George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We could leave this to the marketplace, and you could throw your workers out on the street with no notice, no health care, no training, and that's it, and just tell them, welcome to the globalized world. We thought we would try a different tack. We thought we would give workers notice where it is practical for employers to do so so the worker would have time to deal with the implications of a lost job on their family, to try to save their home, to try to save their kids' education, try to save the automobile, figure out how to get another job or how to get to retirement. We also know that many workers that are released don't have health care coverage or can't get it in the marketplace. So we extended COBRA. We made that decision many years ago. Forty million people have used that to get them to another health care plan or to hold on to their coverage as long as they possibly could. We said for older workers, you can take it to Medicare. If you are over 55 years old and you have worked there 10 years, you can use COBRA. You pay all the premiums, you pay the administrative cost, but at least you have coverage. For some people, that's absolutely vital, because once they lose coverage, they can't get it again because they can't afford it or because they have preexisting conditions and they won't write that policy for those individuals. This is just about whether or not we are going to treat Americans with some sense of decency who work all year long, provide for their families, work hard, play by the rules or whether they are just going to have to crash to the street and lose their income, their houses, their cars, their kids' education. That's the choice we get today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this substitute and in strong support of the underlying legislation. I really want to say that I think that this is the bare minimum that a society and a government can do for those members of our society that find themselves in a situation, really through no fault of their own, that they suffer job loss because of a decision that is made to close a facility or to transfer their job overseas. What we have now seen over the last decade is that there has been a huge impact in families all across this country, in all different parts of the region of this country, that have been economically severely displaced, that have had to scramble to try and get job training, to get health care, to get a new job, to get a new profession, to get a new occupation. At first, people thought it was only limited to those who did hot, heavy, dirty, nasty jobs. But that is not the case. What we see is, with the continued trend toward globalization and outsourcing, that it can impact all different classes of Americans. But at a minimum, what we ought to do is make sure that those people have some ability to make a transition to that new job, to that new profession, to retirement if they are older workers, and not risk losing everything that they built up during the time that they were holding their jobs. They should not be in a position where they are scrambling to try to find health care, job training, saving their home, maybe their kids' education, and maybe even the car they need to go to work. Too often, that is what happens in this country because of the inadequacies of these underlying laws. Trade assistance over the last decade, WIA over the last decade, have not provided comprehensive services for these workers that they can fully engage in. We need these kinds of changes that are presented by the committee bill coming out of Ways and Means. I believe we need the notification provisions that came out of the Education and Labor Committee, and clearly we need an extension of the COBRA benefits for people who find themselves in great jeopardy of not only temporarily losing health care, but very likely permanently losing health care until they are eligible for Medicare because they may have health conditions that are preexisting and it is either so expensive to get an individual policy or people won't write that policy for them, for whatever excuses they have to cover up the idea of a preexisting condition. So this is a basic fundamental compact between this government that has made a decision, I think properly so, to engage the rest of the world through trade agreements and globalization, but we have to look at what happens here at home. These trade agreements are now being strengthened through the good work of Mr. Rangel and the committee and Mr. Levin and others, to provide for ILO labor standards overseas so we can compete on a fairer basis with workers overseas, with environmental standards so we don't let them subsidize products by just dumping toxins into the rivers and bays and oceans. This is an important piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share encouraging news from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. As many of my colleagues know, I have been fighting for years to ensure that employers in the CNMI--an American territory in the Pacific--pay their workers an honest wage. But for years, we were blocked from reforming the broken labor and immigration system in the Marianas. The corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff's collusion with then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay and others here in Congress meant that the CNMI's sweatshop-based economy persisted for almost two decades after we were first made aware of abuses there. Eventually, Abramoff's dishonest schemes, which caused so much human misery, caught the attention of law enforcement, and the web of corruption is now unraveled. Jack Abramoff is in prison, Representative DeLay no longer serves in this House, and the Congress has a Democratic majority. That is good news for the workers of America and especially those in the CNMI. Earlier this year, the new Congress raised the minimum wage across the country for the first time in almost a decade. And for the first time, that increase applies to the Northern Marianas. Today, workers there make $3.55 an hour, up from the barely $3 that workers there were paid for years. This long-overdue reform is already having a positive effect, and I commend to my colleagues the article below from the Marianas Variety (``Labor: Wage hike drives locals to seek jobs''). As the article explains, we still lack good data on the CNMI job situation, but the trend is very encouraging: the number of people looking for jobs in September of this year was up by an incredible 80 percent compared to the same period last year, according to their Department of Labor. For too long, thanks to policies that reinforced the low-wage garment industry's dominance, there were very few good-paying jobs in the Marianas: if you weren't willing to work for $3 an hour, you could either work in the public sector, or you could live on public assistance. But as the Commonwealth's deputy secretary of labor says in the article, ``There are so many people looking for jobs not only because they need them but because the (minimum) wage is now $3.55 an hour. It's waking them up to go out (and join the workforce).'' The bottom line is that the increase in wages is attracting jobseekers to private sector jobs, exactly as we predicted. It's an abiding shame that it took the U.S. Congress so many years to bring reforms to the Mariana Islands and to raise the minimum wage. And it was a major setback for workers there when the government of the Commonwealth went back on earlier attempts to raise the wage locally. But even though it comes years after I would have liked, I am pleased, although not surprised, by this early report. Under the leadership of this New Direction Congress, we are starting to turn things around, and we are beginning to see the positive results of raising the minimum wage. Paying honest wages for honest work is good for our economy and the right policy for our country. Members of this Congress should be proud that we are moving America, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, in a new direction. [From the Marianas Variety, Oct. 26, 2007] Labor: Wage Hike Drives Locals To Seek Jobs (By Gemma Q. Casas) The 50-cent increase on the local minimum wage in July resulted in an increase in the number of locals seeking employment assistance at the Department of Labor, according to its deputy secretary, Alfred Pangelinan. He said there were 1,800 local jobseekers in September up by 80 percent compared to the same period last year when Labor assisted 1,000 jobseekers. He attributed the sudden surge to the increase on the minimum wage from $3.05 an hour to $3.55 and the worsening economic crisis. ``There are so many people looking for jobs not only because they need them but because the (minimum) wage is now $3.55 an hour. It's waking them up to go out (and join the workforce),'' he said. He believes that as the local minimum wage increases, more residents will be enticed to work in the private sector. The Federal Minimum Wage Act became law in May of this year and it also applies to the CNMI, mandating an increase of the local minimum wage by 50 cents every year until it reaches the U.S. minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. The next 50-cent increase in the CNMI minimum wage will take effect in July 2008, which will raise the rate to $4.05 an hour. The Department of Labor says it is also making sure that local residents who are employed get the monetary equivalent of their foreign counterparts' non-monetary benefits to further encourage them to work. Pangelinan said the real unemployment rate among the local population is difficult to determine because the statistics only include those that come forward and seek assistance. There hasn't been any CNMI-wide survey conducted in recent years to determine how many local residents are jobless.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Mrs. Ellen O. Tauscher and Mr. Jerry McNerney to pay tribute to the life of Mr. Edward Kelly Anschutz. A third generation plumber, Kelly joined the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 159 in 1967. After serving his apprenticeship and becoming a journeyman plumber, he was elected to serve as the Assistant Business Manager and eventually the Business Manager for the local for 13 years. He was so well respected; in his last term as Business Manager, he was elected without any opposition. Kelly was courageous in his efforts to support his union brothers and sisters and their interests at every level. Whether working with a member or an employer, he was well respected and liked by all. Kelly was also a great personality; he had a wonderful sense of humor and truly enjoyed people. While we realize words may do little to lessen the impact of this loss, we trust that the memories shared will help Kelly's family, friends, and union brothers and sisters realize the scope his influence had on working people and their families. Madam Speaker, because of Mr. Anschutz's contributions to his community, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to pay tribute to his life today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, today we have an opportunity to protect thousands of American workers from a serious, irreversible and deadly lung disease known as ``popcorn lung,'' a disease caused by a simple artificial butter flavoring chemical called diacetyl. The alarm bells began ringing on this health crisis over 7 years ago when a Missouri doctor diagnosed several workers from the same popcorn production plant with this debilitating lung disease. In 2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health linked the lung disease to exposure to diacetyl used in the plant. Scientists have called the effect of diacetyl on workers' lungs ``astonishingly grotesque'' and likened it to ``inhaling acid.'' Hundreds of workers in popcorn and flavor production have become ill, several have died of popcorn lung, and many of the workers are so sick they needed lung transplants. Dozens of workers have sued flavoring manufacturers, winning millions in lawsuits and settlements. NIOSH first connected popcorn lung to this chemical in 2002. In 2003, NIOSH issued guidance recommending that workers' exposure be minimized. In 2004, the Food Extract Manufacturers Association, the trade association of the flavoring industry, issued similar guidelines. Yet 5 years later, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has failed to issue a standard to protect workers from exposure to diacetyl, preferring to rely on voluntary efforts. Voluntary efforts, however, have not worked. Last year, California researchers found that despite the issuance of government and industry guidance for years before, many of those recommendations still have not been implemented in the flavor manufacturing facilities, and new cases of this debilitating lung disease have been identified. How does this bill address the problem? H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposer to diacetyl. The standard would contain provisions of engineering controls, respiratory protection, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and worker training. The interim standard applies to popcorn manufacturing and packaging, as well as the food flavoring industry. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 2 years. This final standard would apply to all locations where workers are exposed to diacetyl and would include permissible exposure limit. This bill should not be controversial. It is not another battle between workers and business about safety issues and alleged burdens of regulations. Over the past several months, we have built a wide coalition around this legislation from all sides, including industry, labor and scientists. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the association representing the companies that make these flavorings, has joined with the unions that represent the affected workers to strongly support this legislation. In fact, the only outside dissenters from this coalition are the usual anti-OSHA ideologues spouting the same old ``sky is falling'' rhetoric about regulations. Such rhetoric may be music to the ears of the OSHA-hating ideologues in search of a talking point, but in the real world, this ideology leaves workers and their families to suffer from the preventable scourges of toxic chemicals. There are many reasons why industry, labor and scientists agree on this legislation. They all agree that we don't need to wait any longer to act; indeed, we can't afford to wait. I have a list of almost 30 major studies and reports showing that diacetyl destroys workers' lungs. They agree that we know how to protect workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued guidelines in 2003 laying out the basic measures that industry can take to prevent worker exposure to diacetyl. In 2004, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association outlined in even greater detail the measures that members can take to prevent the employees from getting sick. This legislation is straightforward and merely requires that OSHA do what it could have done and should have already done, issue an emergency standard. There is precedent for this bill and for Congress stepping in when OSHA falters in its mission to protect American workers. In 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 2000, Congress moved to require OSHA to issue health and safety standards. Earlier this month, in response to a report that a consumer of microwave popcorn has contracted popcorn lung, a few popcorn manufacturers have announced that they intend to stop using diacetyl. This is welcome news. It highlights how serious this issue is, but it is not enough. Workers are still at risk because diacetyl will continue to be used in a variety of other food products. We can't wait for consumers to get sick and hit the companies in their pocketbooks before the industry changes. Workers are getting sick now, and have for many years, and will continue to get sick unless we act. Workers cannot wait any longer for our help. In the past several years, we've seen hundreds of workers become sick from exposure to diacetyl, and we've heard about young workers who need lung transplants, who are not expected to live to see their small children grow up. It is time for us to act. OSHA has failed over 5 years. They've been on notice to do this, they have failed to do this. The only time they have shown any movement is when we've called a hearing or had some congressional action, they have responded to it. The time has come for Congress to act and pass this legislation and stop ignoring the needs of these workers' health and safety. And it's time to get OSHA to do the job that they were constituted to do, and that is, to protect these workers and their families from this preventable exposure to diacetyl as the toxic substance that it has become. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is an amendment technical in nature, and it clarifies that if no one is using diacetyl, it is not necessary for OSHA to issue a standard. The second portion clarifies that the purpose of the required NIOSH study is to study the health effects of substitutes of diacetyl. I urge passage of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I certainly appreciate the situation my ranking member, Mr. McKeon, from California finds himself in, and I appreciate his remarks about the actions of OSHA in this situation. The fact is that, again, earlier this month, in a commentary of the Dutch study on diacetyl workers which found it is unlikely that any other chemical is responsible for these cases, NIOSH scientist, Dr. Catherine Kreiss, wrote ``the collective evidence for diacetyl causing respiratory hazards supports actions to minimize exposure of diacetyl even if contributions by other flavoring chemicals exist.'' That is the situation we find ourselves in. This isn't a desire to rush to legislation. The fact is, as Mr. McKeon pointed out, on this side of the aisle also we are all terribly disappointed by the failure of OSHA to engage this problem and to engage the people who are coming forth now supporting this legislation to construct a solution. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who is the Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chair and who has handled this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this isn't about confusion. This isn't about uncertainty. This is about the absolute failure of a Federal agency that has been established and designed to protect the health and the safety of American workers, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and the absolutely failure of that agency to take action, the absolute failure of this administration, the Bush administration, to insist they take action in light of mounting and compelling evidence that workers in popcorn manufacturing facilities and workers maybe now in other food industries have been stricken with a horrible disease that has been directly related to diacetyl. I appreciate they want to throw up all of the other reasons. Maybe it wasn't O.J., but the fact of the matter is, here it is diacetyl, and we have got to understand that because people are going in for lung transplants, people are losing their ability to earn a living, and people have died from the results of this, and manufacturers and others are paying out millions of dollars. The other side wants to offer an amendment that is based upon very old information, 3 years old. In those 3 years, NIOSH has recommended that actions be taken. The actions were not taken. NIOSH based that on the information at that time. Then the industry recommended that actions be taken to protect the lives and the health and the safety of these workers, and actions were not taken in many parts of that industry. And, lo and behold, on the day that we are arguing this bill on the floor, we find out that OSHA has finally taken action. And what action has OSHA taken? It didn't take action in the absence of information. It specifically states that they are updating the material safety data sheets because they have to include newer health effects information, information they need to understand the hazards associated. The hazards associated. This is OSHA as of today. OSHA couldn't figure it out yesterday, they couldn't figure it out last year or the year before or the year before. But because Congress is moving, they are now going to give people a data sheet that says diacetyl, in the data sheet from OSHA today, can cause damage to respiratory tract and lungs if inhaled, and it is highly flammable. This isn't because we don't have information. This is because they refused to act earlier. The gentleman from the other side wants to talk about the fact that they have put together a rulemaking process. No, what they announced was a one-day meeting, a one-day meeting of stakeholders, and then that was the end of it. We don't know whether they are going to go to the rest of the process or not. There is no indication in their past that they have. They have forfeited their right to suggest that they will set the time and the tempo and the urgency of the protection of these workers and their families. They have forfeited that. We are stepping in here; and in the first interim standard we are asking NIOSH to do what they have already recommended that they do, based upon the evidence they have today. We are asking them to join with the manufacturers who have made these same recommendations based upon the evidence that they have today. And what are they asking them to do? These are the first precautionary things that you do: Isolate the mixing room from the rest of the plant using walls, doors or other barriers; provide the mixing room with a separate ventilation system and ensure that negative air pressure relative to the rest of the plant is maintained in the mixing room. Yes, they are doing this because they have information that this can cause damage to your respiratory tracts and your lungs. The other side wants to suggest in their amendment that if we just knew more, we could do better. It goes on and on. They suggest reducing the operating temperature and holding the mixing tanks to the minimum temperature necessary, equipping the head space of the mixing and holding tanks with flavor added to oil and held in a pure form, automating the mixing process using closed processes to transfer flavorings. These are all designed to protect these workers, and they would not have happened but for this committee action, but for this floor time and this debate, and but for us voting this bill out of here. This is the least we can do, to ask these agencies to do what was already recommended they should do in 2003, to do at least what the manufacturers have already recommended they do in 2004. And then we ask them to proceed with a permanent standard using their scientific evidence, their data, their knowledge, not ours. And that is the process by which these workers are going to get protection. They are not going to get protection from the gentleman's amendment on the other side of the aisle, and they are not going to get it from stalling the Congress from going forward. This is our opportunity to respond to an urgent medical crises in this industry by these workers and their families. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation when it comes time for final passage and to defeat the Wilson amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act. As a Member of the Education and Labor Committee I had the privilege of participating in a hearing at which Eric Peoples, a former microwave popcorn worker, testified. Mr. Peoples had contracted a respiratory disease from exposure to the butter flavoring chemical, diacetyl, during his work at the factory. I was appalled to find out that despite the mountain of evidence showing the links between diacetyl and respiratory damage comparable to inhaling acid, the workers were told this product was safe. Now, Mr. Peoples struggles with only 24 percent lung capacity and is waiting for a lung transplant. OSHA is failing to protect workers from chemical hazards. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, occupational diseases caused by exposure to chemical hazards are responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths each year. This bill does the job OSHA has failed to do. H.R. 2693 would require OSHA to issue an interim final standard to minimize worker exposure to diacetyl at popcorn manufacturing and packaging plants. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 2 years that would apply to all locations where workers are exposed to diacetyl. It is necessary for Congress to take this step to protect our workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in passing the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I find it rather incredible that the gentleman from Georgia would come down and ridicule the idea that Congress would act in this matter when there has been such malfeasance by OSHA, by the Bush administration, and by the oversight of this Congress. I guess you can try to make light of it if you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. What we are recommending today in this legislation is what NIOSH recommended for the protection of these workers in 2003, and it didn't happen, and nobody on the other side of the aisle asked the question: Why? So now we have workers who have worked in popcorn factories and maybe now in other manufacturing facilities that are losing their lung capacity, that are seeking lung transplants, that have died and have a disease that is called ``grotesque'' by the medical profession and who suggest, when you get this, it is the equivalent of the damage to your lungs if you inhaled acid. There may be something trite in that, there may be something cavalier in that, but I don't see it. I don't see it. These families, these workers, are asking for our help. These workers are dying. The industry has tried and is asking for our help. The labor unions are asking for our help. The scientists are asking for our help. The gentleman would make light of this. He ought to talk to the families who have had members who have died or who have been severely impaired or are hoping that they can get a lung transplant before they die so they might have a chance to see their children and their grandchildren grow up and enjoy their family. It's not to be made light of. There's a great deal of malfeasance here by this administration, by OSHA, by the Department of Labor and by failure to have oversight on this in this committee. They ought not to come to this floor and make light of this measure. This is about people's lives and about their health and about their well-being, and we should pass this amendment. We should reject the next amendment and we should pass this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. And the gentleman has the right to close on his amendment; is that correct?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. This amendment was offered in committee, and we rejected the amendment, and we offered to work with the gentleman. We've had a series of discussions, and he's been involved and staff have been involved in the discussions, but at the end of the day the simple fact was that they would not agree to any deadlines for NIOSH or OSHA to act in this amendment. We think the timetables that are in the legislation are very important. If we take off these timetables, all of the past evidence suggests that OSHA and NIOSH will sort of turn to norm and, once again, we will have an open-ended process here where there isn't an urgency about the impacts of diacetyl. We know what diacetyl does. That's become very clear. We don't know about everything else in the workplace. We don't know about everything else in the workplace, but we know what this very bad chemical can do to people and what it's causing for them to do it. And so we lay out NIOSH to do it. They've already recommended the manufacturers are laid out. Then OSHA will do the final rulemaking. If they come back and say they can't do it, that's their scientific evidence. We're not putting a legislative prescription on them, but what we are insisting is they address it and they address it now and they address it on the evidence that is here and emerging and that they make a decision and they protect these workers. That's what this legislation is about, and that's what this amendment would negate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members of the House to vote against the Wilson amendment and then to support the legislation. If we adopt the Wilson amendment, we're going right back to the status quo, and the status quo is killing these workers in these facilities. And we have the ability to stop it with this legislation. We should stop it now. We should not any longer empower OSHA to continue to drag their feet and ignore the health and the safety of these workers and their families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment and an ``aye'' vote on the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days for Members to revise and extend their remarks and insert materials on H.R. 2693 into the Record.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the Education and Labor Committee staff: Tom Kiley, Danielle Lee, and Daniel Weiss.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, legislation that provides for cutting the interest rates on subsidized student loans from 6.8 to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years; that calls for the biggest increase in the Pell Grant in the history of the program, $1,000 new dollars over the next 5 years; that provides for an income- contingent payment plan where people will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their income on student loans; and if they go to public service, that loan can be forgiven for 10 years; and provides major support for the minority-serving institutions of this country. This is all done within the PAYGO rules because of the $20 billion in excessive subsidies that were being paid to lenders in this field, and so we comply with the Budget Act. I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Yesterday, we held a rally to highlight the benefits of this legislation for out nation's students and families. It is clear from listening to the students at the rally that one of the greatest challenges facing them today is the rising cost of college and high student loan debt. With students returning to campuses, I can think of no better back to school gift than passing a bill that represents the greatest effort to help students and families pay for college since the GI Bill was passed more than fifty years ago. This is no ordinary gift. This is real money we are providing for students and families which translates into real relief. As we have mentioned since the beginning of this process, these historic investments in education are being done in a fiscally responsible way. This conference report will fully comply with new House rules that require all federal spending to meet tough pay-as-you- go budget rules. Additionally, the conference report will set aside $750 million in budget deficit reduction, demonstrating that with smart policy, we can be fiscally responsible and be responsive to the concerns of the American people. This conference agreement significantly increases the Pell Grant scholarship over the next five years to a maximum of $5,400. This investment--almost double the investment in the House bill, and the largest increase in the scholarship's history--will greatly restore the purchasing power of the scholarship for students with the most financial need, meet the President's 2008 budget request, and also address concerns raised by Mr. McKeon during House consideration of this measure. This agreement also: Cuts interest rates in half for need-based student loans from 6.8% to 3.4% over 4 years. When fully phased in it will save the typical student $4,400 over the life of the loan. This measure was overwhelmingly supported by this body in January; makes new investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and other minority serving schools--to ensure that students will not only enter college, but remain and graduate; makes debt more manageable for students through an Income Based Repayment program; provides loan forgiveness and loan repayment options for those providing a public service; and ensures that we place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom through the creation of TEACH grants. As mentioned before, this bill is fully paid for with cuts to lender subsidies. It builds on proposals we passed in H.R. 5 and on proposals outlined by the President in his 2008 budget. We believe the reasonable offsets in the final package meet our goal to ensure the continued participation by the lenders in the FFEL program as anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office. While a challenge, we believe this final package balances our commitment to minimizing the burden placed on lenders with our commitment to helping students. As you can see, this conference agreement is a remarkable step forward in our efforts to help every qualified student go to college. This is a foundation we will continue to build on. As I mentioned at the conference meeting, I am committed to continuing these efforts when the House considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this year. Given that we have addressed many of the concerns raised by the Administration, I received confirmation yesterday from Secretary Spellings that the President is expected to sign the final bill. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will follow the lead of the White House and the Senate--who overwhelmingly passed this legislation not too long ago--and vote in favor of this carefully crafted compromise. Rather than stand between our nation's students and their ability to access much needed financial relief, I urge all members to vote in favor of the conference report on the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Today this body is voting to do what is right for students, our economy, and our nation's future. Together we are putting the American Dream back within reach of every family in this country. Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the chairman of the Budget Committee.