George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the tremendous work of the West Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau as the agency celebrates 30 years of service to the children and families of my Congressional District. The Youth Services Bureau (YSB) began in 1984 as a grass roots community movement focused on addressing the systemic causes of violence plaguing our West County neighborhoods at that time. Under the outstanding leadership of Ms. Taalia Hasan, the Bureau consolidated services independently offered by the West County Unified School District, the County Probation Department, municipal and county law enforcement agencies, and local community based organizations. By coordinating the efforts of these agencies, YSB developed an innovative ``wraparound'' response system that has, since that time, been widely acclaimed as the most effective way to address the needs of children and families in crisis. Using the Best Practices Model, the Youth Services Bureau staff has, for 30 years, successfully supported children and their families in difficult situations by providing reliable case management, professional counseling, critical crisis intervention, and caregiver respite services. YSB has also developed innovative programs such as the Family Enhancement Collaborative--known as Kinship, the Early Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing Program (EPSDT)--and has collaborated with community initiatives such as Building Blocks for Kids to ensure children and families in West County grow and thrive. The Youth Services Bureau also works closely with local law enforcement agencies and the West Contra Costa Unified School District to enhance delinquency prevention efforts and promote academic achievement. Throughout the past 30 years, the Youth Service Bureau has been a constant guiding light in the West County community. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in recognizing work well done by Taalia Hasan and her dedicated staff and wish them many more years of success as they support our children, families and community.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today and missed roll Nos. 175 through 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 176. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 175 and 177.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 2575. The majority's obsession with attacking the Affordable Care Act is unprecedented, and they have never let the truth stand in their way. Today's bill is no exception. Let's call this bill for what it really is. It is a big favor to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of working families. This legislation is perfect for the owners and CEOs of big, low-wage companies like Walmart and McDonald's. It says that you can have your employees work 30, 35, 39 hours a week without providing one iota of health care coverage. That is a great deal for the Walton family, which already has a net worth of nearly $145 billion--one family, $145 billion. And that is a great deal for the CEO of McDonald's, who makes $9,200 an hour. But it is a terrible deal for America's workers. It means that not a penny of the revenues from these hugely profitable companies will go toward supporting health insurance for the bulk of their workers. All the while those employees continue to make as little is $7.25 an hour, and it means that the American taxpayers will be stuck with picking up the tab. The Republicans have decided to bring this bill to the floor even though they have no pay-for, which means that this is a very pure form of deficit spending. You are incurring $75 billion worth of expenses for the taxpayers, and you have no way to pay for it. But rather than have these companies provide health insurance to their workers, you are willing to add it to the deficit of the United States for the next 40 or 50 years. I remember when that party stood for deficit reduction. Now it is deficit creation. It is deficit creation. So let's get it straight so everyone can understand: The American people will be paying $75 billion more so that the likes of Walmart don't have to provide their employees with health care. Walmart made $16 billion in profits last year. Target made $2 billion in profits. McDonald's made more than $5 billion in profits. And they can't afford to provide hourly employees with health care? Give me a break. And all of this to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Because let's be clear: there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that forces an employer to cut workers' hours. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated: There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the Affordable Care Act. So, to benefit the richest of the rich, the Republicans want to pass this bill. The very week that we learned that more than 10 million people have gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans want to strip a million people of their employer-based health coverage, tossing them into government programs and leaving the rest uninsured, and having the taxpayers pick up the bill. And this is all while the Republicans continue to block a minimum- wage increase for these very same workers--a minimum-wage increase that Goldman Sachs says will give the economy ``a bigger than usual'' boost. But they are not going to vote for the minimum-wage increase, is what they tell us. So what are they going to do instead? They are going to continue to stand on the throat of the American economy because all over this country where we have raised the minimum wage in cities, States, and towns, small businesses are hiring. There are more customers on Main Street. But they are not going to allow that to happen nationwide. Instead, they are going to provide $75 billion of new deficits for these businesses who pay their taxes, for these workers who pay their taxes. Then they will continue to block unemployment insurance, another boost to the economy. People with unemployment insurance that has run out--and if we extend it--they will spend that money immediately because they have to take care of their families and they have to pay their rent, these are customers on Main Street; but Republicans are not going to do that. Economists left and right tell us one of the biggest boosts to the American economy is immigration reform, but they are not going to do that. They are not going to give our economy that boost, but they are going to add $75 billion to the deficit, but they are not going to let somebody have food stamps for the deficit. They are not going to let somebody have health care for the deficit, but they are going to reward the big employers for throwing people off their health care rolls. This is some plan you have for America. This is some plan you have for working families. Clearly, when the newspapers and the editorial boards accuse you of doing nothing in Washington, they misread you. You are doing great harm to the budget, you are doing great harm to health care, and you are doing great harm to these low-income workers; but you are doing a great favor for the richest of the rich in this country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this bill to the floor and for Congresswoman Brooks' explanation of this legislation, the Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act. As she has detailed, this is a small piece of legislation, but a very important piece of legislation to the existence of these plans and also to the priorities of the nonprofits that support those plans and the work that they do in our communities. And what has become clear is that we need this congressional action because the temporary exemption is going to expire, and that would cause a hardship that Congresswoman Brooks has laid out. Without these changes, these plans, known as CSEC plans, will be forced to comply with Pension Protection Act funding rules, and many small, nonprofit employers will be unable to continue to provide those pension benefits. This legislation ensures that charities and cooperative associations will continue to be able to provide quality pension benefits to their employees by implementing pension funding rules that reflect the unique design of their plans. H.R. 4275 is supported by a wide variety of charitable organizations from across the country, including the United Way Worldwide and Girl Scouts of America and many others, and I would urge our colleagues to support this legislation so that we can make sure that these plans can continue to provide the benefits for their employees but also provide the services to their communities. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this misguided piece of legislation. This bill would impose layers of red tape and erect new obstacles to protecting American lives. Congress already has the power to disapprove any rule through the Congressional Review Act, as well as through appropriations bills and other legislation, if it disagrees with a regulation. This new imposition of nearly 60 additional analytical and procedural requirements is a deliberate effort to impose a procedural choke hold on protecting American citizens. One regulation that would be affected by this is a proposal by OSHA to prevent a litany of workplace fires and explosions that are caused by combustible dusts. It has been abundantly clear for a decade that Federal regulatory action is needed to prevent combustible dust explosions and fires. My amendment would prevent today's bill from getting in the way of this much-needed OSHA regulation, so that OSHA can continue its efforts to prevent combustible dust explosions and fires. This amendment is necessary to protect workers' lives. In 2003, the Chemical Safety Board found that the existing protections to stop these explosions was grossly inadequate. A Board study has identified hundreds of combustible dust fires and explosions that have caused at least 119 fatalities and 718 injuries over a 15- year period. The investigators are not alone in demanding action. Tammy Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress about her brother Shawn, who was killed in a metal dust fire at an aluminum wheel plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003. She told us that he was left lying there on a smoldering floor after the explosion, while aluminum dust burned through his flesh and muscle tissue; and each breath caused his internal organs to be burned even more. Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he won't be the last. It has been more than 6 years since the Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia that killed 14 workers. That explosion resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages because an unchecked accumulation of sugar dust ignited and caused a chain of explosions, leveling the plant. These workplace explosions have not stopped. More recently, three workers were killed when a combustible metal dust explosion ripped through the AL Solutions metal recycling factory near Weirton, West Virginia. Flames shot in all directions. Two brothers died from the heat and smoke inside the building. Another man made it out, but he suffered burns over most of his body. He died 4 days later in a Pittsburgh hospital, all because the factory lacked adequate controls to manage metal powders. In another incident, five workers were killed in three separate events at a factory north of Nashville because an iron powder processing plant failed to abate repeated dust hazards. Each of the five left behind a wife and children. One had four children under 11. These widows have called for their government to protect them. That is where OSHA comes in. The Chemical Safety Board has recently declared that OSHA's combustible dust rule is one of the most wanted safety protections. In 2009, OSHA finally started working on a rule to reduce the risk of these explosions. The rulemaking will involve small business panels, risk assessments, public hearings, and an opportunity to comment. Despite the clear need to move forward, this bill would give special interests new ways to block these vital protections. The sad truth is that the underlying bill is nothing more than an effort to put the powerful above the lives and limbs of working families and their widows. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would just say that OSHA has already undertaken these standards; but if this legislation passes, all of the processes and procedures that are in this underlying legislation would have to go first. The fact is people are dying at work. They are dying at work because of the fact that they haven't been able to get this standard in place. This is a very serious standard that directly relates to the lives of these workers in the workplace. To suggest now that they would have to go through this process, if this becomes the law, is just unacceptable when you consider the urgency of this matter. When we took up this question of grain dust--grain dust explosions, which are some of the most powerful explosions that can take place-- that look like a place has been hit by tons of TNT--that was killing workers, they have reduced the number of fatalities by 70 percent, and you rarely hear about grain explosions any longer. But dust explosions from other sources continue to be the kind of problem that threatens workers on a daily basis when they report to work in these various industries where the standards are not adequate to protect the workers. As I pointed out in my opening statement, across a number of different industries, that dust collection--whether it is iron or sugar or wheat dust--becomes a huge explosive device that continues to take the lives of workers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 11.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would exempt from this bill any regulations that have been recommended by the inspector general. This amendment will improve protections for taxpayers and students, protect public and workplace safety and health, and otherwise increase the effectiveness or efficiency of agency activities. Inspector generals are the taxpayers' independent watchdogs. They perform an investigative role that is above politics, seeking to find out what has gone wrong and what should be done to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government. My amendment would ensure that IG recommendations will not be buried in mountains of red tape that this bill creates. For example, the Department of Labor's inspector general found that the Mine Safety and Health Administration had a regulation with gaping loopholes that allowed mine operators who habitually violated mine safety standards to easily evade sanctions and continue to operate unsafe mines. Massey Energy expertly exploited these loopholes at its Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, Massey consistently putting coal production ahead of safety, with more than 684 mine safety violations in the 18 months prior to the tragic explosion in 2010 that killed 29 miners. But the most powerful regulatory tool in MSHA's arsenal was not deployed. In fact, the inspector general found that the potentially lifesaving sanctions had never been used over a 32-year period. The price of that 32-year period was the miners' lives. The inspector general's investigation found that the rule was, by design, set up to be gamed, so it was recommended that MSHA close the loopholes. MSHA then quickly adopted the new regulations that will prevent 1,800 miner injuries each decade. Had today's bill been the law of the land, that lifesaving rule would be delayed for years; and had this bill's requirement requiring that agencies use the least-costly rule been the law, these dangerous loopholes could be left in place. Mr. Chairman, after every mine tragedy, elected representatives mourn the dead and declare they will take action to make sure that such tragedies never happen again. Then Congress comes along and works overtime to pass legislation like this, which would delay or block the rules that can save hundreds of lives. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield my remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I was assuming that when the gentleman was speaking about the effectiveness of the inspector general reports that he was going to join in support of the amendment. I guess I misunderstood that. The point is this: In the case that I cited, the inspector general came in and found out the agency wasn't using the powers that it had and that it needed additional powers for miners who were trying to avert their obligations under the safety laws of this Nation. Again, that is not an action that should be delayed. That is not a finding by one party or the other or by one group of people in the Congress or the other. That is the inspector general. He looked at the situation and said that this was leading to an increased likelihood of accidents and deaths on behalf of miners and that the rules had to be changed and that they had to be changed right away. I don't know why we would interrupt that process. That is the point of this amendment. This Congress has a lot of trust, I believe, in the inspectors general, and we should not get in and make them run through a lot of hoops when urgency is the matter. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to join you in your remarks in expressing outrage about the situation in Chattanooga. In this case, these outside parties included both well-funded interest groups and publicly elected figures dead set on stopping the workers from joining the union. It wasn't enough for these outside parties to say publicly that they did not like unions. It wasn't enough for them to say publicly to the autoworkers, hey, we know what is best for you and your family, vote against the union. It wasn't enough for them to say we don't want unions to get a toehold on the south. No. They were not going to let the workers decide for themselves. They were angry with Volkswagen, who was officially neutral. They were angry that Volkswagen had a long track record of successfully working with labor unions through joint work councils that innovate and reduce company costs. They were angry that a majority of the workers actually signed cards saying they wanted the UAW to represent them. They were afraid of what would happen if the NLRB election process was actually on the level. In the end, free and fair union elections became their biggest fear. Imagine that. In the end, a free and fair election became their biggest fear. So they decided they couldn't let that happen. If Volkswagen wouldn't scuttle this election, then these outside officials would. They laid in wait, and on the eve of the election, they then launched their assault: a barrage of untrue and inflammatory statements, the kind that we see from union busters all the time, the kind that are designed to coerce, to scare, to intimidate, to bully, and to bully, and to bully hardworking auto plant workers into rejecting the union. One of these third parties, an elected official, went to the press on the first day of the voting, the first day the workers had a chance to vote, and he said that he had been ``assured,'' if the workers vote against the union, Volkswagen would manufacture a new line of SUVs in Chattanooga. And lo and behold, what happened? This last-minute bombshell led to a press frenzy, banner headlines, a barrage of TV coverage, all reporting and repeating the threat that jobs in Chattanooga were now on the line with this vote. Never mind that the company denied it. Never mind that that elected official's claim wasn't true. As he said, he had been ``assured,'' the junior Senator from Tennessee said.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. On the last point the gentleman made, the reason these worker councils--why Volkswagen was neutral is that they had found these worker councils to help them lead this industry in innovation, to be one of the largest and most successful automobile companies in the world. And, in fact, they have used these worker councils in plants all around the world because that is the mechanism by which they have continued to be a leader and continued to have the growth that they have had and to have the products that they have had. And somehow--somehow--as you point out, in Russia and in China and now in Chattanooga, that motto is being rejected, not because Volkswagen rejected it, but because the election process was not allowed in China, it was not allowed in Russia, and was rigged and jimmied and obstructed by outside forces during that election in the United States.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for taking this time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 40 and 41. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll No. 40 and ``nay'' on roll No. 41.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank my colleagues who have spoken out against this legislation. This legislation is in no way a solution to the problems that we have in California with the continuing drought. This legislation is simply a legislative temper tantrum. They don't want to nuance what has to be nuanced. They don't want to have each area of origin be taken into consideration. They don't want to balance urban/rural. They don't want to balance agriculture/ technology. This is what the Governor is having to do. This is what the resource agency is having to do. This is what the entire State legislature is focusing on, trying to figure out how all of California survives the drought. This one just says what we will do is we will kick over the barn upstate there. We will take their water and we will be okay. Well, why doesn't San Diego look up north and say, you know what? We will kick over the barn. We will take their water, and we will be okay. This is the greatest intrusion into State water rights that we have seen in this legislature, and that is why Governors of other Western States understand the principles that are engaged here are an absolute attack on their States also. That is why Representatives from those States opposed this legislation last time it was presented, and they will oppose it again this time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. So you have a bipartisan coalition in the States trying to work this out, from every economic sector, from every environmental sector, for the benefit of the State of California. This drought doesn't have to end in this rainy season. It can go on another year and another year. This legislation is destructive, destructive of our trying to make sure that every facet of the California society and its economy survive, and that is why this bill should be rejected. It is an assault on fundamental states' rights that every other Western Governor recognized the moment this bill was introduced, and that is why they oppose it. They join the Governor of California, the resource agency of California, in opposition to this bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3964. Mr. Chair, the bill before us today, H.R. 3964, is a radical bill that is strongly opposed by the State of California as well as other Western states, fishing groups, and many other stakeholders. H.R. 3964 would seriously undermine our ability to solve California's water problems, and it poses a serious threat to water management all across the Western United States. And, to be clear, this is not a man-made drought. There is not enough water to meet all demands. In 2009, with the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws in place, more water was exported than in other drought years. This bill would effectively repeal the last hundred years of policymaking--unraveling legal settlements, defying settled Supreme Court precedent, and up-ending state and local efforts to find solutions. H.R. 3964 would block or repeal numerous state and federal laws protecting California's Bay-Delta estuary and San Joaquin River, including: The 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act; The 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act; The 2009 bipartisan compromise passed by the California State Legislature; The state and federal endangered species acts; and Several other provisions of state law and water rights. What's worse, this bill explicitly overrides more than 100 years of federal law by exempting the federal Central Valley Project from Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, which requires deference to State authority over water resources. Republicans have to understand that reverting back to the 1994 Bay- Delta Accord would severely damage the ecosystem. We can't negate 20 years of science and expect our ecosystem to survive. This bill is opposed by a range of stakeholders from across California and around the country, including Trout Unlimited, the United Farm Workers, and every major national conservation and wildlife group. Eighty California environmental, environmental justice, recreational and commercial fishing groups, and Indian tribes signed a letter of opposition that was sent to all House members. Many water agencies, local governments, and business groups across California also oppose the bill. And serious economic analysis shows that this bill would devastate our economy. The Delta Protection Commission says that, ``Delta agriculture supports nearly 23,000 jobs statewide, over $1.9 billion in value added to the state, and over $4.6 billion in economic output in the state of California.'' Three different studies from UC Davis, University of the Pacific, and UC Berkeley estimated that the drought cost approximately 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in 2008/09. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Administration estimated that the two-year closure of the salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 resulted in the loss of $534 million and almost 5,000 jobs. The Delta Protection Commission stated that Delta recreation and tourism generates approximately over 4,900 jobs and $600 million in economic output in the state of California. As California State Governor Brown wrote to California offices: ``H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into California's efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of others; It falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would interfere with our ability to respond effectively and flexibly to the current emergency, and would re-open old water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a collaborative long-term solution to our water needs.'' This bill is a radical attempt to put one special interest ahead of everyone else in California, and it would end all productive efforts to solve problems in California. I strongly oppose H.R. 3964 and urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.