Juanita Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back whatever time that I have left.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made earlier about the gentleman from Arizona, it was not my intent to question his motives. And I look forward to working with him in the coming days and weeks and months ahead. And so I do not intend for him to take that personally, and I am sorry for that. Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues who are listening and have listened to this debate today, please take note. The Democratic leadership of this institution plans to clean up the criminal and ethical morass it inherited. This bill is a down payment on the new ethical climate control system we are building. The American people deserve to know that criminal and unethical behavior by any of our colleagues will be punished, and that the penalties for violating the sacred trust which has been bestowed upon us by our voters and the States we represent will be substantive and serious and not window dressing. We have more to do after this bill passes, so we can continue this discussion during the next installment of ethics reform. But I urge my colleagues to take this leap with me today and with the very distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas who introduced the bill, to begin this journey toward a more open and honest government, and toward a more ethical direction in this 110th Congress. The American people deserve it, and it is up to us, you and I, to deliver it.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the speaker who just spoke stated that we changed the date. We changed the date of the bill to comply with the leadership on the Republican side. So he was disingenuous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that my colleague has said that the bill could be stronger. That is an argument that we could make on every bill that comes to this floor, it can be stronger. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to our majority leader 1 minute, the Honorable Steny Hoyer.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of seconds, and I would like to speak to the speaker who has just spoken. He spoke about the amendment to this bill, the subornation of perjury. This is in the gentleman's bill that he has introduced, so I don't know why his objection to that. The Democrats have added two additional crimes to this bill, and one is that; the other is a conspiracy to violate postemployment restrictions. We have tried to put in this bill to strengthen this bill two additional crimes, and so I am concerned that his argument is one that is in his bill that he has introduced. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Susan Davis.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time left for both sides.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Irrespective of, it was not one of those that were, as you had suggested in your opening statement. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the author of this bill, the outstanding new Member who introduced this bill, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take about 30 seconds to correct a misrepresentation of the ranking member. He spoke of mail fraud, of which Mr. Rostenkowski was convicted, was not one of the crimes contained in the House bill that was passed out of this House by the Republicans last year. So that is a mischaracterization.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan, the effective date is upon enactment of the bill.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Is that a parliamentary inquiry that he is just suggesting here?

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today was introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Nancy Boyda from Kansas. It represents part of a continuing effort by the Democratic leadership to clean up the ethics outrage left over by the Abramoff scandal. The fundamental concept of this bill is simple. If Members of Congress are convicted of engaging in illegal behavior during the performance of official duties, then in addition to going to jail, their public pension will be eliminated. The language was included in the Republican lobby reform bill last year. The only difference is one enhancement responsive to Senate concerns. We have added language to deny pension benefits to Members who ask others to lie for them, or help them cover up their crime. Applying this penalty to those convicted of corruption is another step toward comprehensive ethics reform and restoring the public trust in Congress. It goes without saying that no one should ever violate their oath of office. No one in this body should ever engage in criminal conduct. Such conduct distorts the people's business and leads to the formulation of bad public policy. It breaks the social contract that Americans have with one another, and with their elected leaders. Such conduct demoralizes the Nation, and it damages the reputation of this great institution. The bill before us represents one step toward discouraging illegal and unethical abuses of our office. As a consequence of enacting this bill, Members hopefully will think twice before stepping over the line. The Boyda pension forfeiture bill denies a congressional pension to any Member of Congress who is convicted of certain felonies and who has exhausted all appeals. It does not apply to a Member's own contributions to the retirement system. The covered felonies include: Bribery of public officials and witnesses; acting as foreign agent; conspiracy to commit the above offenses, or conspiracy to violate the postemployment restrictions; perjury by falsely denying any of the above-listed crimes; and subornation of perjury by getting someone else to lie or cover up for you. Every act constituting any of the above felonies: Must have occurred while the Member is in office; must directly relate to a Members's official duties; and must take place after the date of enactment. Any element of a crime leading to a final conviction can occur at any time after enactment. So passage of this initiative, Mr. Speaker, puts every current and future Member on notice that there will be an additional price to pay for criminal behavior while holding an office of public trust. Now does this bill go too far or not far enough? I have heard it argued both ways. Some say that more crimes should be included. Others ask: ``Why should a criminal's spouse or child be eligible for the criminal's forgone pension?'' Some argue that prosecutors should be empowered to use pension forfeiture as a negotiating tool. Others argue that judges should be able to adjust pension forfeiture to fit the crime, and there are many more such questions and thoughts. I will tell you now that this policy is an important step, but it is only a first step. It is a way to lay down the law. It is a way to tell the public that we reject criminal behavior while in office. It is a way to tell the American people that we are serious about addressing illegal and unethical behavior by our colleagues. And it is a way to get this pension forfeiture penalty enacted. No, it is not perfect, but it moves us in the right direction. You will hear arguments that it doesn't go far enough, that previously convicted Members should not presently be allowed pensions. And while I am not unsympathetic with the underlying sentiment, we are prohibited, as legislators, from passing ex post facto laws, which criminalize or penalize past behavior, which is again a violation of the Constitution. You will hear arguments that more types of criminal behavior should be covered. One of my colleagues indicated last Friday that more types of criminal behavior should be covered. Up until this point, pension forfeiture has only applied to treason and espionage and related offenses. So this is a big step. We are extending pension forfeiture to cover those offenses that lie at the heart of violations of the public trust and relate to the performance of official congressional duties. We are not applying this to others in the executive branch, so this is without precedent. You will hear arguments that an innocent spouse or child should be punished along with the criminal. On balance, I don't think that is good policy. It may satisfy one's desire for revenge, but if you believe in individual responsibility, then you don't punish an innocent person for another's bad behavior just because they are related by marriage or parentage. I think we need to take a look at this principle in other situations as well, but today we are looking at it in the context of criminal behavior by Members of Congress. The American people are rightly outraged by elected officials' criminal acts, but the American people are also humane and understanding. Although the first response to this outrage is likely to be ``throw the bum in jail,'' most Americans will not countenance throwing the child of a criminal into the street, or anyone's child. Assuming family members are innocent of any wrongdoing, this bill gives the Office of Personnel Management the discretion to respond to hardships placed on the family and caused by the Member's criminal wrongdoing. If OPM decides to do so, it will come out of any amounts contributed directly by the Member, and to which he or she is still entitled. That is fair and just, in my opinion. OPM could still impose full pension forfeiture, or something less if the totality of the circumstances warrants a different outcome. There are lots of other arguments we can have about the merits of this initiative and whether it goes too far or not far enough. Some may even question whether it even goes in the right direction. All of these are legitimate policy concerns, which can be pursued by the interested Members with the committees of jurisdiction through future legislation. But the bill before us today, however imperfect you may judge it, is an immediate response to the American people's demand that we change the way we do business here in Washington. There are many other initiatives we will be taking to reverse the last decade of criminal and ethical decline. We will do them, and we will be a better and more responsive government for having done so. But this is step one. The American people are sending an unequivocal message to all Representatives and Senators: If you lie, cheat or collude with others to cover up your criminal abuse of public office, you will not only go to jail, but you will sacrifice something that the American people provided you, and that is trust, which the American people can take away from you if you violate that trust. Dishonor that trust, and you break your contract with the American people, and the consequences are clear. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 476) to amend title 5, United States Code, to make noncreditable for Federal retirement purposes any Member service performed by an individual who is convicted of any of certain offenses committed by that individual while serving as a Member of Congress, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous matter on the measure just considered.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration for his stewardship and his leadership in the Page Program. I would like to thank all of those who were responsible for this great legislation. Mr. Speaker, this House must pass this bill. The Page Program is a treasured institution that offers youngsters from across this country the opportunity to serve and to learn firsthand about the Congress, while helping us to conduct the Nation's business. As I said this morning to the pages when I was coming in, this is your bill. Of all the bills you have heard throughout the years you have been here, this one is yours, and we are happy to introduce this bill today. Recent unfortunate events have shown that the governance of the Page Program needs reform. The House minority must be brought into the process as full partners with equal representation, eliminating any hint of partisanship. This is why I applaud the Speaker of this House. She wants to make sure, as much as we can, to have nonpartisanship in conducting the business of the People's House. This board will benefit from new representation of parents and former pages themselves, and that is an added incentive, Mr. Speaker, because when you have parents and when you have former pages, they can have input that will benefit these pages who are here with us. These and other reforms proposed by the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from West Virginia, who have served diligently on the Page Board, will greatly improve the program. I think also the increase in meetings will be an additive as well, Mr. Speaker. So I am proud for all of those who have been part and parcel of this legislation, as well as I am proud of our new Speaker, who has made these reforms part of the agenda for the first days of the new Congress. I urge all Members now to support this legislation and to protect these young folks who come from all areas of this country, coming here to do a part and to serve us as we do the people's business.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a former page.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to one of the authors of this important bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, as chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration, I am delighted to call up this important bill to reform the governance of the House Page Program. I trust that all Members recall the circumstances that led to this bill coming up during the first days of this new Congress, so that there is little need to deal with them here. Suffice it to say that the events of last September have been abundantly clear that the House Page Board can no longer be constituted as it was during the last Congress with two Members of the majority but only one from the minority. Such a ratio potentially raises the specter of partisanship and political considerations where they have no place. Mr. Speaker, the House Page Board has the statutory responsibility to govern and oversee the Page Program. The Board must not only be free of partisanship, it must function so all of its members have access to the information necessary to discharge their responsibilities and do what is right for the pages. These delightful pages, whose parents send them here, trusting that they will be safe, become the responsibility of this House. If structural changes are needed to ensure that members of the page board can properly oversee the programs, free of extraneous concerns, then we must make such changes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has written an excellent bill that changes the page board's form and function. First, it enlarges the page board to include a second Member of the House appointed by the minority leader, thus equalizing the number of Members between the two parties. I must say the Speaker of this House is using her nonpartisan efforts to try to bring equity to this board. This alone could strengthen the board dramatically by making the minority full partners on the board. But the bill goes further. It adds two outside members of the board, one to represent parents of current or recent pages, and another one who represents a former page to represent the pages themselves. These two outside board members must be appointed jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader for a 1-year term, but can be eligible for reappointment if they continue to meet the requisite qualifications. These additional representatives for pages and parents will infuse the board's deliberations with perspectives that only they can bring. Finally, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the page board gives the program the attention it deserves, the bill requires regular board meetings on a schedule established jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader. This bill, which would be permanent and effective immediately, authorizes reimbursement of the outside board members for the expenses of attending meetings. I am confident that Members agree that the benefits of a parent and a former page representation will be worth the modest cost. I commend the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from West Virginia for introducing this excellent bill, and I commend the Speaker for scheduling this the first days of this landmark 110th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of January 18, 2007, I call up the bill (H.R. 475) to revise the composition of the House of Representatives Page Board to equalize the number of members representing the majority and minority parties and to include a member representing the parents of pages and a member representing former pages, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my pleasure that the House has passed H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Nearly nine out of ten Americans believe that it is time to increase the minimum wage, and I could not agree more. An increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. The minimum wage has not been increased in almost 10 years. This is the longest Americans have had to wait for an increase in the minimum wage since the original law was enacted in 1938. While Americans have been waiting for an increase in the minimum wage, the cost of most necessities has risen. The fact is, the real value of the current minimum wage is the lowest it has been in over 50 years. Meanwhile, the costs of health care, gasoline and a college education are rising, and families in my District are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. An increase in the minimum wage will have a particularly beneficial impact on women, especially single mothers. The majority of minimum wage earners are women and common sense tells us that a single mother cannot effectively provide for her children on $10,000 a year. Because many of these mothers are forced to work extra hours or a second job to afford food and rent, their children end up spending most of their time without a parent at home to raise them. If America is indeed the Land of Opportunity, we must reward those who pay their dues. A parent working full-time at the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is likely living below the federal poverty level, and is often unable to afford what their children deserve: rent in a safe neighborhood, decent child care, and enough food on the table. The minimum wage issue is ultimately a question about our fundamental values as Americans. Do we value hard work? Do we believe that people who work full-time should be able to support themselves? To support their families? Isn't it our job to support those who want a hand up, and not a hand out? I believe the answer to these questions is yes, and I believe that most Americans agree with me. I am pleased that the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, brought this bill to the Floor during the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress. The priorities of working Americans are truly the priorities of this House of Representatives. I am hopeful that the United States Senate will also make a minimum wage hike a priority and pass this bill as soon as possible. I am encouraged by the President's recently expressed willingness to cooperate with Democrats on this issue. The President's signature cannot come soon enough; the bill's initial 70 cent increase does not take place until 60 days after H.R. 2 becomes law. Mr. Speaker, nearly 13 million hard-working Americans have waited long enough.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, introduced by my esteemed colleagues, Representatives Diana DeGette and Michael Castle. As a longtime champion of stem cell research and an original cosponsor of this legislation, I cannot stress enough how important this bill is to the future of medical research and to the health and well-being of Americans and people worldwide. Embryonic stem cell research holds unique promise for the treatment of illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy and many other degenerative conditions. We Members of Congress have the responsibility to ensure that this promise is realized. The expansion of federally funded embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of Americans and by Members of Congress from across the political spectrum. Therefore, I was disheartened by President Bush's decision to use his first and only veto to strike down stem cell legislation passed last year. However, I have fresh hope that we will see the enactment of this legislation this year. I am confident that we will pass this bill overwhelmingly today and that the Senate will do its part to secure final passage. I am also optimistic that President Bush will respect the wishes of the American public and will refrain from vetoing this important legislation yet again. Countless lives could be saved with the passage of this legislation, and I therefore urge each one of you to vote with foresight, with optimism and with respect for life in favor of the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2007.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, last week, Congress received the body of the late President Gerald Rudolph Ford, our 38th President, to lie in State in the Rotunda. He was the second President for whom I felt such an endearment that it felt as if I'd lost a friend. I first met President Ford along with President Carter several years ago when I called on both men to support legislation I had introduced to give those who had been incarcerated, paid their debt to society, and had become productive citizens a restoration of their voting rights. In speaking with him, I found him to be very sensitive and understanding of that important issue. He said that it was the decent thing to do and signed a letter (along with President Carter and myself) asking President George W. Bush to submit a proclamation to all States to ensure these citizens' voting rights. Two years later, I had the opportunity to meet with him and his beloved wife, Betty, at Rancho Mirage along with Governor Schwarzenegger and others to discuss federal legislation for California. We continued our discussion on voting rights, and I became further impressed with his modesty despite the fact that he had served at the highest level in this country. Gerald R. Ford was a man of character and integrity, with many accomplishments to his credit. He was a Boy Scout, and the only President who has ever attained the rank of Eagle Scout. He was a football star for the University of Michigan where he majored in political science and economics while leading his team to two national titles. He studied at Yale Law School and opened his own law practice in Grand Rapids, Michigan before joining the Navy where he served as an officer during WorId War II and earned several medals. In 1948, Gerald R. Ford was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he served until 1973. He was the Republican Minority Leader from 1965-1973. During his years in the House, Ford was, as the New York Times described, ``a negotiator and a reconciler.'' On October 12, 1973, Ford was appointed Vice President of the United States after Spiro Agnew resigned. He became President after the resignation of Richard Nixon on August 9, 1974. President Gerald R. Ford is the only person to ever serve as both Vice President and President without being elected to either office. As President, one of Ford's first actions was to pardon President Nixon, allowing the nation to heal and move on. Although this action was highly criticized at the time and may have cost him the election in 1976, it helped to restore Americans' faith in the office of the President. President Ford successfully addressed high inflation and unemployment while ending American involvement in Vietnam and pursuing international human rights through the Helsinki Accords, helping end the Cold War. President Ford's legacy extends far beyond his accomplishments, however. More than anything else, President Gerald R. Ford will be remembered for his character, integrity, and humility. Gerald R. Ford was a very decent and humble human being. As Americans, we mourn more than the loss of a former President--we mourn the loss of a truly great American.