George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have voted for many of the Iran sanctions bills that have to come before this body in the past, and I strongly believe that sanctions are a crucial tool in the extremely important effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But I am disappointed that the House took up and passed H.R. 850, the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, this week. I believe that the timing and substance of this latest sanctions bill are ill-considered and would have the effect of pushing Iran in the opposite direction we seek. More than 100 Members of Congress from both parties wrote to President Obama just two weeks ago in support of efforts to ``utilize all diplomatic tools to reinvigorate ongoing nuclear talks.'' I signed that letter because I believe that, while we cannot know at this point whether President-elect Rouhani will in fact be willing to negotiate in good faith to end Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, we must do everything in our power to demonstrate to Iran that it will benefit from ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Bringing H.R. 850 for a vote this week, just before President-elect Rouhani's inauguration, I believe, does the opposite, as it indicates an unwillingness to adapt to any adjusting circumstances that may occur. Moreover, it strengthens the hands of extremists in Iran who could use this vote to falsely claim that the American government is not interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution. Additionally, I am concerned that certain provisions in H.R. 850 would unwisely limit President Obama's authority to negotiate as he sees fit. In particular, the bill would impose a total oil embargo, without providing an appropriate exemption for President Obama to utilize if need be. This creates two problems. First, it diminishes President Obama's ability to offer economic benefits to Iran in exchange for an Iranian halt to enrichment of uranium. Second, it makes it substantially more challenging for President Obama to maintain the strong international coalition that he has developed in support of sanctions. Without international support, our sanctions would be for naught, as Iran would be able to simply continue trading with other countries and would not face the economic harms intended by sanctions. I support a strong sanctions regime as part of an effort to achieve a diplomatic solution that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I also support some important provisions of H.R. 850, such as those that provide for new sanctions against Iranian officials who are responsible for human rights abuses. Yet, overall, I am concerned that H.R. 850 will not strengthen the effort to utilize sanctions to achieve a diplomatic solution, but will instead be counterproductive to it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act. It has been nearly a month since interest rates on student loans were allowed to double on millions of our neediest students, but thanks to the bipartisan negotiations in the Senate, we now have a solution that provides real relief. And I want to thank Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Manchin, and Senator King for all of their work on this effort. Thanks to this legislation, over the next 5 years, borrowers across the country will save $25 billion in interest payments. In my home State of California, this bill will cut the cost of college for more than 550,000 students this coming academic year. It was worth the wait. When we started work on this issue, I said that any long-term solution to student loan interest rates must help, not harm the students or their families, must not make college more expensive, and it must protect students in the future from spiking interest rates. I believe that this bipartisan bill accomplishes that goal. It locks in interest rates for borrowers when they sign on to their loans; it provides a reasonable cap to protect students from rising interest rates; and it rolls back the doubling of interest rates, saving students and families real money right now. Today's bipartisan student loan deal stands in stark contrast to the partisan bill passed by the House majority in May. The bill would have made college more expensive by nearly $4 billion to students and their families. It would have subjected students to a bait-and-switch scheme. It offered students teaser rates that balloon annually, leaving students deeper in debt and guessing what they will owe. If you look at this chart, you will see that, under the bipartisan agreement we're voting on today, it will cost students about $11,363. The current law raises the cost to $14,000, and the bill that passed the House, the Republican bill, was $16,400. So it's been well worth students to have this disagreement, to have this wait so that we could save this kind of money for students and families. Next year's freshmen who borrow a maximum amount of subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans over 5 years would have paid $5,000 more in interest rates under the House Republican plan than under today's bipartisan compromise, and nearly $2,000 more than if we did nothing. The House majority's solution wasn't a solution at all. Their approach was best summed up by the chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee who recently said, ``It is not the role of the Congress to make college affordable or accessible.'' I couldn't disagree more. That statement explains why their bill piled debt on the backs of students rather than trying to lighten the load. The Senate bill before us today takes the opposite approach. It saves students and families money. I understand the concerns that some have raised by this solution. While it provides real relief for the next few years, it does not solve the long-term student debt crisis. We have much more work to do to address the underlying cost of college, and we must remain on guard against any unacceptable rise in interest rates. In the meantime, we now have a bill that will make a positive difference to families struggling to pay for college. Today, I ask the Republican majority to drop their support for the original House bill that was so devastating to students and families and, instead, support this bipartisan bill that delivers real interest rate relief for millions of Americans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would not want the Members of this House to believe that somehow this bill that we're going to vote on in a few minutes is the same as the Republican bill. This bill saves $25 billion for those students over the next 5 years. The Republican bill that was voted on in this House costs those students a billion dollars. So there's a big difference. As I say, it was well worth the wait. So let's understand very clearly. The Members of this House are getting a better deal with this legislation if they vote ``yes'' on this bill, both sides of the aisle. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I have no further speakers. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the chair of the committee for bringing this bill to the floor as soon as it was possible to do, but certainly before we break for August. This legislation, as I said earlier, is a vast improvement over what we voted on before and what was presented to this House. I think families all across the country with students heading off to college or returning to college this fall will be happy to know that as they take out a student loan this year, they will save over the next 5 years some $25 billion because those loans that they take out will have that interest rate guaranteed at that rate today and for the life of that loan. Big distinction between this bill and the bill that was presented for the House to vote on, which many of us rejected but the Republicans supported and was passed to the Senate. Over the next 10 years, it provides about $4 billion in additional relief. What's important to know is that this will deal with making college more affordable. But, clearly, what is on the agenda of the Education and Workforce Committee is making sure that we're dealing with the cost of college so that we can reduce the student debt in this country, we can reduce the affordability of college in this country. We expect that as we struggle to try to figure out how to provide this loan money on behalf of the taxpayers to these students who are the future of our economy, the future of our society, that the institutions will struggle with seeing what they can do to lower the cost of these colleges. This is a very exciting time in postsecondary education because we have opportunities now with technologies and the ability to present classes in new formats, in new forums for students much differently than in the past. We've got to make sure that we're providing that quality education, but perhaps in a way that's more cost efficient. And efficiency isn't the enemy of intellectual curiosity or intellectual achievement or scholastic achievement, but it may be helpful to those families who are struggling with a debt to provide one, two, or three children a college education, or for those students who graduated who are struggling with that debt as they enter the job market. So we really want to say that we've done the best we can under these circumstances with this legislation, but we expect the institutions of higher education all across this country to reexamine how they're doing their business and what they can do to reduce the cost of college. And we'll continue to do our part, trying to make it more affordable for the American family. But in the past, we've seen where we put money in at the top and the States took the money out at the bottom. We're not going to play that game anymore, and we can't play that game anymore. That has ended up with a lot of increased debt on the part of students. Certainly with respect to the public institutions, the States have to step up and share the responsibility for their public institutions. We cannot have this situation where they continue to decline their support and then foster that off on parents and students, and then the parents and students need help from the Federal Government. That chain has got to stop here. But I think today, this is a big and important step in terms of the affordability of college for students. And all of the indicators are that that college degree is well worth it over the lifetime of work of students, over the types of jobs that they will get, the types of wages that they will receive. It's still a huge benefit. There has been a lot of discussion over the last few months that maybe college isn't worth it anymore. It is, but we have to do it right. And young people have to be able to obtain that college education, and they have to do it with the least amount of debt possible. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I didn't mean to interrupt. I thought you were going to yield back your time. I just wanted to ask you for 30 seconds. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have these differences at the Member level and the institutional level. I just forgot, before I sat down, to thank the staffs of both sides of our committee for their professional work. Because whatever's going on on the surface here and surface warfare, we know that, underneath, the staff is trying to make it work out whatever direction we decide to move in. So I just want to thank so much the staff both of the majority and minority side for their help.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about a good education. This is an amendment suggesting an approach that in fact the amendment doesn't enable to happen, and that is the idea that a student can choose the school under the guise of portability, when in fact it doesn't set up any mechanisms for the students to do that. The suggestion here somehow is that, in fact, the students will make this choice or the parents will make this choice. We've had the right under No Child Left Behind for students to make the choice to elect to go to any schools in the district in which they sought to do that. Of course, what we found out, in many instances, it's less than 2 to 3 percent of the parents who make that decision. There are many reasons why they don't do that. In fact, it's a decision that it doesn't work for them because of lack of transportation in poor neighbors, lack of issues of personal safety of the students. The difference in my district, in some parts of my district of going to the school that's next to your home or walking the six or eight or 10 blocks to where the next school is, it's a matter of personal safety for those children. We have children, unfortunately, who are harmed every day on our streets, in some cases killed on those streets. So for parents, this isn't just a choice; that it's a better school. Also under the Cantor amendment, you would be requiring school districts to engage in an entirely complex accounting system, and I don't know why we'd burden them with that. We currently have in many, many districts open enrollment. And as I say, parents can choose that if they want, but in many cases they can't because of barriers to that enrollment. So this is a suggestion somehow that you can just pick up and move your child. What we see in survey after survey after survey is what parents want, and they want their neighborhood school, the school next to them, they want that school to be functioning at a high level so that their child, their children, can get an education at that school. I know that maybe the author of this amendment isn't familiar with these parents, that these parents are struggling between their jobs, their work, holding their families together. Very often it's individual working women supporting these families. This is a difficult task. And the idea that the burden won't be on the district to improve that local school, but we'll just leave it be under the guise that parents can opt to send their children somewhere else when, in fact, that's not a real option for them. This amendment doesn't address the concern about open enrollment, it doesn't address the systems that the States have set up, and it clearly doesn't address the needs of the parents. And it fails to recognize that in many school districts, there's only one school, there's only one middle school, there's only two elementary schools. That's not the issue here. This isn't like a panoply of wide choices that are made available. That's why many of us have encouraged charter schools inside these districts so parents will have that choice that is within reach of them. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment just doesn't address the realities of the current law. First of all, the underlying bill takes away the choice that parents have today. This amendment wants to pretend like it's a choice. When the gentleman from Utah says the money follows the child, no, in Utah they have State equalization. It's the same amount of money wherever you go. No money follows you. The suggestion in the Cantor amendment is that somehow this money will follow you, except that it requires States and districts to set up an entirely new bookkeeping system. These are people who say they don't want to burden those districts. The fact of the matter is, under current law, parents can choose to send their children to another school. Whether all of the money will follow them or not, under the Cantor amendment, there's no mechanism and there's no money. There is no full entitlement to the money. I know the gentleman wanted to have vouchers, and this is an imitation voucher, but it doesn't work. It simply doesn't work for the child, for the parents, or for the school districts. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The reason some schools don't have a lot of title I money, or some title I money, is they don't have title I students. It follows the students to those schools.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this debate highlights some of the stark choices about the direction of our education system. The Republican bill sends us backwards, letting students down at a critical time. This substitute amendment I'm offering will move the Nation forward. Every day, schools are making great strides to take our education system into the 21st century. They are raising standards, trying new ways to boost learning, improving the skills of teachers and principals. Mr. Chairman, we, in Congress, should be a partner in these efforts, providing resources and the support to help them move forward--not gutting funding and walking away from our responsibility to help, as the Republican bill does. Despite some good things in current law, No Child Left Behind's one- size-fits-all approach has hampered progress. It's time to revise the law, building on what we have learned over the past decade, spreading best practices to all schools, not just to some. The Democratic approach does this. It maintains our bedrock civil rights responsibility. My amendment would help ensure that all students have access to a world-class education, regardless of their background or ZIP code, and that teachers, principals, and schools have supports and resources to provide that education. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic amendment improves current law in several ways: We call upon States to set high expectations for students, ensuring every child graduates prepared for college or for a career; We eliminate the one-size-fits-all approach of accountability called AYP, but we still call on schools to improve the student learning and graduation rates each year; We give districts and schools the flexibility to determine how to improve learning and graduation rates; We ensure teachers and principals get timely and useful feedback so that they can improve their skills; We also ensure educators have good working conditions and positive supports to help them do their jobs even better than they do now; We provide robust funding for literacy, for STEM, for technology and other subjects like art and music to ensure that all students have a well-rounded education; and We provide resources and supports to ensure that students are safe, healthy, and free from bullying in schools so that they can focus on learning. The Republican bill does not come close to meeting any of these goals. In their effort to eliminate Federal involvement in education: They let students down; They fail to ensure students improve their learning or graduate from high school; They fail to ensure that students with disabilities are taught to the same high standards as other students; They fail to provide adequate funding and resources for students and schools; They fail to move beyond the narrow focus of reading and math and to ensure that all students get a well-rounded education. If we can't pass a better bipartisan bill, No Child Left Behind will remain the law of the land, and this is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to the scores of organizations who oppose H.R. 5, from business to labor to civil rights to disability advocates to education organizations, and that's why so many groups support this substitute amendment. This fight is about equity. It's about every child in our country getting an education they deserve, regardless of poverty, disability, or other challenges. I urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to support this Democratic substitute so that the students and their families have the education system they need to prepare for the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Can I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire as to the time remaining.