Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

Currently, about 46 percent of private employers provide paid parental leave to their employees, but federal workers have no such guarantee. As a Member of the House Education and Labor Committee and a representative of many federal workers, this concerns

me. Federal workers, like those in the private sector, should also have the option of adopting or giving birth to their own child without having to go 12 weeks without a paycheck, which few families in our country can afford to do.

Study after study shows that enabling working mothers and fathers to care for and bond with newly-adopted children and newborns lays the foundation for healthy child development and a safer, brighter future for our Nation. Paid leave makes it possible for workers to take time off without having to worry about a paycheck.

Additionally, paid parental leave will help the federal government recruit and retain dedicated and talented workers. As the federal workforce ages, our government will be looking for new, younger workers. In order to attract and retain the best workers, federal benefits must be competitive.

This paid leave would also save the government money by reducing turnover and avoiding costs associated with replacing and training new workers, which is approximately 25 percent of one worker's salary, making turnover-related costs among the most significant employer expenses.

The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act will provide federal workers who qualify for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which guarantees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, with four weeks of full pay for the adoption or birth of a new child, allowing parents to care for their newborns while continuing to make ends meet.

This legislation takes a strong step toward creating a more family- friendly workplace in the United States. Hopefully, in my lifetime I will see federal paid sick and parental leave for every worker in every industry in the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this goal. As a father who spends every week away from his family serving here in the U.S. Congress, I understand how hard it is not to be with loved ones and to miss important events in their lives because of one's job.

I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and show American workers that we are committed to helping them balance their work and home responsibilities.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Dr. Peter H. Kehoe, who this Saturday will become the 87th president of the American Optometric Association (AOA).

For many years, Dr. Kehoe has been a leader in his profession at the State, regional and national levels. He is a past president of the Illinois Optometric Association and the West Central Illinois Optometric Society. In 2001, the State association named him Illinois' ``Optometrist of the Year.''

Dr. Kehoe is a graduate of the Illinois College of Optometry and served on its Alumni Council Board of Directors. A Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry, he is in private practice in my hometown of Galesburg, IL, and is a past president of the Galesburg Lions Club.

Doctors of optometry are the Nation's largest eye care providers, serving patients in nearly 6,500 communities across the country. The American Optometric Association is the professional society for optometrists nationwide and has more than 34,000 members. Dr. Kehoe will lead the association along its mission to improve eye and vision care in the United States.

Dr. Peter H. Kehoe has built a renowned record of service and leadership in his profession and in his community. I am confident that he will have a very successful term as president of the AOA. The 17th District of Illinois is proud to have Dr. Kehoe as a constituent and I join his family, friends and colleagues in congratulating him on this achievement and wishing him good luck.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a victory for the American people. On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office ruled that the Air Force broke its own contracting rules when it awarded a multi- billion dollar tanker contract to the Northrop Grumman Airbus team and recommended that the Air Force reopen the competitive bidding process. The GAO said the Air Force made ``a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.''

Let me just touch on some of the main points of the GAO ruling.

The Air Force did not assess the relative merits of the tanker proposals in accordance with the criteria that the Air Force established. The Air Force awarded Northrop's bigger tanker extra credit even though no consideration was supposed to have been given for exceeding key performance objectives. The record did not indicate, as the Air Force claimed, that the Northrop tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing aircraft.

The Air Force conducted ``misleading and unequal decisions'' with Boeing by informing Boeing that it fully satisfied a key performance objective but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective.

The Air Force unreasonably favored Northrop after the company refused to agree to help set up maintenance depots within two years of the first airplane delivery, and the Air Force miscalculated the life-cycle costs of Boeing's tanker and incorrectly concluded that the Northrop tanker would have lowered costs.

The Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated nonrecurring engineering costs in accounting for program risk.

The GAO found seven major flaws in this election process, Mr. Speaker. Not one or two, but seven.

Mr. Speaker, most were doubtful that the decision would be overturned. Experts said it was highly unlikely that the GAO would uphold Boeing's protest because the GAO rarely sides with the protesting company. But fortunately for the American people, the GAO saw what Boeing had been saying all along: the competition was unfair and fundamentally flawed.

The GAO ruling leaves the Air Force with only one option: recompete the bid. Now, the Air Force has the opportunity to conduct a fair and open competition. And I strongly encourage them to consider an American company. Our economic and national security depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, while the GAO ruling in favor of Boeing is welcome, the GAO ruling does not address the broader economic and national security concerns raised by the tanker decision. The first, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Over the last 5 months, a record number of jobs had been lost, most of them from the manufacturing sector. In May, the unemployment rate made a 22-year high jump, reaching its highest level in more than 3\1/ 2\ years. But Air Force officials stated that employment effects were not considered in awarding the contract. And as a result, tens of thousands of good, high-paying jobs will be created in Europe.

I will be happy to.

I'm happy to.

And let me say, Mr. Speaker, I refer my colleagues to an article titled ``Bailing Out On America'' out of the EPI Briefing Paper. It is a job analysis report on the tanker decision from the nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, The Economic Institute.

The report titled ``Bailing Out On America. Air Force tanker decision will ground at least 14,000 U.S. jobs,'' found that Boeing recreated at least twice as many U.S. jobs as the Northrop Grumman European Airbus team. According to the EPI report, Airbus Northrop exaggerates its own job claims. Equally important, the report states that U.S. job losses are likely to grow in the future if the contract is awarded to EADS because it will give the company sizable cost advantages and will lug up the future competitions to supply tankers to the Air Force.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when America is facing a recession, creating jobs in Europe is not in the best interest of the American people. We owe it to the American people to take advantage of the opportunity to create jobs right here in the United States and resuscitate our failing economy.

Several other issues remain outstanding not addressed in the GAO which includes a pending case before the World Trade Organization against EAD, the parent of Airbus, for accepting illegal subsidies, a violation of international trade laws. This and other issues must be addressed before the tanker program can move forward.

And let me just, if I could, my friend, just conclude by saying a couple of things.

We're fighting two wars here. We just got through passing billions of dollars to fund them. Not too long ago, the guidance system for bombs, I don't exactly know the exact part that was manufactured in India, was shipped off to be manufactured in China. That work is gone. National defense is a risk, in my opinion, and those jobs aren't coming back; and now we have a company who wants to build tankers outside of this Nation not knowing if tomorrow this company or this country that we seek to have this plane made by is going to remain friends with the United States.

I was on a talk show program and was amazed at the number of calls that I got from people saying, What are they thinking out there? How could they outsource national defense items to be manufactured by somebody other than the United States when we're at war? I have an arsenal in my district that made the Up-Armored Humvee doors that saved hundreds of lives, and I have to tell you, it makes no sense.

All we asked for was a fair shake for Boeing. The GAO report, I think, will give Boeing the opportunity to compete on what is fair. I commend the GAO for doing this, but let me be clear. We have an obligation to protect this country when we're at war, and the products that we produce to protect our men and women and to fight and sustain this war, whenever possible, ought to be made in this country and ought to be made by American workers.

And I thank my friends for inviting me this evening.

Will the gentleman yield? You know, you just mentioned $13 billion. We've tried now on two occasions to insure 10 million children for $6 billion. So if you take a look at the cost overrun just on the hangers and you look at the amount of money that we're spending--I think what's really important to also note here is the GAO rarely does this. Normally, the expectation would be that they were going to go with what they had. And when you read this report, and as my friend from Oregon said--and I hope that every Member of this Chamber will read it because I think it's critical if you're going to make an informed decision on this--if you read this, you will see that, indeed, Boeing didn't have a chance to compete fairly, you had tremendous cost overruns into the billions of dollars, you have thousands of American jobs. But again, I go back to my friend and say, this is a Nation at war fighting two wars, and we cannot allow the outsourcing.

My friend from Kansas mentions with great pride that she has bases, and these soldiers need and expect the best equipment, and Boeing can give that to them. But most importantly in this whole process is the whole question of fairness. We said this before. When I met with the Boeing people, they said, look, we don't want favoritism here, we just want some fairness brought into this process so we can compete. You can't complete when you change rules in the middle of the game. I liken this, and I was telling one of the Boeing people, it's like tying somebody's hands behind their back, putting a blindfold on, and fighting for the Heavyweight Championship of the world, you're at a slight disadvantage. And that's what happened in this report.

So I'm pleased. And I really appreciate my friend from the State of Washington for inviting me to be here tonight to talk about this because this is critical, this is critical for our national defense, it's critical for our jobs. And as you said, when you think of the billions of dollars that we're going to be wasting on this project that we could save, that we could be spending on other things, it really just makes a whole lot of sense. So again, I yield back and thank you very much.

Well, I think the gentlelady from Kansas brings up a great point. Here's a company that's been manufacturing this for 50 years. So they're not the new kid on the block, they've been there and they've done that. And every time they've produced it, they've produced it with quality. And you don't have the WTO looking at them and all kinds of different things.

The bottom line here is this is a great product. And giving the opportunity for this company to be able to compete on a level playing field, that's all they were asking for, and now they're going to get the opportunity to do so. And I think at the end of the day, when that happens, I think the taxpayers will benefit, I think the American people will benefit, I think our troops will benefit. And, you know, as my friend said, when you start talking, as the late Senator Dirksen said, a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.

So again, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I yield back.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, I'm a new Member here, but I ran on this whole issue of trade and fair trade, as you know. And you look at this, and here is a company--and I don't mean to be picking on them this evening, but facts really are facts, so let's see if we can get this straight. Here's a company who is in violation of trade laws, who was about to receive a $40 billion contract that would have cost us thousands of jobs to build a tanker that can't land at some airports.

Half the airports, and cannot fuel the necessary planes that we might have when we go to war. Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer here, and I know this has been a long day, but again, I think clearly we had a company, as my friend from Kansas says, a company that's been doing this 50, 60 years, a stellar reputation, they could have produced a smaller craft that could land where it's supposed to land, fuel what it's supposed to fuel, and not reward this corporation for violating Federal trade laws.

So to me, this is really a no-brainer. And I think that every Member of the House, not only should they read the report, which I think is important, but I think they should listen to what my friend said just a few minutes ago, about do we really want to get down the slope of rewarding a company with a $40 billion or $4 million or whatever the contract is when they are in violation of Federal trade laws? I don't believe that is what the people sent us here to do. We're supposed to protect this country.

This is a great day. Yesterday was a great day for the GAO report. But we have to be vigilant here. We have to keep pushing on this. And I have to tell you, as long as we're here, I think we have an obligation to hold the Air Force's feet to the fire on this. People make mistakes. But let's don't make it again, and let's don't make it again, and let's don't make it to the tune of a $40 billion contract to a company that can't produce what we really need.

Sounds like my son.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington and my friend from Kansas for allowing me to be here tonight to talk about an issue that is incredibly important, not just in the State of Kansas, although it is important to every State and important to this world. So as you said, and I commend my friend, Mr. Inslee, when he said, if we have to, and this continues, there is an appropriations process. Hopefully we don't have to go down that road. But I have to tell you. I think we have a responsibility for companies that violate international trade laws. I don't think you reward them. I certainly don't think you reward them with a $30 billion contract, as I said, to build a plane too big to land and not adequate to fuel the aircraft that we need.

So once again, let me just thank you, Congressman Inslee, for your hard work and your leadership on this. To my friend from Kansas, we will do everything we can. And you have been wonderful. And the people of your State are fortunate to have somebody who stands up not only for the service people but for the people of this country. So thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Air Force tanker decision and its impact on our economy and jobs, especially during these hard economic times.

Recently, an independent report predicted that 14,000 jobs would be lost if the multibillion dollar Air Force tanker contract was awarded to a foreign company. And the report states, ``These figures understate the potential losses to U.S. employment.''

Madam Speaker, it's outrageous that the Air Force officials did not take into consideration the economic impact of this decision. By outsourcing the production of the tanker, we are denying hardworking Americans good, high-paying jobs, and turning a blind eye to our deteriorating economic situation.

Madam Speaker, this tanker deal further jeopardizes the economic security of our Nation. At a time when America is facing a record-high level of unemployment recession, creating jobs in Europe is not in the best interests of the American people.

Madam Speaker, this Congress must address the broader economic concerns raised by the tanker decision. We owe it to the American people to take advantage of the opportunity to create jobs right here in the United States and resuscitate our failing economy.

Madam Speaker, this week the House will vote on a final budget conference agreement that charts a new way forward for our country. It is the first budget agreement reached in an election year since the Clinton administration and restores fiscal sanity to a process that has been out of control since President Bush came to Washington in 2001. Unlike past Republican budgets, our budget returns to surplus in 2012.

The new budget makes investments in energy, education, and infrastructure, while also providing tax relief to middle class families. The agreement does not include any new tax increases. In fact, it does support significant tax relief for middle class families, including extension of marriage penalty tax relief, the child tax credit, and the continuation of the 10 percent tax bracket. It also includes an additional year of the alternative minimum tax relief.

The budget also ensures that veterans get the quality health care they need and protects our homeland. It also rejects cuts proposed by the President to important first responder programs like the COPS program.

Madam Speaker, this budget deserves strong bipartisan support.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support today of H.R. 3021.

School districts around the country are struggling to find the money to pay for the most basic school repairs, let alone funding to upgrade school facilities to meet the needs of 21st century learners.

While school construction funding has traditionally been a State and local responsibility, the magnitude of the challenge warrants an increased Federal role, a role that could help schools such as Lewistown High in my district repair a leaky roof and replace World War II-era equipment that students are using for machine shop.

Madam Chairman, the bill before us authorizes $6.4 billion to address unmet school construction needs. Additionally, the bill guarantees schools with the greatest need receive a minimum of $5,000 for school construction projects.

As a member of the Green Schools Caucus, I'm pleased that this bill encourages schools to make energy-efficient improvements. By dedicating the majority of funds to green projects, H.R. 3021 will save schools an average of $100,000 each year in energy costs alone--enough to hire two additional full-time teachers, purchase 5,000 new textbooks, or buy 500 new computers.

The deteriorating physical condition of public schools also presents an opportunity to stimulate our failing economy. A direct Federal investment in school construction will provide an immediate boost to our economy and create an estimated 100,000 jobs in the building trades hit hard in recent months.

Madam Chairman, H.R. 3021 comes as a much-needed response to crumbling school infrastructure, skyrocketing energy prices, and our declining economy. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2790) to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish the position of Director of Physician Assistant Services within the office of the Under

Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Health, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today is considering H.R. 2790, a bill I authored to elevate the current position of Physician Assistant Advisor to a full-time Director of Physician Assistant Services in the VA Central Office.

I would like to thank my good friend Representative Jerry Moran for leading the effort with me, as well as Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer for their cosponsorship of this legislation. I'd also like to acknowledge all of my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee who joined as cosponsors and the American Academy of Physician Assistants for their tireless work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are currently 1,600 physician assistants serving the Veterans' Health Administration, including many veterans, National Guard, and Reservists. PAs are a critical component of the health care delivery system and are responsible for roughly one-quarter of all primary care patients seen in the VHA.

The change from the current role of PA Advisor, who works part time and is based in the field, to a full-time Director is necessary in order to ensure that PAs are being appropriately and effectively utilized throughout the VHA. Right now the PA Advisor is being left out of strategic planning discussions and long-term staffing narratives, leaving PAs with no voice and no advocate. Additionally, there is a severe disparity throughout the VA facilities in how PAs are being used, what medical services they can perform, and even whether facilities can hire physician assistants. Most importantly, the unnecessary restrictions and widespread confusion are causing the VA to miss a clear opportunity to improve the quality of health care for our veterans.

One of the biggest challenges facing current and future PAs in the VA system is their exclusion from any recruitment and retention efforts or benefits. The VA designates certain positions, such as physicians and nurses, as critical occupations, which are given priority in loan repayment and scholarship programs. Since PAs are not designated as a critical occupation, they are excluded from these moneys, despite the fact that the VA has determined that physician assistants and nurse practitioners are functionally interchangeable and equal in the work that they perform. The underutilization, the lack of recruitment and retention efforts, and pay disparity are all leading PAs to not consider the VHA as a viable employment option.

Physician assistants are very important for veterans living in rural areas, like a large portion of my congressional district. Veterans that live in underserved areas made the same sacrifices as their urban and suburban counterparts. With a disproportionate number of these brave men and women being cared for by PAs, it is critical that we establish a system that will best serve their needs so as not to compromise care to our veterans. Considering the fact that nearly 40 percent of all VA PAs are projected to retire in the next 5 years, the VA is in danger of losing its physician assistants workforce unless some attention is paid to this critical group.

This bill will allow the Director of Physician Assistant Services to become an integral component within the VA system to proactively solve the many issues facing PAs and give PAs a fair and long overdue voice.

Mr. Speaker, this commonsense legislation promotes quality medical care for our veterans. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my friend from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to unanimously support H.R. 2790, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2790, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents Illinois farmers and rural communities, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.

The Food, Conservation and Energy Act, which is endorsed by every major agriculture group in my home state of Illinois, is good for our farmers and maintains our ability to provide a safe, affordable and abundant food supply.

This bill improves nutrition and conservation programs, and supports biofuel production at great benefit to the Illinois farm economy.

Most importantly, it extends a critical safety net to help farmers manage production risks when facing unsustainably low prices or natural disasters.

Illinois receives the 4th most nutrition dollars in the nation. I was happy to see that nearly three-quarters of all farm bill spending will go toward food and nutrition programs, including $50 million for food pantries to address the rising costs of food and food shortages.

The bill also increases conservation spending to safeguard agricultural lands from the pressures of urban and suburban development, and to protect our natural resources.

Finally, the bill makes critical investments in Illinois' rural communities through biofuel production, telecommunications and wastewater infrastructure projects, and healthcare. In this time of economic. hardship, we look to new industries to rebuild the economy of Illinois and the rest of the country. This bill puts $1 billion in programs that will leverage renewable energy industry investments in new technologies and feedstocks. It also provides $320 million for biorefineries producing advanced biofuels, and $300 million for the Bioenergy Program, which directly impact Illinois.

I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this comprehensive legislation that funds important programs for rural and urban constituents across Illinois and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the modern State of Israel. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has flourished as the only true democracy in the Middle East, and established itself as America's greatest ally in the region.

Mr. Speaker, last August I had the pleasure of visiting Israel with several of my colleagues, where I met with top officials and I toured the country. While I have many fond memories of my trip, I was particularly moved by the people's steadfast devotion to their homeland.

In the town of Sderot, a constant target of rocket attacks from neighboring Gaza, I met a woman who simply said to me, ``We can't move from here. This is our home.'' Her resilience and perseverance is indicative of the spirit of the Israeli people.

Amid constant threat from surrounding countries and terrorist groups, it is critical that the United States stand in solidarity with Israel as she fights to protect her people.

Mr. Speaker, my experience in Israel is one that I will never forget, and I look forward to the day when Israel can live in peace with its neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1154, supporting the mission and goals of Workers Memorial Day, and commend my colleague, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson for introducing this important resolution.

Just 2 days ago on April 28th we honored the 20th Annual Workers Memorial Day, when people all over the world gathered to remember the workers who have been killed or injured on the job.

April 28th also commemorated the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Since 1970, OSHA has been a driving force in improving workplace safety and health conditions across the country. However, the Bush administration has sought to stifle that progress by downsizing OSHA, favoring employer voluntary programs over real enforcement.

A weakened OSHA has real life-or-death consequences for American workers. One such worker is Cintas washroom employee Eleazar Torres- Gomez--father of four--who was killed on March 6, 2007 when he was dragged by a conveyor belt into an industrial dryer.

Mr. Torres-Gomez's fate is unfortunately too common--16 workers die every day in our country from work-related injuries. In 2005 alone, over 5,700 workers were killed at work, and the situation is only getting worse. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the number of workplace deaths jumped by more than two percent between 2005 and 2006.

Last year, Representative Lynn Woolsey and I, along with Senator Ted Kennedy introduced the ``Protecting America's Workers Act,'' which amends OSHA to cover more workers, increases penalties and strengthens protections and accountability. The best way to honor Mr. Torres-Gomez and all the other workers who have been killed at their jobs is to quickly send this bill to the President's desk.

Again, I thank Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson for introducing this resolution to honor our workers.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act and commend Chairman George Miller for his tireless efforts on behalf of America's workers.

Our Nation was horrified by news of the February 7 explosion at the Imperial Sugar Refinery in Port Wentworth, GA. I think we were even more stunned by the fact that it was caused by ``combustible dust.'' Although, combustible dust explosions are well documented by the Chemical Safety Board, most employers, workers and the general public are not aware that accumulated dust can cause such destruction. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that not enough is being done to keep workplaces clean and safe from this hazard.

During a March 12, 2008, hearing in the Education and Labor Committee, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Assistant Secretary, Edwin Foulke testified that OSHA has established a housekeeping and ventilation standard, as well as developed programs to address combustible dust hazards. While I appreciate these efforts, frankly they are not enough.

For one, the housekeeping standard is too vague to be useful, and secondly, these measures are ``voluntary.'' When regulations are voluntary, people do not follow them. In my experience as the former President of UNITE HERE Local 617, most employers do not address hazards if doing so interferes with their bottom line or costs time and money.

At this same hearing, witnesses also testified that absent a comprehensive OSHA standard for combustible dust, no one can be confident that dust hazards will be cited and corrected prior to the occurrence of additional accidents.

In fact, the Chemical Safety Board ruled that in addition to the Imperial Sugar incident, several other recent refinery explosions in North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana could have been prevented if the facilities had complied with the safety and engineering practices contained in National Fire Protection Association standard 484 and 654.

I have often said in this House how frustrated I am that we wait for an emergency to occur before reacting, rather than working to prevent it in the first place. We tend to pass laws, establish regulations and mitigate hazards after disasters and fatalities have occurred.

Today, by passing the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act, we take a proactive step to protect workers rather than waiting for even one more injury.

Specifically, this bill directs OSHA to issue an interim final combustible dust standard within 90 days. The standard would include measures to minimize hazards associated with combustible dust through improved housekeeping, engineering controls, worker training and a written combustible dust safety program. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within eighteen months. In addition to items required in the interim standard, the final standard would include requirements for building design and explosion protection. Finally, OSHA would have to include combustible dusts in the Hazard Communication Standard which requires workers to receive information and training about the hazards they face.

Again, I thank Chairman Miller and the committee staff for their hard work on this legislation and urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, April 28 marks the 20th annual Workers Memorial Day. I rise with other members of the Labor and Working Family Caucus to acknowledge the millions of workers who have been killed or injured on the job.

Since 1970, OSHA has been a driving force in improving workplace safety across the country. However, the Bush administration has sought to downsize the agency. A weakened OSHA has real life-or-death consequences for workers, such as Cintas employee Eleazar Torres-Gomez who died last year when he was dragged into an industrial dryer.

Mr. Torres-Gomez's fate is, unfortunately, too common. Sixteen workers die every day in our country from work-related injuries.

Last year, along with Representative Lynn Woolsey, I introduced the Protecting America's Workers Act, which amends OSHA to cover more workers, and strengthens protections and accountability. During Workers Memorial Week, the best way to honor our workers is to quickly send this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember one of my finest constituents, Kim Hoa Vermeire Lang. A native of South Vietnam, Kim arrived in the United States at just 6 months of age. She was adopted by loving parents and grew up to be one of her community's greatest volunteers, devoting limitless energy to Prairieview Elementary School, the Vietnamese Culture Camp, and numerous local charities.

I had the pleasure of working with Kim when she was an intern for my predecessor, Congressman Lane Evans. She was an outstanding source of support for our entire staff, and her dedication to the people of the 17th Congressional District was invaluable.

Sadly, Kim was diagnosed with melanoma in 1993. Throughout her ordeal, she never complained, and enthusiastically carried out her work. On March 28, Kim lost her battle to cancer, surrounded by loved ones at her parents' home. Kim's courage and determination to live life to the fullest is a model for all of us. My condolences and best wishes go out to her husband Joshua Lang, her parents, Ann and Joseph, and all of her family and friends.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. Many students and families in my congressional district fear that in our struggling economy they will not be able to access the financial assistance they need to go to school. While we have not yet seen this, we know that there exists the potential for a real crisis.

I have often said in this House how frustrated I am that we wait for an emergency to occur before reacting, rather than working to prevent it in the first place. I am proud that today this body is proactively putting measures in place to ensure our students and lenders that they have the assistance that they need.

This legislation reduces borrowers' reliance on costlier private college

loans; encourages responsible borrowing; gives parent borrowers more time to pay off their Federal PLUS loans; it guarantees eligibility for PLUS loans for struggling homeowners who otherwise have good credit; and it provides the Secretary of Education additional tools to safeguard access to student loans.

All these provisions are good steps forward and will keep our student loan industry strong, which is why I am an original cosponsor of the bill and was proud to support it when our committee marked it up just last week. However, more needs to be done. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue to address our Nation's economic troubles.

I commend Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and their staffs for putting together this legislation so that our students and lenders have a safety net during the time of economic insecurity. I urge all my colleagues to support the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), a member of the House Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the chairman of our caucus.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Eva Geiringer Schloss for her efforts to educate our Nation about the evils of racism and hate.

Eva was born in Austria in 1929. When the Nazis invaded, she and her family went into hiding in Amsterdam until they were arrested on Eva's 15th birthday.

Eva was sent to Auschwitz, where she endured the daily degradation of the concentration camp that robbed so many of their lives. Eva's father and brother were killed in the Holocaust. She and her mother were liberated by the Russian army.

Eva Geiringer Schloss has traveled throughout the United States educating thousands of people about the dangers of unchecked prejudice and hate. A play based on Eva's life entitled ``And Then They Came for Me'' has been presented all over the country and will be performed in my district to mark the Holocaust Remembrance.

It is my honor to recognize Eva, a courageous woman who endured unimaginable brutality and has dedicated her life to fighting injustice.