has said: to protect the students from the escalation of their interest rates, to protect the students from the escalation of the cost of college.

These are families and students. Companies and colleges create calculators to try to show students what it will cost over 4 years. This legislation takes all of that uncertainty out for families: how they set money aside, how they save money, how they borrow money. Those calculators don't work with this variable rate, and this variable rate can go on and on and on and on. That's the problem here.

This is a big choice for most families. I appreciate for some families that it's not a big deal as they've got enough money. From where I live, my family, people around me, my neighbors, this is a big choice and commitment to finance the education of your children. That's why this motion to recommit from the gentlewoman from Arizona is so important. There should be truth in lending for America's students, truth in lending for America's families, and we should get rid of the rates that will just punish them and crush them into the future as they graduate from college and they seek to participate in the American economy and in a career of their choice with the talents that we need as a Nation.

I want to thank the gentlewoman so very much.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children were murdered, the issue of keeping children safe has been on the minds of all Americans. Since this tragedy occurred in a school, districts and States have, understandably, focused conversations on preventing and responding to violent crime that occurs in the school building itself. However, protecting children will require much more than preventing an outside intruder from committing acts of violence against students or a good emergency response plan to deal with an event. We need to recognize that violence--or the fear of violence--against children does not begin or end at the schoolhouse door. That's why I've devoted this month to introduce legislation that focuses on the safety needs of children as a national priority.

First, I introduced legislation to establish the minimum safety standards to prevent abusive seclusion and restraint practices in schools across the country. The Keeping All Students Safe Act would protect schoolchildren from inappropriate uses of seclusion and restraints and provide school personnel with the necessary tools, training, and support to ensure the safety of all students and school personnel. These practices are, at best, cruel and, at worst, deadly. They continue to be used on children across the country.

In Indiana, an 8-year-old girl with Down syndrome had her shoes duct- taped painfully to her ankles because she refused to put her shoes on. In North Carolina, a 14-year-old boy with a traumatic brain injury was confined inside a cardboard box as a form of timeout. In some cases, children have even died from improper restraints and seclusion. My bill also would stop these abusive practices, but safety shouldn't stop at the schoolhouse door.

Investigations conducted by the Government Accountability Office, at my request, in 2007 and 2008 found that private and public residential programs, including therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavior modification facilities are not always run in a safe manner. Recently, the Tampa Bay Times confirmed that problems of abuse and neglect continue, with stories of children being bruised, bloodied, and choked into unconsciousness at these programs, all in the name of discipline. More horrific stories of child abuse, including deaths in some cases, have been documented in seven States' residential programs in just the past 2 years.

Last week, I introduced the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, a bill that would set basic health and safety standards the State would need to adopt to enforce and protect teens from physical, mental, and sexual abuse in these programs. It would also create easily accessible information for parents about the safety records of the programs so that parents can make sound decisions about if they want to send their child there or not.

No one disputes that our schools and residential programs must be a safe place for children where they can focus on learning and improving their lives, not fearing for their lives. Though some States have made progress developing policies to protect children from acts of violence, abuse, and neglect, a patchwork of protections, riddled with holes, is not acceptable when it comes to our Nation's children. We cannot sit idly by as incidents of children being abused or killed continues to occur.

Today, I'm introducing legislation that will prevent registered sex offenders and criminals convicted of crimes against children from working at schools. The Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act would require public schools to conduct comprehensive background checks on any employee, using State criminal and child abuse registries and the FBI's fingerprint database. It would also prohibit school districts from hiring or retaining anyone who has been convicted of certain violent crimes, including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault, and child pornography.

Mr. Speaker, keeping our children safe isn't a partisan issue; it's a moral obligation. This Congress must do more to protect our children. One way Congress can immediately help to ensure that students and schools have the support needed to address all aspects of violence is through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Through a bipartisan rewrite of the Nation's education law, we can ensure that schools and students have the necessary support to provide key nonacademic services essential for students to succeed in a safe and healthy learning environment.

In the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Democrats will be fighting for these critical services, including other measures to promote safety, such as school services for violence prevention activities, bullying and harassment prevention, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, and programs to prepare for and respond to natural disasters and emergencies in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, on my last point, my thoughts continue to be with the victims and families of all those who have suffered and continue to suffer from the terrible tragedy that took place in Oklahoma earlier this week. We are just amazed and honor all of the efforts of school staff, teachers, and parents trying to get children out of harm's way, and our heart goes out to those who were unsuccessful. I hope that Congress can support these communities in healing in every possible way. As always, keeping kids safe requires the coordinated efforts of children, principals, superintendents, community partners, and parents.

And protecting children from violence and freeing students to learn and better their lives means ensuring that states, districts, schools and communities have the resources and supports needed to implement evidence-based approaches that are tailored to the unique needs of children in that area.

My bills are only part of the solution, but an important step forward.

We owe it to parents and to the children and to the school officials who follow the rules to consider these bills.

We also owe it to them to send a strong message that people who abuse children or do not do their jobs to keep children safe will face serious consequences.

I hope that this Congress will be able to take an even more comprehensive approach to protect children in our schools and residential programs, and I urge all of my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll No. 149. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, we meet today for the 37th attempt to take away the basic health care rights from millions of Americans. Yet, despite all of these votes, the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. And it will remain the law of the land even after today's vote. That's a fact.

So why are we here for the 37th time? Are Republicans afraid that Americans are now able to get basic preventive health care screening with no copay? Are they afraid that Americans will now no longer be gouged or denied coverage because of preexisting conditions? Are Republicans fearful that the insurance companies can't cut off lifesaving care just because somebody got sick? Because they can't do that now with the Affordable Care Act.

Why on Earth would anyone fear American families being put back in charge of their health care? But we're here, yet again, to satisfy the majority's needs to have another meaningless vote. This obsession with repeal by the majority is bordering on the absurd. It's time to move on, for goodness' sake. Open season is set to begin in 5 months. Americans without affordable insurance will be able to shop for plans in an open and transparent marketplace with the help of tax credits for those who qualify. Employers of small businesses will be able to shop for appropriate health care for their employees and for their businesses with the help of tax credits.

It's our duty as public servants to help our constituents navigate this new law, not spend our time obstructing it. That's how California has approached the reform. We've worked in a collaborative way with all of the stakeholders. And that's how the government should work, because they know that it will help families struggling to afford health insurance.

Take, for instance, a family of four making $60,000 in California who buys their own insurance. Today, they pay some $12,500 on average for insurance. That's more than $1,000 a month. But starting in January, this family will save almost $5,000 a year because of the Affordable Care Act. Think about what this family can do with that extra $400 a month. It means paying your bills, it means saving money for your kids' education, it means repairing your car. This is what the Affordable Care Act can do. This is what ObamaCare does. This is what the Republicans are trying to hide from the American people.

Our country has been debating health care for more than a century. They keep saying there's other alternative solutions. It's funny that none of them came forward. None of them came forward during this debate with those alternative solutions, and health premiums were skyrocketing in double-digits year after year after year. For decades, we debated how to make sure all Americans have access to health care that won't bankrupt them if they get sick. For decades, we debated control of the national health spending by ensuring that everyone is covered. For decades, we debated how to control uncompensated care that cost families dearly. And it took the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and President Obama to bring positive change for families and businesses struggling under the weight of health care costs.

The fact of the matter is this plan currently today is working for millions of Americans, for millions of seniors, for millions of young Americans and for millions of young people born with preexisting conditions. That's what this legislation is about, lowering the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens and making sure that people can get preventive care without copays. The Republicans want to yank that all away, and they don't have a plan to provide that health care security.

Interestingly enough, the other day in The Wall Street Journal was a full discussion about how this health care package is entrepreneurial because people who feel that they're job-locked will now be able to go out and start businesses because they know they'll have health care insurance for themselves or for their spouses or for the kids, and they'll be able to become the entrepreneurs they want to be. There's a discussion among large employers because people will leave and take their ideas and start their own businesses. That's what this health care enables Americans to do for the first time, not be locked into a job because of the fear of the insecurity of not having health care for your family and what that means.

This is an entrepreneurial act. This is liberating people. This is freeing people from the financial fear of the loss of health care. Never again, with the passage of this legislation, will an American lose health care because they lost their job, because somebody died in their family or because a child was born with a preexisting condition. Never again. The Republicans don't have an alternative. They only have obstruction and repeal as part of their program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.)

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

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is available on both sides.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

The previous speaker just said that we should listen to the American people. When the American people listen to the Congress of the United States, they assume that all of the Republicans in the country are against this health care bill and that all of the Democrats are for this health care bill.

Yet, if you look at the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent poll on this, you'll find out that 96 percent of the Democrats and 83 percent of the Republicans support the tax credits for small business, which are now the law of the land, and 360,000 small businesses are getting those tax credits.

Ninety percent of the Democrats and 74 percent of the Republicans support closing the doughnut hole, and the doughnut hole is in the process of being closed. Democrats and Republicans agree in the country that this is a good deal.

Eighty-seven percent of the Democrats and 72 percent of the Republicans are excited about the creation of health care exchanges where they can go and shop for health care just as the Members of this Congress do in open season when they can pick and choose from different plans. In California, there will be 33 plans offered by private health insurance companies that they can pick and choose from. They think that's a good idea. They think it's a great idea.

Eighty-four percent of the Democrats and 68 percent of the Republicans think it's a great idea that children will not be thrown off their parents' policy, as is the law today.

That's why you've only voted to repeal. On the first day you took the majority in this Congress, you voted to repeal and you instructed the committees to come up with an alternative. You've had 37 votes on repeal, and you've had no action by the committees on the alternative.

So you have a plan that is meeting the needs of American families, millions of Americans of all walks of life, small businesses, big businesses, employees at both, children, seniors, people with preexisting conditions, and your answer is to repeal, like that's progress.

No, that's not progress. That's the failure to have an alternative and creative thinking about how to deal with the health care problems of the American people. ObamaCare does that, the Affordable Care Act does that, and that's what this Congress did.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the minority leader.

I yield the balance of my time, 1\1/ 2\ minutes, to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, little more than 100 years ago, a New York State assemblyman was an eyewitness to one of our Nation's worst industrial tragedies--the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. He recounted how he saw girl after girl appear in the reddened windows, pause for a terrified moment, and then leap to the pavement below, to land as a mangled, bloody pulp. He said it went on for what seemed like a ghastly eternity, and described how the firemen's life nets were torn by the impact of falling bodies.

This inferno at a sweatshop garment factory in New York City employed mostly poor, immigrant women. One hundred forty-six workers died that day because it lacked proper stairways, fire escapes, and managers had locked all of the exits. This tragedy shook our Nation and led to lifesaving workplace safety reforms.

A century later, I recently met a young Bangladeshi garment worker named Sumi. She, too, jumped from a window of the Tazreen garment factory. She survived, but 12 of her coworkers who jumped with her did not. More than 100 others who never had the opportunity to jump were found inside of the factory dead. This haunting tragedy has many parallels to the Triangle fire: exit doors were locked; fire extinguishers were not working; fire codes went unenforced.

We don't tolerate those workplace conditions in the United States anymore, but those are deadly conditions that are tolerated in other countries that make the clothing that we wear. These tragedies have moved from New York to Bangladesh, driven by the business models and global supply chains of the world's leading retailers and clothing brands. But now Bangladesh has had what might be its own Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

On April 24, more than 1,100 people died as Rana Plaza and its garment factories collapsed. Some 2,000 more were injured, and rescuers are still pulling bodies out 3 weeks later. There have been an additional 40 fires, explosions, and other incidents between the Tazreen fire and the Rana Plaza tragedies. It's simply a matter of time before there is another one.

These incidents shocked people around the globe and laid bare the need for bold action. The lives of 4 million workers in these factories are counting on bold action. But not everyone has been shocked. Major American retailers and clothing brands have refused to change the way they conduct business in Bangladesh, the second largest garment producer in the world after China. They are hoping instead that the heightened attention will pass without having to change their business model. That business model pits sweatshop against sweatshop, country against country, in a race to the bottom to rake in billions of dollars in profits while paying as little as 22 cents per shirt.

In Bangladesh, American and international companies flourish in this system, companies we all know like

Walmart, the Gap, JCPenney, and The Children's Place, just to name a few. They refuse to accept responsibility.

So what can be done to improve the Bangladeshi factory safety? Certainly there are things local government can do: address corruption that allows unsafe, dangerous structures; enforce safety codes; defend the right of workers to form unions and to have workers be able to refuse unsafe work.

The Bangladeshi Government is scrambling to implement limited reforms, hoping to keep the industry that is critical to its economy, but only the retailers and brands can put a floor under this race to the bottom. The economic power rests with them. That is why the announcement this week by major European companies and one American company that they have signed a binding and enforceable fire and building safety agreement for Bangladesh factories is so significant.

H&M, Zara, Primark, and C&A are to be applauded for their unprecedented and bold steps. They have been joined by only one American company, Phillips-Van Heusen, which has Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger among its brands, and one major German retailer. But now El Corte Ingles, Marks & Spencer, Mango, and Benetton have also agreed to sign this enforceable agreement.

The agreement provides for independent safety inspections with public reports, mandatory repairs and renovations, money to fund the necessary safety upgrades, the right of workers to refuse unsafe work, and the vital role of workers and unions. This agreement is truly unprecedented.

But where are the other American companies? Where are the American retailers? Where are the American clothing brands? Where is Walmart? Where is JCPenney? Where is the Gap? Where is The Children's Place? Their silence in the face of this tragedy is inexcusable. They should sign the binding safety agreement to protect Bangladeshi workers. They should sign it now.

Experts estimate safety improvements under this plan would cost about a dime a garment. A dime for the life of these women.

I urge all Americans to join in demanding that the American retailers and fashion brands stop selling their bloodstained labels and sign the enforceable agreement to protect these Bangladeshi women.

Madam Speaker, today I'm reintroducing the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act. This legislation will protect teenagers attending residential treatment programs from abuse by staff personnel.

These programs range from boot camps to behavior modification facilities. They are often a last resort for parents trying to help a child deal with behavioral or other issues. But investigations by our committee found that these programs are not always run in a safe manner.

Just last year, the Tampa Bay Times confirmed that problems continue, with stories of children being bruised, bloodied, and choked to unconsciousness at these programs, all in the name of discipline.

My bill would make it illegal for a residential facility to deny a child essential water, food, clothing, shelter, or medical care, whether under the guise of discipline or therapy.

It would also ensure that parents have the information needed to make safe choices for their children about these programs. When a parent turns to these programs for help, they should trust that their child will not suffer neglect, injury, or even death while undergoing therapy.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to protect schoolchildren from abusive seclusion and restraint practices. These practices are at best cruel and at worst deadly, and they continue to be used in schools on children across the country.

In Indiana, an 8-year-old girl with Down syndrome had her shoes duct- taped painfully to her ankles because she refused to put her shoes on. In North Carolina, a 14-year-old boy with a traumatic brain injury was confined inside a cardboard box as a form of time-out.

In Minnesota, a 10-year-old boy with autism was pinned face down on the floor for 57 minutes by three staff members at his school after a tantrum he had while working on a puzzle. And in Virginia, a 13-year- old boy was placed in solitary confinement for 3 hours after he threw his lunch.

In some cases, children have even died with these improper restraints. My bill would stop these abusive practices. Congress needs to act. There's no room for torture in America's schools.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a shell game. It's a trick. It's a Trojan horse. If an employer wants to give you time off, as the gentleman from Connecticut said, the employer can give you time off. He can give you comp time to go to your parent- teacher conferences, to take care of an ill member of your family, take care of yourself. But they don't do that. So they're going to dangle overtime here.

If you're willing to work overtime, sometime in the future they might give you that comp time. But it's not your comp time; it's the comp time that the employer will choose when and where you can take it. So if you work overtime this week and your child is very sick next week and you ask for the time and he says, no, we're busy, I can't give you the time off, you lose.

Your employer can bank up to 160 hours of your comp time before there's any obligation. That's almost 4 weeks of overtime. For many people, that overtime is really important. But this bill says your employer can go to you and say you can have the overtime--which may be very important to your family budget. It was when I was young and married and had children. I worked every hour of overtime I could get when I was in the Merchant Marines working on oil tankers. I worked every hour I could get in the canneries. I worked every hour I could get in the refineries because I needed that for my family budget. I didn't need comp time, I needed income.

But now the employer says you can have overtime, but I'm going to pay you back in comp time. If you say no, you have no protections. Your employer might say, okay, I'll find somebody else. Or your employer may offer it to you again and you say I can't do it, I need the overtime, and then you could be fired.

They want to keep saying you're protected and you have the same rights as people in the Federal employment system. You don't. There's nothing in the law that prevents your employer from

firing you because you can't work the schedules your employer wants. They can say it all day along, but it's not in this legislation.

If your employer goes broke before the time that they have to give you your comp time, you're out. And if you don't like the way your employer treated you and fires you because you couldn't possibly do the comp time or you couldn't do the overtime, you can go sue in court. How many middle class families can go sue their employer in court, have that kind of money?

This is what it has always been since 1997, when this bill was introduced--1997. Yes, the workplace has changed. States and cities and employers are giving people paid time off so they can take care of their families when they need to take care of their families. But that's not what this bill is. It's an assault on the 40-hour workweek. It's an assault on overtime. An employer can get the work and never really have to pay the overtime.

If you're in seasonal employment, if you're in an up-and-down business, you work like crazy and he says okay, things are slower in this part of the season, take that time off. You don't get to say, well, I don't really need that time off; I wanted to save that time for a parent-teacher conference. I'm sorry, we're going to be busy when that parent-teacher conference is.

You get what's going on here? This isn't women friendly. This isn't mom friendly. This isn't family friendly. This is friendly to people who want to get rid of overtime and break down the 40-hour week that protects families so they're not working overtime.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Brother Ronald Gallagher, Fratres Scholarum Christianarum (F.S.C.), Ph.D., as he prepares to retire as President of St. Mary's College of California in Moraga and to commend him for his outstanding service to the St Mary's students, faculty and to our community as a whole.

A Native Californian, Brother Ronald Gallagher spent his formative years in Santa Cruz and Bakersfield, and then joined the Christian Brothers after graduating from Mont La Salle High School in Napa. After graduating from Saint Mary's College in 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts in English, Brother Ronald received an Master of Arts in comparative literature from San Francisco State University and earned his doctorate in comparative literature from the University of Washington.

Prior to assuming the college presidency, Brother Ronald was a member of the English Department. His teaching specialties include 19th and 20th Century Anglo-Irish Literature, the modern novel, and the history and culture of Ireland. His passion for Irish literature began when he read James Joyce's ``Ulysses'' during his senior year at Saint Mary's. In recent years, he has led several groups of students on tours of the historical and cultural sites of Ireland.

From 1993 to 1997, Brother Ronald was Vice Chancellor of Bethlehem University, where he oversaw administration, development, finance and academics. As the leader of a Catholic university in the deeply divided Middle East, he responded to formidable challenges by forging strong regional and global support for the school. Enlisting the help of many countries, individuals, groups, international aid agencies and the Vatican, Brother Ronald was able to raise the funds necessary for Bethlehem University to fulfill its educational mission among the economically disadvantaged Palestinian community.

In his role as Secretary General of the Brothers of the Christian Schools in Rome from 1997 to 2001, Brother Ronald organized the 43rd General Chapter, an international assembly that produced a seven-year global strategic plan for Lasallian educators.

Brother Ronald Gallagher, F.S.C., Ph.D., became the 28th President of Saint Mary's College of California on Jan. 2, 2005. A seasoned educator, he is deeply devoted to the College's Catholic, Las allian and liberal arts traditions and is committed to promoting the values of those traditions among students, faculty, staff and friends of Saint Mary's.

In addition to leading St Mary's College, Brother Ronald has served as President of the International Association of Lasallian Universities, as a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Independent Catholic Colleges and Universities (AICCU), a member of the Board of Directors for the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), on the Executive Board of Directors of the International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU), and he is the Chair of the West Coast Conference (WCC) President's Council. Throughout his career, Brother Ronald has also been a strong supporter of intercollegiate and recreational athletics at Saint Mary's College.

Mr. Speaker, I invite this chamber to join me in recognizing Brother Ronald for his devoted service to Saint Mary's College of California and thank him for his unparalleled contribution to higher education. I am pleased to join

Brother Ronald's family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him on his outstanding accomplishments during his long and highly successful career. I wish him a healthy and happy retirement and the very best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, during the week of April 23rd, I missed roll Nos. 118 through 128 due to cataract surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, and 126. I would have voted ``yea'' on roll Nos. 118, 119, 123, 127, and 128.