Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I stand here today to honor a dedicated civic leader, loyal friend, loving father and husband, adoring grandfather and doting great-grandfather--Peter B. Ramos.

Born in El Paso, Texas, Pete moved to San Bernardino, California where he grew up to become a longstanding member of the community, including his participation at San Salvador Church in Colton and Sacred Heart Church in Palm Dessert.

After graduating from San Bernardino High School in 1955, Pete proudly served in the U.S. Army and was stationed in Germany until 1958. Returning to San Bernardino, Pete was hired by the San Bernardino Unified School District, remaining a devoted employee for thirty years.

In 1973, Pete was an instrumental founding member of the GENTS Organization, a community-based association whose purpose is directed at helping today's youth become tomorrow's leaders. The leadership of Pete within the GENTS Organization has contributed to it's successful fundraising events, generating thousands of dollars in scholarships, donations to charitable organizations and the sponsorship of sports activities for the youth.

In addition to his service to the San Bernardino Unified School District, Pete was also a part-time employee of the San Bernardino Golf Club. An avid golf player, his fervent passion for both the sport and the community was demonstrated by all of the golf clubs he helped establish. These include the Gents Golf Association, San Bernardino County Twilight Golf League, Golf Buddies, Colton Golf Club, and San Bernardino Golf Club.

Pete was an empowering leader within the San Bernardino community, an excellent role model who set his sights on helping others have a better life. He lived by example, saying to me, ``Joe, you can change life and attitudes by believing and giving others a chance.''

Having always enjoyed his company on the green, he was also a strong supporter of my political endeavors. More then anything, Pete was a true friend to my family and I, especially in his great support of my sons, City Councilman Joe Baca Jr. and Jeremy Baca.

Pete is survived by his wife of 49 years, Helen Ramos, former City Councilwoman, whom he deeply loved. Pete is also survived by his daughter, Roseanne Reyes; his son, Armando; grandchildren, Raylene Soto, Leandra Soto, Bree Reyes, Michael Reyes; great-grandchild, Noelle Tavie; his sisters, Connie Hernandez, Lucy Zamora; brothers, Louis, Daniel, Joe; and many nieces, nephews and godchildren.

Let us take a moment to remember this great man and his admirable dedication to instilling positive change and leading an exemplary life, one in whose footsteps we all hope to follow. The thoughts and prayers of my wife Barbara, my family and I are with his family at this time.

God Bless Pete Ramos for love of country and mankind.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of FY 2009.

Just a few months ago, we reflected on the 5-year anniversary of this war. Today we send a message to our troops that we are with them.

This bill authorizes additional funds for the needs of our troops overseas, and more importantly will authorize a pay raise larger than that requested by the President.

During these hard economic times of recession, foreclosures, and high gas prices, our military families need all our help and support. This bill prohibits fee increases in TRICARE and expands available health care services.

This bill is a step in the right direction, with directives for the Afghanistan conflict, and more accountability of the Iraqi government and contractors.

Today we make our commitment to the Americans we represent, and their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, sisters and brothers serving as part of the Armed Forces. They are fighting a war that is not their fight.

In my district alone, 13 families will sit at their dinner table without a loved one. To these families in my district and those throughout the Nation, I thank you for your service, your sacrifice and your love for this Nation. You are the back bone of the Armed Forces.

I urge my colleagues to keep our commitment to our troops, redirect this war in the right direction and vote for H.R. 5658.

Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are in this nutrition title.

First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions, people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program. We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger.

The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement'' to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for food stamps: an established program that is one of the best government programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other policy changes to the program.

I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits. We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average only $1 per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy, nutritious diet on such a limited amount.

So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134 to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food-- families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care they so desperately depend on to hold down their

jobs. And we index the asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before, that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and senior citizens won't lose out on food.

For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a nutritious meal on the table.

One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust. In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska, Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month.

In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially, may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support themselves in their retirement.

But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of California the legislature and Governor have been working together to design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this important policy.

In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing paperwork for 12 month periods, unless they have a major increase in their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate in, particularly Medicaid.

Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10 to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved ``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp benefits.

For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families, especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10- year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families with children.

We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs above $175 per child per month (or $200 for infants), by recognizing that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are helped will receive an additional $40 a month (or $500 a year), according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction-- such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of informal care. Finally, as states roll this out to the 100,000 families currently on the program, its important that they make it easy for eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current capped amounts.

We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in additional funds this year to help meet food banks needs in light of rising food costs. And, we increase the basic The Emergency Food Assistance Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be adjusted for inflation in future years to insure that this program does not lose any of its food purchasing power.

Another important provision for our children is a provision that ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or ``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility rules for the two programs overlap: virtually every child who receives food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good government--there is no reason the government can't make these connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to be responsible for duplicative paperwork.

In addition to my role as the Agriculture's Subcommittee Chair on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly income for a typical Latino family that participates in the food stamp program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit low-income Latinos who rely upon this program.

I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996.

In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will conduct a study on the possibility of bringing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico back into the national food stamp program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 States, District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people who are in need of food assistance.

The poverty rate in Puerto Rico (45 percent) is more than three times the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto Rico cannot afford to provide benefits to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using food stamp program standards. Instead they have been forced to impose rigid eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four

with net income above about $600 a month (or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level) cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance. An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per month--just 23 percent of the poverty level.

Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible.

Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute. The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law and create rights for households.

Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those which have the full force of law and which households have the right to enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by the State. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations.

I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would have strengthened the long-standing policy in the food stamp program that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana, experiment with using private companies to collect and review food stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a company's responsibility to its shareholders.

While the House voted to include this provision in the conference agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other party and a veto threat from President Bush. I regret this outcome and I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the proper balance to food stamp administration.

But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this ``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance, and child care, including online applications, online program redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers where changes in circumstances can be reported.

On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact, in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and retention processes.

On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed, evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers. Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization'' efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy, or administrative costs.

So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to establish standards for when States are making major changes in program operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients.

Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any over- issuances that occur because of one of these preventable major systems failures.

Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we strengthened the act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case records in order to pursue a claim against the State. That is unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration.

Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits. One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water, that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that ensures that only those who intended to defraud the system in these manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative--be caught up as somehow engaging in fraud under this provision.

My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor infractions that are many years old

and where the police have no interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case.

So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them to justice.

In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14 States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.)

Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to $40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By 2012, the program would be funded at nearly 8 times its current size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in years after that.

In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new generation of children to a healthy way of eating.

To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our committee and our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill. With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population. As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger future for our children and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opinion in support of this farm bill, and urge my colleagues to override the President's veto.

Simply put, this farm bill strengthens our nutrition, conservation, energy independence, and specialty crops like no other farm bill has ever done before, and it is done in a bipartisan fashion.

People asked us to come here in Washington, D.C. and vote on a bipartisan, not to vote on a partisan. We have come together on a bipartisan.

This currently will feed 38 million Americans who do not have enough to eat. We are in an economic recession. People have lost their jobs. People have lost their homes because of foreclosures. Gas prices are going up. This farm bill will put food on the table for over 13 million American families. We have raised the food stamp benefit index to keep up with the lost of living. These changes will help an additional 10 million Americans, including poor working families, the elderly, the disabled, and the veterans.

We expanded the USDA snack programs under the fresh fruits and vegetables. We will leave no child behind. This will feed them.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and override the President. This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2642.

This bill calls for a responsible redeployment from Iraq; and forces the Administration to answer for its actions.

The cost of this war continues to devastate America.

This bill includes $96.6 billion in funding, but not without accountability.

This bill includes funds to equip our troops. You would not have a surgeon perform a surgery without proper tools; we must not send our patriotic Americans to war without the proper equipment.

This bill will increase transparency in our relationship with Iraq, and redirects the voice of America back to Congress, not the Administration, and pass on the cost of future reconstruction of Iraq back to the hands of the Iraqi people.

I believe our troops and their families should be our first priority.

The cost of this war comes in many forms, including unexpected costs for our military families. Just like World War II veterans, our soldiers returning from overseas will now have a GI bill that keeps America's promise of an education to them.

With the costs of the war rising, the costs of oil skyrocketing, and the number of foreclosures hitting emergency levels, many working families are facing uphill battles. Congress must not just stand by and watch.

This bill includes emergency provisions for harmful Medicaid cuts and an extension on the devastated unemployment compensation program for working families.

From my District alone, this war has cut short the lives of 13 young men and has brought back hundreds of injured soldiers.

The cost of this war is too high both at home and overseas; our families are hanging on by a thread. I urge my colleagues to bring our troops home and support H.R. 2642.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res 1134, supporting the goals and ideals of Mental Health Month.

Mental Health Month helps to educate our communities that mental health is a fundamental and humane priority for America's well-being.

The quiet suffering of the afflicted, the familial pain shared by their loved ones, and the societal stigma associated with mental illness all make mental health very important to all Americans.

We must realize the toll mental illness has taken on the young. One in five children has a mental disorder. Furthermore, suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers, and every one in four Latina teens report seriously contemplating suicide, a rate higher than any other demographic.

Mental illness continues to be a silent illness for our veterans and soldiers returning from serving overseas. More than one in five of our troops suffer from major depression or post traumatic stress disorder. No longer should these conditions be swept under the rug, these are difficult situations that a lot of military families are facing every day.

Today senior citizens compose 12 percent of the population, but account for 16 percent of all suicides, higher than for any other age group. Our seniors are the foundation of this country and their mental health needs are underserved.

These are alarming and concerning statistics. Yet, many of us still don't know the extent of the mental health problems America is suffering from. Untreated mental illness costs the American economy over $150 billion annually.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and educate our communities that mental health is a fundamental and humane priority for America.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I want to thank our chairman, Collin Peterson, for his leadership. I want to thank the minority ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, in supporting this historic farm bill which I strongly support. As Chair of the Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, I am strongly supportive of this bill that increases nutrition by $10.364 billion.

Right now, there are 38 million Americans who do not have enough food to eat. This farm bill helps these people. It fights hunger in America by making an historic investment in nutrition programs that will help 13 million American families. This will help an additional 10 million Americans, including 320,000 working poor families, 380,000 elderly and disabled, plus our veterans. This will help put food on the table for many individuals that don't have food.

This farm bill also ensures that low-income elementary school children will have access to fresh fruits and vegetables in schools by expanding the USDA snack program to all 50 States leaving no child behind who is left hungry.

I ask you to support this farm bill. It is an important farm bill. I urge everyone to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are in this nutrition title.

First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions, people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program. We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger.

The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement'' to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for food stamps: an established program that is one of the best Government programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other policy changes to the program.

I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits. We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average only $1

per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy, nutritious diet on such a limited amount.

So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134 to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food-- families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care they so desperately depend on to hold down their jobs. And we index the asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before, that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and senior citizens won't lose out on food.

For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a nutritious meal on the table.

One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust. In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska, Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month.

In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially, may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support themselves in their retirement.

But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of California the legislature and Governor have been working together to design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this important policy.

In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing paperwork for 12-month periods, unless they have a major increase in their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate in, particularly Medicaid.

Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10 to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved ``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp benefits.

For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families, especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10- year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families with children.

We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs above $175 per child per month, or $200 for infants, by recognizing that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are helped will receive an additional $40 a month, or $500 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction-- such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of informal care. Finally, as States roll this out to the 100,000 families currently on the program, it is important that they make it easy for eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current capped amounts.

We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in additional funds this year to help meet food banks' needs in light of rising food costs. And, we increase the basic Emergency Food Assistance Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be adjusted for inflation in future years to ensure that this program does not lose any of its food purchasing power.

Another important provision for our children is a provision that ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or ``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility rules for the two programs overlap: Virtually every child who receives food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good Government--there is no reason the Government can't make these connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to be responsible for duplicative paperwork.

In addition to my role as Agriculture's Sub-committee Chair on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly income for a typical Latino family that participates in the Food Stamp Program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit low-income Latinos who rely upon this program.

I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996.

In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will conduct a study on the possibility of bringing

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico back into the national Food Stamp Program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people who are in need of food assistance.

The poverty rate in Puerto Rico, 45 percent, is more than three times the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto Rico cannot afford to provide benefits to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using Food Stamp Program standards. Instead, they have been forced to impose rigid eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four with net income above about $600 a month, or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level, cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance. An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per month--just 23 percent of the poverty level.

Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible.

Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute. The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law and create rights for households.

Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those which have the full force of law and which households have the right to enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by the state. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the Committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations.

I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would have strengthened the longstanding policy in the food stamp program that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana, experiment with using private companies to collect and review food stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a company's responsibility to its shareholders.

While the House voted to include this provision in the Conference agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other party and a veto threat from President Bush, I regret this outcome and I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the proper balance to food stamp administration.

But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this ``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance, and child care, including online applications, online program redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers where changes in circumstances can be reported.

On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact, in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and retention processes.

On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed, evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers. Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization'' efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy, or administrative costs.

So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to establish standards for when States are making major changes in program operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients.

Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any overissuances that occur because of one of these preventable major systems failures.

Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we strengthened the Act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case records in order to pursue claims against the State. That is unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration.

Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits. One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water, that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that ensures that only those who intended

to defraud the system in these manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative be caught up as somehow engaging in fraud under this provision.

My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor infractions that are many years old and where the police have no interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case.

So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them to justice.

In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14 States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.)

Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to $40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By 2012, the program would be funded at nearly eight times its current size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in years after that.

In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new generation of children to a healthy way of eating.

To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our Committee and our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill. With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population. As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger future for our children and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 406) to posthumously award a Congressional Gold Medal to Alice Paul in recognition of her role in the women's suffrage movement and in advancing equal rights for women, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous materials thereon.

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

First, I would like to thank Chairman Frank; Ranking Member Spencer Bachus, the minority member; and I'd also like to thank Representative Judy Biggert, who is also a cosponsor of the legislation and who is managing this on the floor this morning. I also want to take time to thank all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives for their support.

This is bipartisan legislation that has 406 cosponsors out of the 435 Members. The title of the bill is H.R. 406, and there are 406 cosponsors.

I also want to thank my staff for their hard work and dedication to the passage of this legislation.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 406, the Alice Paul Women's Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal Act, a bill to honor Alice Paul, a woman who dedicated her life to equality. This legislation is supported by the National Council of Women's Organizations, the Alice Paul Institute, the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum, the League of Women Voters, MANA, the 4-E-R-A, and the National Organization of Women.

This legislation awards Alice Paul and the movement she spearheaded the Congressional Gold Medal, to recognize her role in the women's suffrage movement and in advancing equal rights, and I state equal rights, for women.

Many people do not know about Alice Paul, but today they will. It is my hope that this legislation will ratify that fact.

Because of Alice Paul and the work of other suffragists, we have the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution that guarantees that women have the right to vote. Women have the right to be Members of Congress, State officials, and to participate in local policies and the ability to run for public office. That's why here in Congress, we currently have 87 women in Congress. Because of Alice Paul, Speaker Pelosi can be the Democratic leader right here in the 110th Congress. Because of Alice Paul, Senator Clinton can run for the highest office in the Nation and maybe be the President of the United States of America.

Alice Paul was a remarkable person who made America more democratic by fighting for equal rights and creating opportunities for women. She advocated for women in our country as well as in the Americas, within the confines of the United Nations. Alice Paul helped draft the equal rights amendment in 1923. In 1923. Alice Paul lobbied to ensure that sex discrimination was included in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I want to stress the blood, sweat, and tears that went hand in hand with the women's suffrage movement. Alice Paul truly gave of herself. She motivated, she empowered women to fight, to have courage, and to challenge the status quo.

Alice Paul's leadership was unyielding, tenacious, and never self- serving. She suffered imprisonment, solitary confinement, and force feeding when officials tried sabotage her hunger strike. She dedicated her life for women's rights. A true American. A true champion. An American worthy of our gratitude and never-ending respect.

Her work must be honored and preserved by congressional acknowledgment. The Congressional Gold Medal is only a small token in comparison to the legacy that Alice Paul gave us all. Alice Paul's contribution to America cannot be understated. For this reason I urge all Members to support its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as she might consume to the gentlewoman from California, my good friend, Grace Napolitano.

Does the gentlewoman from Illinois have additional speakers?

First of all, I would like to thank the gentlewoman Mrs. Bachmann and, of course, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano for their compassionate speech about H.R. 406. A true hero, a woman who will leave a legacy not only for our country, for our Nation, but for our children and others, and especially I say for my daughters, I have two daughters, to know that they now have the right to vote.

And I was inspired by a movie that I saw entitled Iron Jawed Angels. That is how I happened to find out about Alice Paul and her history and contributions. I think too much time has passed and she should have been recognized some time ago. Were it not for she had done, many of us would not be in office right now because it also impacted many of us minorities. Not only did women gain the right to vote, but many minorities now have the ability

to vote under the 19th amendment because of women's suffrage. So I congratulate her.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``aye'' for

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bipartisan housing stimulus package.

The foreclosure crisis is hurting communities all across the Nation, and my district has been especially impacted: 4,523 families in my district have already lost their homes this year. Over 11,000 families in San Bernardino County are currently in default. And the San Bernardino-Riverside area in the Inland Empire, ranked #2 nationwide in foreclosure filings this year.

Everyone pays when there are foreclosures! Crime increases, home values decline, schools are affected, and cities run deficits which impacts revenues for local police, fire, and social services.

H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act which passed today, will help stabilize communities harmed by empty homes closed by foreclosure. It will provide loans and grants to States to buy and rehabilitate these properties and restore home values in neighborhoods.

The broader housing package is also important for many reasons: FHA Stabilization will allow lenders to refinance mortgages with FHA- insured loans to keep families in their homes. FHA Modernization increases FHA loan limits permanently to help high cost housing areas like the Inland Empire. The $7,500 Tax Credit for Homebuyers will help first-time homebuyers purchasing their first home. Low-income Housing Credit Reform modernizes the credit to increase affordable housing in underserved neighborhoods. The increase in Mortgage Revenue Bonds will allow states to issue more bonds for housing and use the proceeds to refinance subprime mortgages.

Finally, my amendment to the financial services committee bill, H.R. 5830, will promote in-person housing counseling to reach homeowners in default. This is more effective than sending a letter in the mail and will help prevent many foreclosures.

I urge my colleagues to support this housing stimulus package. This is the right thing to do and will keep people in their homes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 493, to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. Thanks to breakthroughs in science we are able to genetically test for potential health problems. This is information about ``potential'' health problems that an individual can use to reduce the likelihood of contracting an illness.

Awareness of potential health problems is the first step; but individuals still need health care coverage to access the proper testing and treatments.

During the 1970s, the sickle-cell anemia craze led to discrimination against African Americans and unnecessary public fear. To prevent this type of public fear and discrimination against any individual, this bill bars employers and health insurance companies from discriminating against an individual based on genetic information about potential health problems. The bill protects the consumer, by denying health insurance companies from setting higher premiums based on genetic tests.

Individuals should not be penalized because of their genetic make-up; this is something no one has control of. Just because an individual is Hispanic and a likelier candidate for heart disease, should not lead to a higher insurance premium based on the results of a genetic test. Higher premiums are unrealistic and harmful to American families that already are struggling to pay for health care coverage for themselves and their children.

Parents should not skip out on vital fact-finding genetic tests about potential health problems because of fear of loss of health care coverage or loss of their job.

We need to protect our families and protect their health care coverage. I urge my Colleagues to support H.R. 493.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008.

H.R. 5522 would direct OSHA to improve engineering controls, and worker training.

OSHA would be directed to issue a final standard to include requirements for building design and explosion protection within 18 months; and to include combustible dusts in the Hazardous Communication Standard.

This bill reduces workplace hazards; Workers have a right to work in a safe environment with trustworthy safety standards;

Workers should not have to fear dust explosions or resultant fires;

In February, 6 people died and 42 were injured when sugar dust exploded in a silo at Imperial Sugar Company's largest refinery in Savannah, Georgia.

Families should not have to worry that their loved one will not return home due to a dust explosion.

OSHA must immediately protect workers in these plants.

I urge your support of H.R. 5522.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks to recognize National Minority Cancer Awareness Week.

Cancer continues to devastate American families throughout the United States. The Congressional District I represent lies in the Cancer belt of California, with increase in the number of cases diagnosed every day. Minorities in my area continue to be significantly impacted and every day are faced with the question of what to do and how to pay for costly treatments.

National Minority Cancer Awareness Week is recognized on the third week of April to raise awareness of the alarming incidence and effects cancer has amongst the minorities. This awareness contributes to much needed outreach education to those most affected.

High cancer rates among minorities are a widely known fact, and sadly due in large part to the health disparities in access to high quality prevention, early detection and treatment services.

In Congress, I have continued my efforts in combating Breast Cancer by partnering with Senator Dianne Feinstein in reauthorizing the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another two years. Without research we are all in the dark. Thanks to this stamp, research for breast cancer has increased by over $50 million.

Increasing awareness is vital at a time when we are facing cuts in Medicaid funding to States, and a shortage of funding to important programs like S-CHIP and WIC. Families need to realize that cancer does strike disproportionately in the minority community.

Sadly, many patients find out about a cancer diagnosis after it is too late. This is especially tragic when we know that only about 5 percent of all cancers are strongly hereditary, most cancers result in damage (mutation) to genes that occur during one's lifetime, according to the American Cancer Society.

African Americans have the highest death rate for all cancers than any other group. In fact, African American men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men. The American Cancer Society also reports that an estimated 152,000 African Americans will be diagnosed and more than 62,000 African Americans will die from cancer this year.

For Hispanics in the United States, the data is just as alarming. Cancer is the second leading cause of death for Hispanics in the United States. Moreover, cancer rates are higher for Hispanics for the cancers of the stomach, liver, cervix, and gallbladder.

These are alarming statistics that are only a reflection of the devastating effects of cancer in our minority communities. Cancer touches the lives of not just only the patients, but the family as well.

American families are the backbone of our society, it is essential that we help them in any way we can. Increased research and educational outreach is the first step.

We are all facing the detrimental effects of the skyrocketing gas prices and a devastating number of foreclosures; these families affected with cancer especially need our help. No one should have to choose between paying for medicine and paying for gas to get to a doctor's appointment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 1079, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month and thank my friend and colleague Mr. Hinojosa for offering it. I also want to thank Mr. Hinojosa for his leadership of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus (FELC), of which I am a proud member.

This year, the theme for my annual women's conference was ``Financial Literacy for Women,'' to recognize the importance of educating and encouraging women to take steps that could result in a better financial future for themselves and their families. At this conference, I invited speakers to motivate the women in my district to think about their finances and plan for the future.

That's what this resolution is all about, ensuring that individuals from all walks of life-- women, men, young and old--recognize the importance of managing personal finances, increase personal savings and reduce their debt. In these tough economic times it is important that we all prepare for our financial future.

The past few months we have seen rising prices for gas to food, more Americans losing their homes or the value in their homes, and rising unemployment. Earlier this year, the New Direction Congress passed an economic stimulus package to help families with high costs of gas, health care and groceries, and to jumpstart our slowing economy. Recovery Rebates will be in the hands of 130 million Americans, starting early in May.

The strain of the economic downturn on middle-class families demands a second growth and relief package now--and Congress will work in a bipartisan way to find solutions for the immediate crisis and for a long-term economic recovery for America.

I am a proud member of the House Financial Services Committee and last week, we held a markup of legislation that will help address the foreclosure crisis. The first bill, H.R. 5818 provides $15 billion in loans and grants to States to allow them to buy up repossessed properties. This will help ensure that abandoned homes don't stay on the market too long to keep home prices from dropping even further. The second bill, H.R. 5830 allows the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in subprime loans so that these families in danger of foreclosing can refinance into a more affordable loan. It also provides money to housing counselors to increase their efforts in underserved, poor, and minority communities.

Congress is doing its part to help stabilize our economy and help keep families in their homes. This resolution supports our efforts by calling on the President to issue a proclamation calling on the Federal Government, States, localities, schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities to observe Financial Literacy Month with community programs and events. This outreach will help us raise public awareness about financial education and is particularly important for our country's present and future economic well-being.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1079.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The author has introduced this legislation for the last 10 years. It's time that we stand together for the fair payments act.

It is 2008, and yet our wives, daughters, sisters still face gender- based wage discrimination.

I am proud to advocate for equal pay because this is not a women's issue. This is an American issue. Discrimination on wages based on gender is unacceptable. Congress has a duty to tackle this issue.

The wage gap hurts families' ability to pay for basics like groceries, child care, health care. Today 41 percent of women are heads of households and are sole income earners. We're in a recession. People have lost their homes right now. The gap continues to be there. Gas prices continue to go up.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1338, and allow for all women to receive fair treatment and equal opportunity.

Madam Speaker, on June 14th, 2008, the Congregation Emanu El of San Bernardino, California, will present to Caroldyne and Hershel Swedlove the prestigious Rabbi Norman F. Feldheym Award. The Rabbi Norman Feldheym award was established in 1983 to pay tribute to those members of the Congregation Emanu El that reflect the Rabbi's qualities of love and loyalty to the synagogue, service to their community, and the personal traits of humility and kindness.

The Swedloves have been members of the Congregation Emanu El since 1966. They have long been active in supporting the congregation's endeavors, most notably their annual sponsorship of the Rosh Hashanah congregational luncheon. Caroldyne has been especially active in the community, as a member of the Sisterhood of Congregation Emanu El. She has taught in the Religious School there, while also volunteering in the Sisterhood Gift Shop. Hershel was a regular volunteer in the congregation's major fund raising activities, an effort that enabled the synagogue to pay off its mortgage.

I am sure that the Swedloves are most proud of their family's involvement in the synagogue as well. Their four sons Jerome, Sheldon, Randall, and David all attended the religious school, were Bar Mitzvahed and confirmed in the synagogue and are now all active members of the Congregation as well.

The Swedloves have been an important part of the Jewish community in the Inland Empire for years, as members of Paradise B'Nai B'rith and the Redlands Jewish Club, and as supporters of Jewish homes for the Aging and the Western States Jewish Historical Society. As owner- operators of Morris Automotive Supply in Fontana since 1962, they have been prominent members of the business community as well. Well known for their family traditions and unquestioned integrity, the Swedloves have been honored by the Fontana Chamber of Commerce for their excellence.

I am honored to recognize Caroldyne and Hershel Swedlove for their commitment to our community. I congratulate them on an honor well deserved on the 117th anniversary of the chartering of the congregation in San Bernardino. May both the Congregation Emanu El and the Swedloves continue to serve San Bernardino for years to come.