George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Education and the Workforce Committee had a subcommittee hearing dealing with the mine safety issues around the recent tragedies that happened in the Sago mine disaster in January of this year. Unfortunately, that hearing was arbitrarily gaveled to adjournment at a time before members could have exercised their rights to ask questions of the witnesses that were there from the Mine Safety Administration, the United Mine Workers, and the mine association of the companies. Had we had the opportunity without the arbitrary adjournment of the hearing, we would have tried to ask the Mine Safety Administration how they have come to delay and weaken and scrap the 18 regulations that were put forth to protect the miners in the coal mining industry of this Nation and, in fact, regulations that may very well have been able to save the miners, the 12 miners who died in the Sago mine disaster. But we were not allowed to ask that question because of the adjournment by the chairman of the committee. We would have asked them whether or not they have ignored the requirements of the law that no standard put in place be less protective than the existing standard, as they have continued to chisel away at the safety standards for the miners working in deep coal mines of this Nation, meeting our energy demands for this Nation, for the miners and their families, who every day make the decision to go into the mines in this hazardous occupation. We would have also asked them whether or not, when they see the failure of the regulations to protect these miners, whether or not this shift of enforcement and the loss of enforcement personnel to a compliance assistance philosophy to work voluntarily with the mining companies, whether or not that led to this mine accident, especially when this particular mine, the Sago mine, had 208 violations in 2005. It is clear that the owners were interested in maximizing their profits and not complying with safety laws, and it is clear that the penalty system that we have in place does not deter repeat violations, because the Sago mine had many repeat violations, serious violations of the safety rules dealing with combustible gases in the mine and the protection of these miners. We would have also tried to ask them whether or not they felt that Congress had exercised its oversight authority, since this was the first oversight hearing on mine safety in 5 years. We would have also asked them to stop shutting out the public in the decision-making process. We would have asked the administration to open up all of its records, including the inspector's notes, to public scrutiny around the Sago mine disaster so that we can be able to do the work to determine whether or not we could have prevented this disaster that took these lives. We also would have made sure that they would have put in place commonsense rules dealing with the ability to communicate with the miners who were in the mine. We now think we are learning that it might have been possible for those miners to walk out of the mine had they known where they were and had we been able to communicate with them. And while communications devices are available, they are used in some American mines, they are used in some Canadian mines, they are used in Australian mines, they are not very well used, if at all, in the U.S. coal mining industry; and yet the government has done nothing to try to push this technology so we could have had communications with these miners. Also the idea of locators, so that we would have been able to send a message to these miners about what their situation was and what they might have done to prolong their lives, because we now know they were down in that mine for a very long time waiting to be rescued, but that did not happen. As we heard from Amber Helms, the 23-year-old daughter of Terry Helms, who died in the explosion, he died in the explosion, she asked us why if she can set up a Web page in her computer, if we can communicate to the solar system, if we can communicate around the world, why couldn't we have communicated to her father and those other men down in that mine that lost their lives? Why wasn't this put in place when the cost of the items to protect their lives ranged from apparently $20 to $200? It means nothing in terms of the profits of these mines, the revenues they generate and the overriding concern for the safety of their miners. But, no, we didn't have a chance to ask these questions, because after one round of questioning, the chairman decided that enough was enough, that we were not going to have the opportunity to ask the Mine Safety Administration, Where have you been for 5 years on the issue of rescue chambers in mines and the protection of these miners, and when are their families going to get these answers? Well, they didn't get them today, and apparently they are not going to get them from the Congress for a very long time. This Congress has been blind to the need to maintain even the protections that already exist under the law. It was not long ago that some members of our committee, including its former chairman, were actively seeking legislation to abolish MSHA and NIOSH and to cut back critical enforcement provisions. Under that legislation, 3 out of the 4 mandatory annual inspections at every underground mine would have been eliminated. Inspectors would have needed a warrant before entering mine property. Only miners in unionized mines would have had the right to accompany inspectors as they examined the mine. The circumstances in which an inspector could shut down an unsafe section of a mine would have been restricted. Mine operators would not have had to pay fines for typical citations as long as the hazards were abated. And on and on. That legislation was defeated. But that apparently hasn't deterred Administration officials from trying to gut MSHA anyway. Now they're just dismantling it and taking it out the back door, where they think no one is watching. Well, we are watching, and legislation must be enacted to ensure that changes are made, changes that make the safety and health of these mine workers a priority, and that prevent the industry from being allowed to get away with further abuses. I want to commend my colleagues, Congressman Rahall of West Virginia, and the West Virginia delegation, for their prompt hearings and action on these issues. on February 1st, they introduced H.R. 4695, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 2006, which enhances and reinforces the original purpose of the landmark Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. This legislation is a vital step in this process, and an effort that I am hoping will be a catalyst for change. Amber's testimony, and the powerful and courageous testimony provided by all The witnesses at the forum is documented on DVD. I strongly urge all members of this subcommittee to watch the footage of the forum, and the incredibly important questions posed by these witnesses, questions that have unfortunately, been asked before, but that have not been answered, not by the administration, and not by MSHA. As Amber said: I understand that nothing that I say today or nothing that happens in the future is going to bring my Dad back. But my Uncle Johnny, my Uncle Mike, my cousin Rocky, as well as every other miner that is underground and every other son who's getting ready to go into the coal mines--because that's where the jobs are in West Virginia and maybe some of these other states--we can prevent their families from going through this. We owe it to Amber and every other American who has lost a loved one in a mining accident to learn what more we can do to make mines safer. And then, just as Amber says, we must take action to prevent more families from going through the hell that she has had to go through.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. And that is what this is about. We have lost a huge number of manufacturing jobs overseas. We have lost other jobs overseas. This is a fight and a struggle to make sure that there will be new jobs created in America. I think it is called the Advanced Manufacturing Association, many people out of the Midwest, in Mr. Ryan's area who are worried about the next generation of manufacturing in this country. That is going to come through scientific discovery and innovation, and that is what we are trying to promote here, and what you get from the Republicans is ``we are not going there.''

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am claiming this time on behalf of myself and other colleagues who will be joining me shortly to talk about what really has made America such an economic power in the world and such a leader in both economics and in innovation, and that is in the 1960s when President Kennedy made the case to send a person to the Moon and to bring that person back safely, it was more than a moon shot. It was an expression of optimism about the talent in this country and about the resources in this country. In the process of sending that individual to the Moon and back, we also built a great infrastructure. We built a great infrastructure that consisted of one of the great public-private partnerships in the history of the world, a partnership between our academic institutions, our research institutions, the private sector, and the U.S. Government. In putting that partnership together, we created both the physical resources to create the rocket ships and the infrastructure at NASA, and also the intellectual basis and foundation to make the discoveries necessary. That is where America has been for the last 50 years. It has ridden out on the point of scientific discovery, of the discovery of knowledge, the acquisition of knowledge, and in the resulting innovation, in the resulting economic growth and the world leadership in those areas. It has served this country well. It has made it the richest country in the world. It has made it the strongest country in the world because of that innovation, because of that scientific discovery. Some of that was done through the National Science Foundations. Some of that was done through the National Institutes of Health, the National Institutes of Medicine, in conjunction with other research facilities and with the private sector. It was very interesting as the Democrats started to consider the need for reinvestment in America's innovation infrastructure; and we thought about what would it mean at this time to push ahead for the next generation of innovation, the next generation of innovators, the next generation of manufacturing jobs in this country, the next generation of other jobs in this country and the economic growth that could continue to drive the American standard of living for America's families. As we talked to those who had been so very successful in the world of technology and biotechnology and venture capitalists who have gone forth to try and fund these bright young people and their ideas, those people who today are the CEOs and the presidents and the founders of some of the most successful companies in the history of the world, American companies in the technology field and the biotech field, it is interesting that all of them fully understood that they were the inheritors, they were the inheritors of that public-private partnership, of that investment that was made in the scientific discovery, that investment that was made in new young mathematicians and scientists and engineers; the fact that this country decided that it was important enough for our national security, for our economic security, that we would fully pay people's way with fellowships so they could spend their full time in the quest of that new knowledge, those skills, those talents, and achieved their Ph.D.s and other advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering. All of these people today recognize that when they were starting their companies in the garages of California, in the small business parks of New Jersey, in the small business parks and the university research labs across this country, they were the inheritors of that investment made by this Nation. They also told us in these meetings that they felt in that public- private partnership the public side had been lagging, the public side had not been keeping up with the kind of investments that were going to be necessary if we in fact were going to have long-term, high-risk, high-reward research taking place in this country, the kind of research that does lead you to the next generation of innovation, to the next generation of jobs and economic growth and world leadership, that we need to reinvest in that. They talked about how we doubled and this Congress made a decision on a bipartisan basis to double the budget of NIH. But they also made it clear that the doubling of the budget wasn't simply a one-time target; it was the beginning of the process at the National Institutes of Health, at the National Institutes of Medicine. They also noted when we decided to double the budgets at the National Institutes of Health, we did it at a cost to the physical sciences, that the physical sciences also had been lagging. It is interesting we see after now having achieved the bipartisan goal of doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health, we see in the President's most recent submission a diminishment, a cutting of that budget of the National Institutes of Health while the President is talking about increasing the physical sciences, the budgets of the National Science Foundation and the other governmental research. This cannot be a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul effort. It cannot be that. This cannot be done by robbing the physical sciences to help the life sciences or robbing the life sciences to help the physical sciences. A great country must make advances in scientific discovery in all of these fields; and clearly, clearly, that needs to be done if we are going to attract private capital to partner up with the Federal dollars in the basic researches across the agencies of this country. We also talked with them about what would be the driver of much of the new innovation, what would give them a task which would generate new scientific discovery and innovation; and many of them said we have got to deal with the energy problem in this country. The technology is a big part of America becoming more energy independent and trying to achieve a sense of energy independence over the next 10 years in alternative fuels, in alternative technologies, in alternative energy sources, rather than simply relying on the fossil fuel policy of the current administration and the current budget of this country. Those kinds of investments in energy. They also thought we should try to recreate a long-term, high-risk, high-reward research facility within the Department of Energy so people could go out on the edge again of the kind of knowledge that had to be acquired if we are going to achieve the goal of energy independence. But, once again, you don't do it on a nickel-and-dime policy. You have to make a sustained major commitment. When you double the budget of the National Institutes of Health and you are looking for the kind of research that is so critical to preventative medicine, to dealing with the new communicable diseases that are traveling around the world and the health care of this country, you have to make a sustained investment. If you are going to do it in the physical sciences, you have to make a sustained investment. So that is what my colleagues and I would like to talk about, how America turns to the next generation and provides them the promise and investment in their talents, their skills, and their future. We think we can do that by looking at what has led to this American model of success. We will also talk about the fact that this model is under challenge from countries in Asia, from India, from China, from Korea, from Japan, from Taiwan; that the idea that America is number one, the position we hold in the world today, in innovation, in Nobel prizes, in patents issued and copyrights, that that is not a position that is ours by birthright. It came because of the investment and the hard work. That is now being challenged from all across the world. People are now able to take the American model and leapfrog it because of the technologies, because of the scientific discovery that we have made. I see one of my colleagues from New Jersey, Mr. Rush Holt, who participated in the drafting of the innovation agenda for the Democratic Caucus, an agenda that has received wide acclaim from the private sector in terms of our ability to go forward again on a new and higher level of sustained effort at scientific discovery and innovation and economic growth. I am delighted to the yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield on that point, the gentleman was part of this and we traveled to North Carolina and to New Jersey and to Boston and to California and Seattle talking to people about this innovation agenda; and when we put the innovation agenda together, so many CEOs and venture capitalists and others said this is it, you are exactly on the right track, this is what America needs. It was interesting to see the President come forward in the State of the Union as you mentioned and embrace the innovation agenda, many components of this effort. Then it was so disappointing to see the budget that was published afterwards, and even more disappointing when the Republican leadership slammed this innovation agenda as just simply more spending, when in fact the President mirrored what was in our agenda right down to switch fuels.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What has happened to that is we made a promise to the country. We put it out in the bill. We negotiated with the President of the United States. And now what we find is in this budget the President is about $55 billion behind where he promised the country he would be on the funding of No Child Left Behind. What is interesting is, while the President is creating those deficits in education funding, the private sector is telling us one of the key items in terms of economic growth in this country is to fully fund No Child Left Behind. They are not telling us, the Federal Government, to create 100,000 new scientists. They are saying we want to partner with you. We will employ these people in internships in summer jobs, in graduate jobs, full-time jobs. We want to work with you because it is so critical to the future growth of our companies. These are some of the most successful companies in the history of the world. They are worried about whether or not America will be able to generate the workforce necessary so they can continue to do business in this country and we can have jobs in this country. And what happens? The President says he wants to do it in the State of the Union. It is not in this budget, and the new majority leader slams the program as simply more spending. This was not our agenda. This was not partisan. We specifically laid this out as a challenge to this Congress, to 435 Members of Congress to take up what the private sector now has been telling them for years to do with the permanent extension of modernization of the R&D tax credits, the full funding of No Child Left Behind, the doubling of the National Science Foundation, maintaining the doubling of the National Institute of Health, to get broadband across this country so that economic growth can take place all over the country in the rural areas, people can start jobs, and education can be brought there. And what do we find out? You just get a big partisan slam from the Republican side of the aisle. Most of the CEOs who helped us draft this program and consulted with us in Boston and in California and in Austin and in North Carolina are Republicans. But they can see the challenge of what China and India that Mr. Ryan just talked about. The trend line for American scientists and engineers is going down; in our most fierce competitors it is soaring up.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today Americans woke up to the unfortunate news that because of the actions of this Congress, the major oil companies that are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico are in all likelihood not going to be paying any royalty on billions of dollars, some $65 billion worth of oil, that they will be extracting from the Outer Continental Shelf of this country and on which they would be expected to pay some $7 billion in royalties; and, in fact, they may not be paying that. It may go even further that some of the majors have suggested that they are not required to pay any royalties on oil extracted from the Outer Continental Shelf. In that case, the cost to the taxpayers would be maybe $35 billion, $35 billion in lost revenue to this country at a time when we are running record deficits, at a time when we are telling people we cannot afford to help them with their home heating oil, at a time we are making basic cuts to basic education; and it goes on and on and on and on. The fact of the matter is the policy of royalty relief that the Congress passed was an unwise policy when we passed it. But the oil companies convinced this Congress to do so, and they have convinced the administration to allow it to continue. Although the Bush administration opposed the further extension in expansion of the oil royalty relief program that was in their most recent energy bill that was just signed by President Bush, unfortunately, his opposition did not go to such an extent that he insisted that it be taken out of the bill. So what do we have? We have the major oil companies securing leases on land that is owned by the public, land that is owned by the taxpayers of this Nation, to go in and to drill those lands. And in exchange for that, they said that they would not go in there and drill unless we gave them royalty relief, unless we took away the royalties that they were entitled to pay to the landowners, the taxpayers of this country, for the privilege and the right to drill those reserves. These are some of the most important reserves in this country. They are some of the more important reserves in the world. There is a huge amount of competition for drilling for this. At the time, it was suggested that nobody would bid on these leases, that nobody would participate, that nobody would raise the capital to do so if they did not have royalty relief. The fact of the matter is I think the record will show that at the same time they were arguing that, they were already in the construction of the rigs that were necessary for deepwater drilling and that the decisions had already been made. Some companies decided they would bet on the gulf. Other companies decided they would go to the Caspian Sea. But the fact of the matter is the competition was hot and heavy. For this Congress to have then just given away those royalties is a horrible mistake, and it is a mistake that the Congress must correct. Nobody, even the proponents of royalty relief, believed that there was going to be a complete escape from the royalties owed to the taxpayers for the development of this oil. They believed, as the administration has said, that at a minimum they were not going to get oil royalties relief, they were not going to get relief from the payment of the rent to the taxpayers if oil was over $34 a barrel. Well, as we all know, the world price of oil today is hovering around $60 a barrel. It has been as high as $70, and it has been in the mid-50s, back and forth. The fact of the matter is these very same oil companies that are seeking a royalty holiday, freedom from the payment of these royalties, have just reported the biggest profits in the history of these companies, in the history of the world in the oil industry. And at the same time, they are suggesting that they have no obligation to pay the taxpayers of this country what is due them for the privilege of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. Today, some of us introduced legislation to prevent any future royalty holidays for the oil companies, to seek and direct the Minerals Management Service to renegotiate these leases so that it does include the provisions of a minimum of a trigger but hopefully even a better royalty policy than that, and if those companies do not want to cooperate with that renegotiation, then they should be barred from future bids on the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, to their credit, some of the major oil companies are suggesting that, in fact, they do owe the royalties, that there is a trigger mechanism. But Kerr-McGee and apparently some other companies have decided that they are going to challenge the whole law. They believe they are not obligated to pay any of these royalties, there is no trigger in this law. If that is the case, the taxpayer is just going to be hung out to dry by the major oil companies, and the major oil companies are going to abscond with the natural resources that belong to the people of this country. It is wrong and Congress ought to correct it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, today in the New York Times Americans were told that not only had the Congress passed a royalty holiday for major oil companies but in the most recent energy bill they had expanded and extended that royal holiday. So we have the situation today where a bill, a law that was passed many, many years ago when the price of energy was very low, has been kept on the book in spite of efforts to try and repeal it by myself and others. And now with world oil prices in excess of $60 a barrel and the oil company profits of the majors at historical record highs by all of the major oil companies, the Federal Government is going to continue to provide a royalty holiday to those oil companies that will cost us, at a minimum, over $7 billion in the next 5 years and maybe an additional 35 to $40 billion over that same period of time. The time has come for Congress to stop this program, to insist upon the renegotiation of these leases; and if the oil companies will not participate in that renegotiation they should not be allowed to bid on Federal land owned by the taxpayers of this country and continue to be able to rip off the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it was with overwhelming sadness that I learned of the passing of The Reverend Dr. C.W. Newsome last week. For more than 40 years my friend and mentor Rev. Charles Newsome served as a moral compass for our community. For more than 40 years he was our spiritual rock and for more than 40 years he was our seeker of justice. There was no question in his mind or ours why God put him on this earth. Rev. Charles Newsome came to us to lead the way in the struggle for economic and social justice and to heal the scars of racism on our country and our community. And he did. With strength and trust given to him by the people he served, he fought for the rights of all people to seek opportunity and to be free from bigotry. He understood that there was no other way for us to build a lasting integrated and strong community. Year after year our friend led the efforts for better housing, schools, jobs, and health care for everyone. So very often he took his church, North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church, and its members into the forefront of these battles. Rev. Newsome knew the strength of the church depended on its involvement with the daily needs of its members and our community. Over these many years I have enjoyed our conversations, treasured his friendship, and highly valued his counsel on a wide variety of issues. Reverend Newsome was born on June 15, 1924, in Brenham, Texas. Prior to his commitment to the faith ministry, he served valiantly as a U.S. Marine, in the Segregated Corps, fighting against Nazi fascism in the European Theater of World War II. An injury forced him to leave the service and he eventually came to Richmond, continuing to support our country's effort by working in the shipyards. His participation in shipbuilding and that of the countless African Americans who migrated west during the war, led Richmond to become one of the leading industrial hubs of the world. Today his legacy and that of all of the men and women who built our country's warships has been memorialized as Rosie the Riveter National Historic Park. With an insatiable appetite for learning, Reverend Newsome attended Contra Costa College for his AA Degree, the University of California Berkeley for his undergraduate work, Bishop College in Dallas to study theology, and received his Doctorate from Reeds Christian College-- Western Theology Seminary in Los Angeles. Following the completion of his studies, he began his life's work. Rev. Newsome's ministry has included Organizing Pastor of Holy Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church in Richmond, and heading the Community Baptist Church in Santa Rosa, California. In 1966 he took on the pastoral duties at North Richmond Baptist Missionary Church. Building on his congregation's stature in the community as the first ``Negro Baptist Church of Contra Costa County'', Rev. Newsome continued to break new ground in the name of social justice. He led laborers to fight for equality in the workplace and led families to fight for safety in our schools and on our streets. It was just two years ago that I came to this Well to mark Reverend Newsome's retirement after 38 extraordinary years as Pastor of North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church. This congregation under his leadership has become a beacon of hope in a community struggling against issues of social and economic injustice. To Reverend Newsome's wife, Alice, his daughters Patricia Cooper and Redonda Newsome, and his son, Reverend Charles Newsome, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared not only by those who knew Reverend Newsome but by all who have been touched by the work he has done. We will be forever grateful for his skill, strength and courage as he sought to make our community and our country a better place for all of us. We are so grateful to his family and his church for sharing him with us for so many years. We celebrate his life without sorrow because we know God has much need of him. ``What does the Lord require of us--to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with thy God''--Micah 6.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, I am honored to join in support of this resolution offered by our colleagues from West Virginia and to join our colleagues in paying tribute to these 16 brave miners who lost their lives last month in West Virginia, and also to the miner who lost his life in Pike County, Kentucky, who died during the mine roof collapse, and to express the condolences to their families and to their friends who have lost loved ones. We continue to hope and pray for the full recovery of Randal McCloy who lived through this ordeal at the Sago mine disaster, and wish him well. I join, I am sure, our entire Nation in recognizing the sacrifice of these individuals. And I want to salute the efforts of dozens of brave rescue workers who volunteered to risk their own lives to save others and the efforts of citizens of the affected communities who continue to help and to support the families of victims and to deal with their loss. Despite a half century of improvements in mine safety, the truth still remains that underground mining continues to be one of our country's most dangerous occupations. It is also an occupation that we recognize many people would have a very difficult decision to make to join this occupation. It is one of the reasons we talk about the bravery, the courage, and the sacrifice of these workers and those who entered the mines after the disaster to join them, because we recognize that many of us would not want to do this. But we also understand that just a week ago the President was here telling us the importance that coal would make if we really want to achieve energy independence for this Nation for a whole host of reasons that are very good for this Nation. Then we continue to need to have the sacrifice and the courage and the bravery of the mining community and of these communities to send their young men and women into the mines. But if it is about their bravery and their courage and their sacrifice, then our obligation is to meet their bravery with the duty of care. There is no question that our progress in making mining a safer and healthier occupation than it has been in the past has been remarkable, but the Sago tragedy shows us that our job is not done. Death, injuries, and serious illnesses remain a very real part of those who go down into the mines and to their families and their communities and the brave men and women who help when the safeguards fail. The men and women who need the solid incomes provided by mining jobs face difficult choices every morning before they go to work and see their loved ones at the door. I think the way that we truly honor their courage, their sacrifice, and their bravery, and these miners who have lost their lives and the volunteers who helped out and the grieving families and the communities, is to make the promise, as the gentlewoman from West Virginia said, that part of their legacy is safer mines and a safer occupation and a safer future for their children and their grandchildren and others who will go down into the mines. That means that we must meet our duty of care to these miners to make sure that we fully understand where the failures took place, where the improvements can be made, and where the risk is unacceptable. Mr. Rahall and his West Virginia colleagues have already introduced legislation that deserves immediate consideration to make certain improvements in standards and operations of the Mine Health and Safety Administration. I am delighted that they already received a partial response to that with the Agency engaging in emergency temporary standards to require coal operators to maintain additional self- contained, self-rescue devices in storage areas within underground coal mines, and to require coal operators to notify the Agency within 15 minutes of an accident. This is quite properly done on an urgent and emergency basis. I have urged the Education and the Workforce Committee to immediately commence oversight hearings to help us to determine the actions that would help strengthen the agency so that it can carry out the important responsibilities we have vested in it and what they owe the workers in the mines. Next week, Monday, February 13, my colleagues and I are sponsoring a mine safety forum. We have invited the miners and their families and mine safety experts to share their views on how Congress and the Department of Labor can make mine safety enforcement more vigorous and effective. It seems clear to me that there are serious questions regarding this administration's track record on mine safety that the employees and families of the Sago and Aracoma Alma mines have a right to know. I think we have to know the impact of the changes in the regulations and the regulations that were withdrawn in 2001 and the regulations that were implemented in their place. What was the margin of safety? Was there a change in that margin of safety, and did they have impact on the overall mine safety in the mine? We know that some of those regulations that were withdrawn at that time are now seen as urgently needed, as I just recited, from the response to the West Virginia delegation by the mining agency, safety standards for oxygen and breathing devices, standards for flame-resistant conveyor belts that Mr. Rahall has raised, and that their withdrawal may have undermined the safety at Sago and Aracoma Alma mines. We want to know what is the relationship between the drop in maximum fines and the usage of fines. Are fines helpful? Do they deter bad behavior? Do they, in fact, make for improvements to take place? What is the relationship between the mines and those who are repeat offenders of serious violations of the current mine safety regulations and the protections that are put in place for those miners? Should they be dealt with in a different fashion? Do we fully understand the voluntary compliance assistance program that is currently in place? Should that continue to be extended to those mine owners that, again, repeatedly violate the law? What is the relationship between the voluntary nature of the program and the compliance and the margins of safety that we expect for these miners? Does the administration have the right people in the right place for the running of this Agency? Are their qualifications commensurate with the duties that they have to the miners in the field, and are we sure that we have the best people to continue the downward trend of mine fatalities in the mine, but also the general safety environment within the mines? And we want to make sure that, in fact, the Department of Labor has kept pace with existing mine safety technologies, such as electronic tracking and communications devices and reserve oxygen chambers, technologies used in other countries, in some cases in other mines in this country, but clearly are not mandated. But we now see, as we start to do the forensics of what took place here, that maybe these things, had they been in place, these miners would have had the opportunity to walk out of that mine. These miners may have had a chance to shelter in place until rescuers could have gotten to them if they did not understand their ability to work their way around the danger that presented itself. So these are the questions that the miners and their families will address in the forum. These are the questions that must be addressed by the administration, and these are the questions that must be addressed by this Congress, and must be addressed by this Congress in an independent fashion. I am not sure I entirely agree with my colleagues on the other side that we must await the administration's doing its own investigation and hearings prior to our embarking upon that effort. I think that we ought to ask these people to come before the Congress and to explain the situation that we see. Again, this is about the legacy of these miners' lives. It is about the future of mining in this country. It is about our responsibility to these individuals, to their families, to these communities. Again, it has been made clear that coal is going to play an evermore important role in our energy future, so we must understand that these individuals were patriots in that effort to achieve energy independence in this country. And I would hope that we would understand that as we pay tribute to their courage, to their sacrifice, and to their bravery to go down in these mines, that we inherit on their behalf and on behalf of their families a duty of care to these individuals and a responsibility to make sure that we have done all that we can do, as the government, in assuring their safety and making sure that they are working under the best safe environment that is possible for them and their colleagues. Again, I thank the members of the West Virginia delegation for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge the support of it by all of our colleagues in the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Coretta Scott King, who, sadly, passed away last week at the age of 78. Mrs. King will be greatly missed and fondly remembered as a remarkable woman who passionately worked with her husband, Martin Luther King, Jr., in America's nonviolent struggle for equal rights and who pursued the vision of equality and justice long after his tragic death in 1968. While I and constituents throughout my district, including those in Richmond, California, mourn her loss we remember her achievements, her courage, and what she symbolized to people across the country and throughout the world. While she was Dr. King's partner in the struggle for equal rights, Coretta Scott King was also a civil rights activist in her own right. Dr. King once said, ``I wish I could say . . . that I led her down this path. But I must say we went down it together, because she was as actively involved and concerned when we met as she is now.'' An inspirational woman to so many already, Mrs. King will remain a role model for generations to come. When her husband's fight for equality was cut short by the brutal shot of bigotry and hatred, Mrs. King's fight had only just begun. And now with her death, we face the same question she faced so many years ago. President Clinton eloquently spoke about this question yesterday at Mrs. King's funeral service in Atlanta when he said, . . . the most important day in her life for everyone of us here at this moment in this church, except when she embraced her faith, the next most important day was April 5, 1968, the day after her husband was killed. She had to decide, ``What am I going to do with the rest of my life?'' We would have all forgiven her, even honored her if she said, ``I have stumbled on enough stony roads. I have been beaten by enough bitter rods. I have endured enough dangers, toils and snares. I'm going home and raising my kids. I wish you all well.'' None of us, nobody could have condemned that decision. But instead, she went to Memphis--the scene of the worst nightmare of her life--and led that march for those poor hard-working garbage workers that her husband [advocated for]. Now, that's the most important thing for us. Because what really matters if you believe all this stuff we've been saying is, ``What are we going to do with the rest of our lives?'' Indeed, she went on to work so hard for all of us. In addition to her efforts to build the Martin Luther King memorial in Atlanta to establishing a national holiday in her husband's memory, Coretta Scott King worked tirelessly so that her husband's struggle, and the struggle of the millions of Americans who worked with him and shared his vision to bring equality to all people, was never forgotten. She took upon herself the responsibility of keeping alive Dr. King's civil rights legacy but also found her own causes. She advocated equality for all. She became active with the National Organization for Women and said, ``Women, if the soul of the Nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul.'' In 2000 she spoke at a fundraiser sponsored by the Metropolitan Community Church, a predominantly gay denomination in San Francisco, where she gave a powerful speech expressing that ``until everybody has equality; no one has equality. We can't just be for civil rights of one group.'' The King family has a strong history with the community in Richmond, CA. Mrs. King's speech in San Francisco inspired Jerrold Hatchett of Richmond to form the National Brotherhood Alliance, a non-profit organization that serves as a collaborative of business, community, religious, and grassroots organizations to mentor youth and address community issues. Richmond Mayor Irma Anderson remembers attending Union Methodist Church in Boston with the Kings. Her husband, Rev. Booker T. Anderson, who went on to become a Richmond city councilman, attended Boston University School of Theology with Dr. King. Their relationship was one of the reasons Dr. King stopped in Richmond to meet with local leaders when he visited northern California in 1961. Mayor Anderson remembers Mrs. King as being loyal to her husband and family and supportive of the civil rights movement, and she had a beautiful singing voice. Mayor Anderson said that, ``Mrs. King's singing voice changed after her husband was murdered.'' It, however, did not alter her passion for justice and she continued her struggles against injustice. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I rise to acknowledge the loss of a great woman, a mother, a friend to all and a hero. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the King family and their friends in this difficult time. America owes the entire King family an enormous debt of gratitude for teaching all Americans the meaning of dignity, patriotism and justice. This Congress, and this nation, must not let down Dr. King down. We must not let Mrs. King down. We must pursue their vision of justice and freedom as vigilantly today as ever before and preserve the greatness of America for our children and our children's children.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for offering this resolution recognizing the contributions of Catholic schools to our communities and to our Nation, and join in the remarks of those who have spoken before me on this measure. Clearly, as we travel our congressional districts and we recount our own life experiences with Catholics schools, both in attending them and in interacting with them in our congressional roles, the magnificent and incredible contribution they make to our communities and to building the lives of young people in the fullest sense of the word, not just the academic performance of these young people, but the efforts that they make to integrate them into the community in terms of community service and building their character and building their moral values and building their recognition of the community in which young people live, and the diversity of that community and understanding the need to be accepting of that community, these are characteristics, these are values, these are principles that we hold dear as a Nation, and Catholic schools have been fundamental to building those within the young people that attend these schools. I had the honor of attending Catholic high school, but only for 1 year, Bellermine High School in San Jose, and I just wanted to express my support of this resolution and the continuation of the contribution of Catholic schools to our Nation's education system and the character- building of our young people.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, last night the President stood before this Nation and said that it was important that we educate new math and science teachers and that we bring new people to the math and science fields and that America's students start to study math and science and engineering so that America can remain competitive in the world. Today, we vote to make student loans far more expensive for those students who take up the President's challenge. We make it more expensive for those students, and we make it more expensive for their parents. Of the $12 billion, the $12 billion, the largest cuts in the history of the student loan program that this legislation takes out of the budget, almost 70 percent of those savings are generated by increasing, by continuing the practice of forcing students and parent borrowers to pay excessive interest rates, and in many cases by raising the interest rates on the parents who then borrow additional money to finance their children's higher education. Many Members are standing up on the Republican side of the aisle and talking about the courage that they have to make these cuts. What is the courage, what is the judgment, what is the morality of making it more difficult for young people to achieve a higher education, to achieve an advanced degree, to participate to the fullest extent of their talents in the American economy, and to participate in the quest that the President had asked for, to make our economy more innovative, more competitive in a globalized world? I do not understand it. I do not understand the message of the President saying we want more of your children to get more higher education, and then the budget cuts today that say we are going to make it $12 billion more expensive for these children to do this. We are going to increase the fees on parents that go into debt, on students who go into debt. Most of those students are working at jobs while they are trying to get that education. But that is what happens in this legislation today. Either the President has it right and you have it wrong, or the President was not telling us the truth about what he truly wanted to do on behalf of increasing math and science education, and advanced degrees in math, science and engineering. And yet we understand the imperative of this being done, because of the competition that we face from China, India, North Korea, Japan, and other nations of the world who now are graduating 300,000 engineers in China and the same in India, and we are graduating 70,000. Do we understand the imperative nature of getting these degrees done? Apparently not. Because we are going to make it more expensive with this legislation. Actually, you are going to make it more expensive, because I am not voting for this bill, because I understand what parents and students go through to try to figure out how to finance that education, and how they sit around the kitchen table and figure out the sacrifices that they can make. The better idea that the Republicans have is that they are going to make it more expensive for students to go to college, an idea that we ought to reject; and I would hope that others on the Republican side of the aisle would reject this very bad idea. It is an idea that we ought to reject, and I would hope that others on the Republican side of the aisle would reject this very bad idea.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Jean Siri last week. I knew Jean well, enjoyed our conversations, and highly valued her opinions on local and national concerns. Jean Siri was born Jean Brandenberg on March 11, 1920, in Lakot, North Dakota. She grew up in a farming family her father was a prominent veterinarian. She earned a bachelor's degree from Jamestown College in North Dakota, then did graduate work at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley. Jean was a staff biologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from 1945 to 1952, then a board member and Chair of the Stege Sanitary District in El Cerrito from 1975 to 1979. She also served on the El Cerrito City Council from 1980 to 1985 and again from 1987 to 1991, including two terms as Mayor. At the time of Will Siri's passing in 2004, the couple had been married 54 years. Mr. Siri was renowned as both a scientist and mountaineer. From 1943 to 1945 he worked as a member of the Manhattan Project. In 1963 he was the co-leader of the first American expedition to climb Mount Everest. Will was a leading researcher in biophysics at Lawrence Berkeley Labs. During the 1960s and 1970s he also served as President-Director of the Sierra Club. The impact of Jean's life-long work on behalf of the environmental movement, public access to recreational resources, and public health is immeasurable. Among the long list of agencies that Jean supported with her time and endless energy were the West Contra Costa Conservation League, County Hazardous Materials Commission, the League of Women Voters, the West County Toxics Coalition, the Contra Costa County Public and Environmental Health Board, the Gray Panthers, and the Fresh Start Homeless Board of Directors. Along with her husband Will, Jean was instrumental in the creation of Save the Bay and was a long-time member of the Sierra Club. Jean will always be remembered as a staunch environmentalist and lover of the outdoors. Together, she and Will were recipients of many awards, including the Feinstone Environmental Award from Syracuse University in New York for their work on corrective legislation for air pollution, land use and solid waste treatment. Perhaps though, her greatest advocacy role was her representation on the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors. She was elected in 1992, and re-elected in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Jean loved the District, its staff, her colleagues on the Board and those who advocated on the District's behalf. She was passionate about the parks and contributed not only her great leadership experience, but a sharp wit and a wonderful smile for all who had the good fortune to work with her. To Jean's two daughters, Lynn Siri Kimsey of Davis and Anne Siri of Philo, and their families, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared by all who came to know and admire Jean. All Californians will benefit for generations to come from her work born of an uncommon passion for people of all walks of life and our fragile environment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, a lot of euphemisms on the other side, such as the cuts in the rates of growth, suggesting that that is just a neutral act when it takes place. They have cut about $40 billion out of this budget in this package that we are going to vote on in a little while. Twelve billion of that comes from student loan accounts, and about $7 billion, 70 percent, almost $8 billion of that, 70 percent of those cuts come off the backs of students and their parents. They increase the cost of college education over the next few years by almost $8 billion. That means that students that are struggling to finish their college education, to acquire a college education so they can participate in this economic system, will have thousands of dollars added on to the cost of the borrowing that they must engage in. They must engage in that because the cost of education is outstripping the ability of middle income families to supply that money for that education for those children. So the Republicans' idea is to make college more expensive. At a time when we worry whether we will have enough students graduating from college to meet the needs of the economy, their idea is make it more expensive. Yes, the Democrats do have a better idea, and that is to try to open up the access to college and lessen the cost of college. Then, if that is not enough, if that is not enough, if you get to the other part of the program like Medicaid, they say they are going to reduce the cost of increase. Well, that cost of increase is done by increasing the premiums and the copayments to the poorest people in this country. Those premiums and copayments is about $19 billion over 5 years, $100 billion over 10 years. And if it is not enough that they increase your copayments and their premiums, then they take away the benefits. They are going to take away eyeglasses from elderly people, hearing aids from elderly people, and if Tiny Tim was here today they plan to take away his crutches. That is the Republicans at Christmastime: Take away the crutches of old people, the hearing aids of old people and eyeglasses, because those are the benefits that are listed and the benefits that they plan to cut to the poorest people who need health care. They are going to add on billions of dollars to the States because of the changes in the work requirements, unfunded mandates. So you can talk about slowing the growth, but the growth and the costs to parents of students going to college, the growth in the costs of people who need health care who are poor, the growth in the cost of people who need those services under health care, all of those increases. Now, maybe that does not sound like a tax increase to you, but if you are poor and you are trying to pay for your health care and it costs you more, that kind of looks like a tax increase. If you are going to add on thousands of dollars to student loans, that is a tax increase. What we have here is one cruel, one inhumane, one insensitive budget by the Republican Party.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because of the inclusion of the drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement but, more importantly, his incredible advocacy on behalf of those suffering from mental health diseases. He is quite right: we can do better than simply renewing this law that is now 10 years old. The Senate did pass a meaningful update in this law in 2001 that would have prohibited all forms of discriminatory coverage of mental health services, including day and visit limitations and co-pays and deductibles, and would not allow a plan to opt out by citing increased costs. This bill simply does not do that. It is as the gentleman from Rhode Island has pointed out, it is absolutely insufficient in terms of treating the needs of millions and millions of Americans and their families who need parity in terms of the kinds of treatment and the coverages of the cost that are associated with this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Second Higher Education Extension Act of 2005. The bill before us today, as the chairman has noted, temporarily extends the laws that govern higher education and student aid while the Congress continues to work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. I would also like to note for the record that the Department of Education has informed us that they have no objections to the manager's amendment offered by Mr. Boehner to this effort. I rise in support of the second Higher Education Extension Act of 2005. The bill before us today temporary extends laws that govern higher education and student aid while Congress continues to work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. It also extends the partial closure of the 9.5 percent loan loophole and teacher loan forgiveness provisions. There has never been a more important time than right now to help students and their families afford a higher education. Despite the tremendous personal and economic benefits of a college education, however, millions of American students and families struggle to pay for college. Last year the maximum Pell grant scholarship was worth $900 less than the maximum grant 30 years ago. The typical student borrower now graduates with $17,500 in debt, while more and more students are working long hours to pay for college. Even with increased borrowing and longer work hours, millions of students and families continue to fall short when paying for college. But rather than help to make college more affordable and accessible, this weekend the Republican leadership plans to raid the student aid programs by nearly $13 billion--the largest cut in the history of the programs. As a result, students and families will be forced to pay even more for college. Rather than work to build a better, stronger America for future generations, they chose to cut our national commitment to a college education for every qualified student. The Republican leadership plans to use the nearly $13 billion in cuts to deal with Congress' budget mess. It is wrong to force America's students and families to pay for the irresponsible management of the Nation's budget. We should be doing more, not less, to significantly increase affordable college opportunities. For years, Democrats and others have been demanding that the majority join us in stopping excess lender subsidies--such as the 9.5 percent loans--and re-deploy those billions of dollars in savings to students and their families struggling to pay for college. Billions in taxpayer funds were squandered on super-sized lender subsidies that the majority party is only now, under great pressure, conceding should be constrained. Unfortunately, the raid on student aid misses a golden opportunity to re-direct billions of dollars in savings by recycling the excessive subsidies paid to student lenders into additional grant aid for students--without any additional costs to taxpayers. I support this temporary extension today because it ensures that the nearly 11 million students who rely on student grants, loans and work- study to finance their college education will continue to receive this much needed aid in a timely fashion. However, I urge the Republican leadership and my colleagues to recognize that this is only the first step towards boosting affordable college opportunities and ensuring the Nation's global competitiveness. The next step is to stop the raid on student aid and to reinvest all of the savings found from eliminating excessive student lender subsidies towards boosting grant aid, lowering interest rates and fees for student borrowers. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the record that the Department of Education has informed us that they have no objection to the manager's amendment offered by Representative Boehner to reinstate St. Vincent's Nursing Schools of Brooklyn and Queens, New York. The St. Vincent nursing schools lost eligibility for Federal student aid in November of this year due to the fact that their parent company, Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York, filed for bankruptcy. Under the Higher Education Act, once a school, or parent company of a school, files for bankruptcy they automatically become ineligible for Federal student aid such as student loans and Pell grants. It is our understanding that the representatives for the parent company did not understand that filing for bankruptcy would result in students attending the two nursing schools losing their Federal student aid. The Department of Education has informed us that both schools are in good fiscal standing and that a statutory fix by Congress is necessary to ensure that the students at these two nursing schools can receive federal student aid again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Maybe the gentleman who was just in the well preceding me is proud of this budget. I noticed he talked about student loans and how the students will get the same loan they got this year. They may get that loan, but it is going to cost them more. In fact, what we see in the estimates are that this budget bill will raise the average cost to those students or those families who are paying off those loans. The average student who borrows $17,500, and that is what, unfortunately, the average student borrows today, this will raise their cost by $5,800, almost $6,000 in additional costs. That is what comes with this bill. The $13 billion is the largest cut in the student loans accounts in this history of this Congress. That $13 billion rebounds back onto these parents and to these students to the tune of $6,000 over the life of their loans. If that is your idea of a Christmas gift, have at it, but I do not think America's families are going to understand. At a time when we understand how important it is for young people to be able to get an AA degree, to be able to get a B.A. degree, to get a Masters Degree or to get a Ph.D. so that they can fully participate in the American economy of the future, a globalized world economy, what is it the Republican budget is doing? It is raising the barriers. It is raising the barriers for millions of young students, for millions of families as to whether or not they will be able to afford this college education. Students are going deeper into debt today than at any time in history. The cost of a college education is rising faster than the average working family's ability to pay for it. And what is the answer to that crunch that these families and these students are finding themselves in? The answer in this budget is to increase their costs by $6,000. For 50 years, the idea was to try to make college more accessible, less expensive, so that the vast majority of people who were qualified to go to college would have the opportunity to do so. This year, they changed the course of this Nation. This year, they changed the course of this House. This year, they changed the course of the Congress. Because on a partisan basis, on a partisan basis, they decided that what they would do to the crunch and the cost of college for American families is they would increase the cost of college to America's families by charging parents more to borrow money, by putting origination fees on the direct student loan, which is the least expensive way people can borrow money. You are raising the cost of the direct student loans by mandating insurance on all of the borrowers, whether it is necessary or not. You are very fond of telling us when you put these taxes and these costs on the business communities they are passed on. Well, that is exactly what is going to happen to the tune of about $6,000. These costs are going to be passed on. We should vote to support the motion to instruct so we can prevent these costs from falling on these families and these students not only at Christmas time but for the next 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 years.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we offer this motion to recommit to address a number of issues that are not addressed in the legislation before us and to hopefully not do some of the things that the legislation before us does. We believe that we can do these things without driving employers out of the defined benefit system. The current bill before us provides a compilation of interest rates and premium fees and costs that we believe will drive employers to accelerate the termination and freezing of these plans. That is not because we say it; that is what the employers have told one another in their associations, the expectation that some 60 percent of the employers will freeze or terminate their plans. We believe that our motion to recommit does not impose arbitrary benefit cuts and freezes on workers who do not control whether or not the employers fund the pension plans or not. The motion to recommit would require companies to seek alternatives to the termination and prove that a plan is in fact unaffordable before they can cast it away in bankruptcy, as we saw United Airlines do, that cost the employees billions of dollars in pension benefits. Importantly, the motion to recommit would actually help the employees of American, Continental, Delta and Northwest Airlines, whose pension plans are in danger of being terminated. The bill before us does not do that. It talks about doing that in the future. The motion to recommit would also protect 9 million workers who are covered by multi-employer pension plans in the construction, food service and transportation industries. We would ensure that workers and executives would be affected equally in pension plans. Again, the horrible demonstration out of United Airlines, as the executives walked away with $235 million in a new, debt-free company and the employees walked away with wage cuts and benefits cuts and the loss of retirement benefits. Finally, the motion to recommit would help workers who do not have access to defined benefit plans through the automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans and the expanded savers credit. This legislation, if it is not corrected, is the greatest assault on the pension benefits and the retirement nest eggs of hardworking, middle class Americans in the history of this Congress. I say that because it is quite clear that this will expedite and will accelerate the freezing and the termination of these plans that so many millions of Americans are relying on. One thing this legislation will do, if you want to continue to debate Social Security, you will now prove with the passage of this legislation that Social Security is the most secure retirement system in this country, that it is the only one that people can count on, because these other plans are in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Cardin from Maryland.