George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the next few hours, the Republicans in the Congress will engage in the greatest raid and diminishment on middle-class health care benefits in the history of this country. Benefits that have been built up over the last 50 or 60 years in this country that have enabled middle-class individuals to have some health security, to have some access to prescription drugs, to have access to the health care that they and their families need, will come under assault. It begins with this legislation, medical savings accounts, where millions of Americans who now have good health care plans, where they share the payment of those plans with their employers, between employers and employees, will find out that those plans are going to be substituted by high-threshold, high-cost, high-deductible plans, and the theory is that they can pay for that out of their medical savings accounts. Millions of Americans are going to wake up and find out that the health care plans that they have available to them today will not be available to them tomorrow. Just as with the passage of the Medicare bill, the prescription drug bill that we will do later tonight, some 30 percent of the people who have prescription drug benefits will wake up and find out that they will get a lesser benefit under the Medicare prescription drug benefit than they are currently getting today. Millions of senior citizens will discover that they have lost their prescription drug benefit as they know it, and they will have to accept something much less than that. When we come back from the Fourth of July break, we will complete this trifecta assault on middle-class health care plans when the Committee on Education and the Workforce reports out the Association Health Care Plan proposal. Because the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that over 8 million Americans will lose the health care they have today, and what will be substituted will be a health care plan that is much less comprehensive than they have today. Mr. Speaker, 8 million Americans, 8 million middle-class Americans. And the answer that the Republicans suggest to us is we can all just save and pay for that ourselves. Well, if we look who is paying into 401(k)s, we know that most Americans do not have that disposable income. That is why they have employer-based health care systems. But starting tonight, that employer-based health care system, that system that has done so much to keep people healthy, to keep people out of poverty, to keep them from losing their homes, is about to be shredded; and the assault is complete and its comprehensive, and it runs from the seniors to new and young families trying to raise children. All of these people will find out. If my colleagues do not think it is going to happen, just look at the employers who are announcing that these cutbacks are going to come who are supporting the association health care plans, who are supporting medical savings accounts, these health savings accounts tonight, and who are supporting prescription drugs. Because they are lining up to get rid of their obligations for prescription drugs, for health care for young families, health care for older families, all in the name of their cost savings. But that will dramatically change the middle class in this country and what they have come to know as health care security. But for the elderly it is going to be even more dramatic. When we look at the prescription drug benefit, it is interesting that the largest elderly group in the country, AARP, everything that they say is essential to protect senior citizens, and a prescription drug benefit is not in this bill. Read their letter. It is not in this bill. They wish it was, they hope it will be, but it is not here tonight.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to pick up where the last two speakers spoke, and that is the question of port security and what we know or do not know about the 20 million containers that come across America's borders every year, come by truck and train traffic, and the rest through ports. I have to say that I appreciate that the committee is doing a lot. The question is when will the committee be done doing its work, and when will the Nation say that it knows enough about the containers coming into its ports. I am not sure that we can inspect every port, but what is very clear is the amount of information that we have to have about these containers from the point of origin to the time that they embark for the United States is incomplete. Even the effort to go into the megaports, which I think is important since some 80 percent of the commerce is shipped through those ports, that does not tell us, that does not give us the kind of information about the containers even coming to the megaports. That is what has to be established. A system, a credible system has to be established so those individuals responsible for the security of this Nation and the movement of those containers across the borders of this Nation are able to make an assessment as to the security of this Nation posed by those individual containers. We are not going to be able to inspect every one of them because commerce is not going to allow us to do that. It would break down the system. But we can require a great deal more information about the contents of that container, the sealing of that container, the movement of that container, through electronic locks, through GPS systems, so we can start to trace that. Then we can make our decision upon risk. But by the time that container gets into the port of Hamburg or Hong Kong or Long Beach or Oakland, California, it is too late. If one of these container goes up with a dirty bomb, you will shut down the globalized container system in this world because we then will have to inspect every container. That is too late. That is far too late. The terrorist does not just have to strike. As we saw, terrorists now understand that beyond the initial act are the economic consequences. They now see what that means. But if they are going to come to the United States and they want to do our people harm, they put in a nuclear device, they put in a dirty bomb, inspecting it in the Port of New York, the Port of Long Beach or the Port of Oakland is far too late. It does not matter if it goes up on the ship once it comes through the Golden Gate, if it goes up on the port property, or it goes up on the railroad train, that is too late. Of those, we are inspecting 2-4 percent of the containers. At some point we have to establish a deadline so that people will know, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) said, if they want to engage in commerce in the United States, an inspection system has to be in place going back to the point of origin to follow that container all of the way. We did this in the oil spill liability provisions after the Exxon Valdez. We said in 25 years if you want to continue to have access and ship petroleum products to the United States, you will do it in double- hulled ships. We should be saying to the shippers, to international commerce, by 2004 or 2005 if you want to continue to have access, you have to provide for this monitoring of cargo, for the transparency of the system and the monitoring of the ships. We have some 40,000 ships roaming around the world with containers on them. This is the kind of system that the American public is entitled to, and why so. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) pointed out, many of the experts which have been briefing Congress since September 11, 2001, have been telling us we are more likely to have a dirty bomb come into this country by way of container than we will ever have the risk of it coming in by way of missile. That is the threat to the home front. That is the major threat. What we see here, while we are taking these incremental steps and I applaud many of them, we do not have a plan for deciding at what point this is going to be a secure system. We have to start putting deadlines on the transparency of this system, on the security of this system, and access to the American markets. That is how we are going to get unified system. The gentleman from New York is right. The Container Security Initiative, the Operation Safe Commerce, the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism are all important initiatives, but they are taking too long. They are taking too long. What is the price of security? What is the price of the home front? What is the price of a secure port system and a secure transportation system? Those are the questions we have to start asking ourselves, not whether we have put in another $100 million or $200 million; is the system secure. Right now we cannot tell the American public that in the foreseeable future that our system is secure.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue in our committee. Once again, as with pension legislation, unemployment assistance, tax policy, and many other examples, the Republican majority of this House is bringing forward a bill that they claim is in the interest of working families. But once again this is head-fakes and sleight of hand. This bill hurts working people, places their already-meager health insurance coverage at risk, and serves only the interest of the business lobbyists. I want to add that once again, as with those earlier bills, the Republican majority continues to deprive 206 Members of the House on the Democratic side and the tens of millions of people we represent from being able to conduct a serious debate on this issue. Once again, a contentious bill comes to the floor with no amendments allowed, just a substitute. So there is little time to debate the bill that will cost millions of Americans, including millions of children and women workers, their health coverage, with no ability to offer amendments to improve this bill. These tyrannical and corrupt rules under which we are operating under the Republican leadership in this House prevent us from having that debate and prevent the Republicans from taking votes on amendments we would like to offer. Let us be clear: this is not a question of whether or not we have time to devote to debate. Week in and week out the Congress comes in on Tuesday or late Monday night and leaves on Thursday or early Friday morning. The Congress has time to adjourn for fund-raisers, the Congress has time to adjourn for golf tournaments, the Congress has time to adjourn for the White House picnic; but apparently we do not have time to be able to offer amendments to legislation so that we can have an honest debate about the legislation before us or have opportunities to improve it or to offer an alternative view on how that should be carried out. So what do we find out now? We do not have that opportunity here when we are risking 8 million people's health care coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So we will pass today, with almost entirely Republican votes, a bill that deprives 47 percent of the people in this country a role in debating and improving this legislation. The heart of this ill-conceived bill is a provision that overrides State laws requiring access to basic health care services. These State laws say to people that when they have a health insurance plan, that plan will mean something. It means that they will have access to mammograms, that means that they will have access to emergency services, that means that they will have maternity benefits and well- baby care and diabetes treatment, and it means there will be some mental health coverage and cancer screening. Because those are the things that the American families need in a health care plan. Now, why are those the rules today in States across this country? Why did the States make this determination? Not to burden small businesses, not to burden health care plans, but because what people were being offered prior to that were essentially phantom plans. They were phantom plans that had little or no benefits to individuals, that did not meet the needs that families had. They had little or no benefits in terms of what women needed in their health care policies. That is the reason for these regulations, or these requirements, that health care insurance plans provide in their health care. That is the purpose of the plans. But that was not what was happening. So now what we see is that this comes along, and it says we are going to override the judgment of these States, we are going to overrides the judgment of the legislators, the collective wisdom of the Governors and legislatures, the attorneys general, the insurance commissioners and others to make sure that people have adequate health insurance. And the consequences are that we are stripping much of this treatment away from the individuals in terms of preventive services for men, women and children. We know that these services and treatments save money, we know they preserve health in the long run, and we know that these services were rarely provided voluntarily by employers in the past. That is precisely why so many States have moved to guarantee this coverage. The proponents of this legislation constantly want to say, well, this was good for labor unions and this was good for big industry. Yes, and in those instances the employees are organized and they negotiate on an equal level. That is not the situation with these plans. These people are given a health care plan which they can take or leave. And the purpose here is to reduce the cost of those plans. The fact of the matter is CBO has reported that approximately 8.5 million workers would end up in AHPs, and over 95 percent would simply be dumped into those from existing health care plans. That means that 8 million workers would be stripped of their current legal right to critical treatments and preventive health care services. Eight million people would end up with less health care the next morning than they currently have under this provision. I recognize that that means that new people will be given health insurance that do not have it, but we have to weigh the question of the people who will get this stripped-down policy as their health insurance to those people who have relatively decent policies who will lose their access to those policies. Because that is really what this is about. It is about cutting the cost to businesses, not about providing health insurance that families truly need. That is why, again, these plans were protected in the States and were regulated in the States, and that is why so many of the Governors, both Republican and Democrat, oppose this legislation. That also means that these people are not going to have the kind of peace of mind that so many of them now have with respect to their insurance policies. We also know that one of the reasons this bill is offered is that health insurance costs are increasing. They are increasing about 20, 25 percent for small employers. What that suggests is that, as people move into these plans, the individuals with higher risk will be left out. Those people who stayed in those kinds of insured pools, those costs will continue to go up; and it means that we will have uneven health insurance for people in this country. Madam Speaker, this is a very bad bill. It is a bad bill. It really is about false advertising. It is suggesting that somehow this is going to extend to millions of people health insurance that will cover their families. That is not what it is going to do. It would if we were not overriding State law, but here the majority has decided that the collective wisdom of the States and the protection of residents and consumers in those States, that is going to be overridden and individuals be under no requirements to offer those components as part of this health insurance plan. I would hope that the House would reject this plan when it comes time to vote on the legislation. General Leave

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit, with my colleagues Representatives Kildee, Obey, Owens, Bishop, Woolsey, Ryan of Ohio, Tierney, Danny Davis, Kind, Holt, Van Hollen and McCollum, the Ensuring College Access for all Americans Act.- Higher education is essential to ensure America's economic prosperity, national security, health and the success of individuals. Yet, as college enrollments swell, states slash higher education budgets and tuition continues to skyrocket, millions of American students and families continue to struggle to pay for a college education. Despite these pressures, late last month the Bush administration decided to revise methods to determine student financial need, which will force a significant number of students and families to pay a higher price for a college education. As the June 13th New York Times article, ``Change in Aid Formula Shifts More Costs to Students'', documents, these revisions to the Federal needs analysis methodology for the 2004-2005 award year will result in substantially higher college costs for a large number of American students. These updates, which were completed by the Department of Education without review or approval by the Congress, effectively will eliminate Pell grant eligibility for needy students or will reduce Pell grant awards or the amount of subsidized loans these students can receive. These changes will force students to mortgage their future by going further into debt to attend college. At a time when the costs of attending college are growing higher every month, as states and private institutions raise tuition and other costs, I question the timing of these revisions. The Department of Education's revisions to the allowance for State and other taxes are based on three-year-old data. At the time these numbers were compiled, our country had yet to enter the downward economic spiral that we find ourselves in today. Students are going to be denied critically needed financial aid because of the poor performance of the economy. Unfortunately, the failure of the Bush Administration to ensure economic viability has now come to rest on the backs of needy college bound students. The Ensuring College Access for all Americans Act will reverse the Administration's revision and make certain that students are not denied critical financial aid. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this tradition by supporting the Ensuring College Access for all Americans Act. It is an important step to making certain that all Americans can access a college education.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago, when the Republicans in the House and the Senate were getting together to decide the final version of the tax bill, under the direction of Vice President Cheney, they made a very bad decision. They made a decision that families with children who earn between $10,000 and $26,000, a year who currently get a portion of the child tax credit, would not get the increase that this bill provides for families with children, a $400 increase for many, many Americans per child that they will get checks this July. For whatever reasons, and we think we know why, because they used that money to provide additional tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country; had they given this tax cut to these families between $10,000 and $26,000 a year, to those 12 million children, people like Mr. Cheney, instead of getting $93,000, would have gotten $88,000. But they chose instead to take $93,000 and these children did not get the tax credit. This tax credit is terribly important to these families. What the Republicans fail to understand is that many of these families are people who the Republicans accused of being on welfare, they have accused them of not participating, but these families get up and go to work every day, and they work in difficult jobs, and they work in jobs that not a lot of people want to have. And at the end of the year, they end up basically poor. So one of the things this government did a number years ago was create the child tax credit. And a number of things we did in the last administration was to make it refundable so that we can make sure that those people would continue to have an incentive to stay in the work force. Now, if the Republicans do not like the child tax credit, one of the things they could do is they could increase the minimum wage. They could make it easier for these families to earn more money. They would get less tax credit. But the Republicans do not want to increase the minimum wage. They do not want to provide those children health care. They do not want to provide them a tax credit, and yet, somehow, these people, they are not deserving of this effort. It was a horrible decision they made. But now we see as that decision has come to light, as the bright light of public awareness is focused on that, last week we saw the Senate, when they realized how upset the country was, how unfair people felt this was, the sense of economic injustice that reigned in the country, that these people would not be taken care of in a tax bill that is going to spend $350 billion, they could not take care of these people for $3 billion. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, voted overwhelmingly to correct this injustice. They passed a bill in the last days of last week to send over to the House to correct this and to give these individuals the tax credit that they should have for their children, for these families who are working very hard, and even to extend it to some individuals in higher incomes. But yet, what do we see the reaction of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, is that they are not going to do this bill. They want to hold these children, they want to hold these families hostage for some other tax cut that they can give to people who may be far less deserving than these children and these families. But they want to hold it hostage so that they can unite it with something they were talking about last week in terms of a $100 billion bill or more. These children and these families are entitled to get those checks in July just like every other family in America. It is important to our economy, it is important to the recovery of our economy, and it is important to the wherewithal of these families as they struggle to hold themselves together at low wages. So the Republicans in the House and their leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader who has said he does not want to do this, that he was not going to take the bill, they must relent. They must relent for the benefit of these families and for the benefit of our economy. Today, the President of the United States said he likes the Senate bill. He wants to work to see it passed. The President of the United States got the message. The Senate got the message. The Senate Republicans got the message, the Senate Democrats pushed for it, and were successful. And now what do we see? That it is the House Republicans that somehow cannot get the message that this is a matter of fairness, it is a matter of equity; that these people have played by the rules and they ought to be treated like every other American family with children. The time has come for the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to step aside and let this bill be passed this week so these families can get their checks in July to help them with this economy.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who had time remaining would not yield to defend his remarks. He did not have the courage to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) who asked him to do so. Mr. Speaker, as Americans picked up their newspapers this morning, in USA Today they could read about the controversy about Sammy Sosa or the tragedy of Martha Stewart. As they thumbed through the newspaper, they would also read something else, they would read that the child tax credit is not available to 250,000 of our veterans. One in five children in the military will not get the tax credit. Some 750,000 veterans, veterans, their children will not get this tax credit. It is a shame. How did this happen? How did 250,000 children of active duty veterans, people fighting for this country, their children will not be eligible for the child tax credit? Let me set the stage. It is late at night. The Republicans are arguing over tax cuts. Some people want to defend the corporations that go to Bermuda, other Members want to defend millionaires. Vice president Dick Cheney is running between the Republican factions. It is all in the record. He is putting out fires. He has to make a decision: Do you help these veterans? Do you help these active duty people with their children, give them the tax credit? Or, Vice President Cheney, if he does that, he will only get $93,000 in tax cuts. If he gives it to the children of hard-working American families earning under $26,000, Dick Cheney will have to take a reduction. He will only get $88,000. Dick Cheney is now the chief negotiator running between the House and the Senate. He is running between the extreme position of the House, Republicans who say no tax credits for these children, and the Senate which voted to give tax credits to the children. Dick Cheney does not know what to do. What does he do? He decides he is going to give himself a $93,000 tax cut; and these kids, it is tough. But one would have thought, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that a former Secretary of Defense would have just dropped off a little change to the troops, to their families and to their children, and to the veterans and their families and their children. It would not have cost Dick Cheney much. If he just took care of the children, he would have still gotten over $90,000 a year in tax cuts. He could not see it. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the context is this: When the Vice President went into the room, the children of veterans and active duty service people had the tax credit. When he left the room, he had the big tax cut; they had nothing.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am just reporting what has been reported in the press. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues Mr. Platts, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Serrano, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Solis, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Hinojosa, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Sanders in introducing the FOCUS Act. This legislation would be an important step in increasing child care quality for all children. High-quality child care can play an important role in healthy child development and school-readiness. Just as it is the parents who matters at home, it is the teachers who matter in child care. One of the most critical components of quality child care is a stable and qualified teaching staff. Children learning from more highly educated teachers perform better on tests of verbal and match achievement. Yet, child care staff--who have the responsibility of helping guide children's development--are among the lowest paid workers in America. In 2000, the average hourly wage for a child care provider was $8.16, which is approximately $16,980 annually. Moreover, most providers do not receive health insurance or paid leave and the annual turnover rate is about 30 percent. Academic and government studies conclude that low pay is one of the leading causes of poor quality child care. Low wages keeps qualified providers from remaining in the field and deters new providers from entering the field. A 2001 report by the Center for Child Care Workforce and the University of California Berkeley found that centers are losing qualified staff because of low wages and are forced to hire less qualified replacements. The study also found that not only are wages extremely low, but they are not keeping pace with cost of living increases. States report centers are closing or turning away children because they cannot properly staff their programs. FOCUS directly addresses the problems low pay creates by providing stipends to qualified child care staff based on the level of education. This legislation would be a mechanism to assist States increase the pay of child care workers and to improve the overall quality of child care. The bill would supplement wages by a minimum of $1000 per year for providers with child development associate credentials and a minimum of $3000 per year for providers with B.A.'s in the area of child development. These stipends will help attract new qualified workers to the field and increase the retention and skill level of current workers. FOCUS also would provide funds for scholarships so that we can continue to increase the qualifications of the child care workforce. Research on early childhood and brain development clearly demonstrates that the experiences children have early in life have a decisive, long-lasting impact on their later development and learning. We cannot expect children to transition to kindergarten and succeed in school if we do not take the necessary steps to provide quality care in the years prior to school entry. The average quality of child care is far poorer than what it should be in a country as wealthy and committed to our children's future as is ours. It is time we work to make quality child care for all children a national priority. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Focus Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Erin Doyel asked the question, ``what about my kid?'' Her kid in this case is Adrienne. Erin works as a financial administrative assistant. She earns $12,675 a year. She goes to work every day. She is eligible for the child tax credit. In fact, she receives the child tax credit. But what she will not receive is she will not receive the increase in the child tax credit that was passed this year, which would mean $400 to families with children who are eligible. But the Republicans made a decision that people like Erin and her daughter Adrienne will not receive it because they earn between $10,000 and $26,000 a year. These are families with children who go to work every day, but they will not be given the benefit of the tax cut, they will not get the increase in the child tax credit, they will not have an easier time supporting their family for all of the hard work they do at very difficult and low wages, because the Republicans made a decision that Erin and Adrienne will not be included. That is why Erin Doyel from Vallejo, California, is asking, what about my kid? Why are we treated differently than the rest of America's families?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am only reporting on what the Senate is doing. I am reporting; I am not characterizing.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, listen carefully, the growing sound and the roar we hear from the Senate is the sound of Republican Senators rushing to change their position on the child tax credit. What we hear is them now recognizing the incredible injustice they did to hard-working families with children who earned under $26,000 a year who will not get that $400 check for each of their children like other families this summer. The Republicans have recognized the injustice; but the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the leader of the Republicans in the House---- Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Senators are changing their position on the child care tax credit. It is in The New York Times. I could read the names of the Senators. That is what is happening there. Here, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says they are not going to correct this injustice to these families. These families will go without their $400 check that is so important to the income of those families and the ability to raise their children. How dare the Republicans suggest that these children are less valuable than the children of other American families.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, when the President and the Republican party made a decision that they would not extend the financial benefits of the increase in the child tax credit to all families, they essentially made a decision that they would leave out millions of young children who live in families who earn between $10,000 and $26,000 a year. What they said was somehow those families and those children were not worth as much as the rest of children and families in this country. Thirty years ago we made a decision to have a child tax credit to help families with the cost of raising their children, to ease the burdens of raising their children, educating them, providing health care, and it was extended to all Americans with children. Over time we have increased that child tax credit, and this year a decision was made that we would increase that child tax credit by $400 for each child, and those checks would go out this summer. But, tragically, in a back room, in the late night, in negotiating the bill under the leadership of Vice President Cheney, the Republicans made a decision that low income working families would not get that child tax credit for their children. They will not get that $400 per child increase this summer. Erin Doyel of Vallejo, California in the district in which I represent and her daughter, Adrienne, will not get that tax cut. Erin is going to work every day and earning $12,675 as a financial administrative assistant. Erin is doing everything that this Federal Government told her to do: To get off of welfare, to take responsibility for her child and to get a job. And she has been doing it and she is doing it well. But as we can see here, Erin and her daughter Adrienne, Erin is asking the question, What about my kid? Why is not my kid worth the same tax credit as the other children? Because I only make $12,000 a year? She needs this help for her family. She needs this benefit for her family so that she can provide the education, she can provide the wherewithal to hold her family together. She knows how much she needs it. She says they made a big mistake when they left her daughter out of the tax cut. She needs this money to help her pay the rent, to pay for her car, to pay for her job expenses. That is what she would do with that money. She would immediately put it back into the economy. That is why that tax credit was given to help those families with those expenses in a difficult environment. Some people say that this was a mistake by the Republicans, but the fact is we know now as the facts have come out it was no mistake. The Senate, in fact, put this tax credit in for Erin and her daughter, Adrienne. But the Republicans in the House decided they were not going to accept it. They wanted to use the money that that tax credit would cost to give a greater tax cut to those people making over a million dollars. If they had given a $400 tax credit to Erin and her daughter, Adrienne, and to other similarly situated families and children, those millionaires would have only gotten a tax cut this year of $88,000 as opposed to $93,000. So the Republicans in the House made a choice that they were going to deny Erin and Adrienne the tax credit. They were going to give it to the millionaires. Now, we understand that the Senate is going to change this. The Senate has come to its senses. The Senate now understands what they have done to Erin and her daughter, Adrienne, and the impact that they are having on her ability to hold their family together. But we are also told that the majority leader, the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said he is not going to do that. He is not going to pass that tax cut to Erin and her daughter, Adrienne. He is not going to do it. Republicans in the Senate who sponsored it originally, who voted for it, who participated have said we wanted to do this. It is a matter of equity. It is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of justice to these families who are working hard, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) stated, playing by the rules, doing what we asked them, that they should be able to share in this tax cut like other families with children. But the Republicans in the House say no. They say no to 12 million children and families earning between $10,000 and $26,000 a year. However you measure it, it is not very much money to survive in American society today. These are people who work hard. They do not get paid terribly well, but they get up every day and they go to work and they do many of the jobs that many other Americans would prefer not to do. And that is why we created the tax credit. To help them. And somehow, somehow along the way to finalizing that tax bill, somehow the Republicans in the House became mean spirited. Somehow they lost their sense of humanity and somehow they lost their direction in terms of economic justice and decency for all families and all children in America. It is a sad and tragic day when a party loses its direction and becomes that cynical about decent people like Erin and her daughter, Adrienne.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No, I will not.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The gentleman from California would say to the Chair, I think there is a very strong nexus being maintained here. It is about equity and it is about justice, and it is about economic justice. It is about historic claims. The child tax credit is not new. It is an old claim before this Congress, where the Congress decided the children of the Zuni tribe would be entitled to a tax credit if their parents worked. Many Zunis, I suspect, are eligible for that tax credit, but they are not under this tax bill because of the difficulty in finding the kind of wages that would pay what would make them eligible for that kind of tax credit. The nexus is here. The nexus is clear. The nexus is about an abuse of the legislative process, unlike the one which we are going through here. That is why my colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said that we should not operate business as usual. The ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means suggested the same thing, and I would just say that I think they are correct.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, once again, I would say that this bill is about a legislative process where all sides have been heard, agreement has come. That is why this bill is on suspension. And yet we have seen that that legislative process has not worked for millions of American families and their children when the tax bill left out their equitable claim; as the Zunis claim an equitable claim for their traditional water rights, for the historic water rights, these people were making an equitable claim on behalf of their children. They were making an equitable claim that their children, their family, should get the same $400 that millions of other American families got, but in designing the tax bill, the Republicans simply left out those wage earners, those people who go to work who earn $10,000 to $26,000 a year, some 12 million children who will not get the benefit of the child tax credit. The Zunis would argue, if we simply cut them out of the water development rights, if we simply cut them out of their historic water rights and we gave it to non-Indians for use in development or we protected the wetlands and we did not take care of their sacred lands, they would argue it is not fair. I am simply presenting that the arguments that are presented here today on behalf of the Zunis, which are very reasonable, very fair, were never presented on behalf of millions of Americans when they were cut out of a tax bill; and they will now not receive their check this summer as will others. Point of Order

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what is the colloquy about?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. This is an important bill. These lands that were given to the State of Wyoming by the Federal Government were for the purposes of educating their children. It was an effort by the Federal Government to try to put resources into their hands so that the resources would be there for the State to provide for that education. That is what we do with the child tax credit; we try to put resources into the hands of parents so that they will have the money to provide for the health and welfare of their children and for the expenses of holding their families together in difficult economic times, recognizing that we want our children properly cared for. That is what the State of Wyoming has done with these State lands. That is what the Federal Government did when it transferred the lands to the State of Wyoming; and it is for a very, very good purpose. Now we have the opportunity to transfer those lands to keep them out of other development within the boundaries of the national park to make sure the park can be consistent in its mission. It is one of the great parks in the world. It is one of the great ecosystems in the world with its diversity and with its habitat that it protects and provides for. That possibly is now under threat from development from what the gentlewoman from Wyoming described as the ultra-, ultra-wealthy who might build homes there. It sounds a little like class warfare. I do not think that is what is going on here, but since we opened up the subject of the classes here in the discussion of this bill, I want to raise the prospects of those individuals. Because not only is this a great national park in terms of its environment and ecosystems and its beauty and its importance in terms of the protections of surrounding areas and watersheds, it is also a huge economic engine. Because of its beauty, because of its importance, it drives millions of people from all over the world to come and visit the Tetons and come and visit Jackson and to experience the bounty of this country. To service those people, we have people working in the service industry. They work for the concessionaires and the parks; they work for the restaurants and the hotels and the tourism industry. They work as guides for fishermen, they work as guides for people who want to hike the Tetons, they run climbing schools. At the end of the year, they do not make very much money, but they have families. They have children. And today they get a child tax credit if they have children. They file it like everyone else. And in the tax bill 2 weeks ago, we increased that tax credit for Americans, families with children, an additional $400. Point of Order

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I am working hard, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Granted. If it is required by the Chair, I would be glad to put a map down on the table and talk about this in terms of the map of the Grand Teton National Park. This is about a nexus. This is about whether or not people are going to be able to afford to take those jobs in that park that tourism generates, a very, very important part of the western economy in this country, a part of our economy that is in serious trouble. There is a story today in the newspapers, I do not know if it is in The New York Times or the L.A. Times, that the national parks are suffering; that tourism is not only down from 9-11, it was down before 9-11. So what are the national parks trying to do? What are the concessionaires trying to do? What are the people who are on the perimeter of the park who run the hotels, run the lodging systems, the guide systems trying to do? They are trying to increase service to attract Americans and international visitors back to the national parks. But if their employees cannot sustain themselves with the jobs that are offered, then it is not going to work. One of the things we do to help these people who are working in these jobs where the wages are not very good is we provide a child tax credit for those people who are working and have families. But somehow last week the Republican leadership decided that that tax credit would not go to the employees of the Grand Teton National Park, the subject matter which we are talking about. Point of Order

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), in saying that it would be unconscionable for the House to continue to do business as usual when the voices and the needs of millions of hard- working American families have been closed out of the people's House. Without being able to participate in the final negotiations over the tax bill, with Vice President Cheney in the room, the Republican leaders of the Senate, the Republican leaders of the House, they decided to simply exclude some 6 million families, some 12 million children who would be entitled to the $400 increase in the child tax credit. That means that this summer those families on behalf of their children, those families that go to work every day would not get a $400 check as will millions of other American families on behalf of their children. But this administration and this Congress closed those voices out of the debate on the tax bill. They have quietly cut a bill to exclude the Senate amendment that was there to protect those families and to protect their children, and to help them educate their children and provide health care for their children. No, we cannot continue to do business as usual when this Republican leadership and the administration cuts millions of Americans out of the Democratic system.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the President's spokespeople, the Republicans in Congress and the Republican National Committee, appear to be having some trouble with the truth, that is, because they have suggested that everyone who pays taxes would benefit from the recent tax cut. They have said that those who pay the taxes will get the tax cut, that those who earn the least will benefit the most. It is simply not true. It is simply not true, because they made a decision to leave millions of families, with millions of children, out of the child tax credit, a tax credit that we give families to raise children. But they simply decided that those families earning between $10,000 and $26,000 a year would not be eligible for the child tax credit. Somehow I guess these families have additional money to raise their children that people over $26,000 a year do not have so they get to do this. They made a fundamental decision about unfairness, about inequity, about greed; and they decided that they would rather give this money to 200,000 millionaires so they could get a tax cut of $93,000 a year because if they gave this tax cut to those families who are going to work every day trying to support their children on low wages, that they would have to give those millionaires only $88,000 a year. So those families, those working American families between $10,000 and $26,000 a year, got nothing in terms of the increase in the child tax credit. The rest of the families in America will get a $400 check this summer. These families will get nothing. Yet the President, the Republicans in Congress, in the House and the Senate, want to suggest that this was an accident and they are going to cure it. It was no accident. It was never in their bill, in either version of their bill. They simply made the decision that they did not think these people were worthy of the child tax credit, a tax credit that passed this Congress on a bipartisan basis because we thought the government ought to do something to help these families with the cost of raising their children; so that those moms who wanted to stay home, maybe this would allow them to stay home, or those fathers who wanted to stay home, maybe this would allow them to stay home; or it would defer the cost of child care or health care or whatever it takes as we raise our children in this country. But the Republicans have now decided for millions of American families, they are not going to be treated the same. Of course we find out as we look at this tax bill for almost 50 million Americans, they will not be treated the same because they are not going to get much of a benefit. They just simply decided that they were going to declare class warfare on low-income working people in this country. There is no other result. But now they want to lie about it. Now they want to pretend like they were not part of it. Now they want to pretend like they are going to fix it. No, the Bush-Cheney class in America just declared warfare on working families. But that is only the beginning, because it is the Bush-Cheney class in America that has denied those same families an increase in the minimum wage because many of these families work at the minimum wage. The minimum wage today is worth $4.75 in real wages. They will not increase it. They will not give those families the child tax credit. This week later on the floor they are going to try to take away their overtime pay, and they are passing regulations so fewer and fewer Americans are eligible for overtime, a pay that many Americans use to hold their families together because that increase in pay for overtime makes a difference in their yearly salary in the support of their families. And, of course, for many of these same children who will not get the child tax credit, they are taking away their health care at the State level. When is it that the Bush administration decided that they were going to declare war on America's working families, especially low-income working families? One of my colleagues was here talking about how they fixed the marriage penalty, that they got rid of the marriage penalty. Well, if two people who are earning 10 or $12,000 a year get married, as single people, they would get a $2,500 credit because they are both low-income working people. If they get married, they lose $1,000 of their credit. They have almost a 50 percent tax assessed on them because they get married. Why is this happening to these people who are struggling to get up and go to work every day? Every day they go to work in hard, difficult jobs, jobs that many Americans would prefer not to do. And at the end of the year they end up poor. They end up struggling to take care of their children. They end up struggling to educate them. They end up struggling to provide them health care. They end up struggling to provide them with decent housing. And this government, this administration, the Bush administration, has decided to cut them out of the tax bill. And they want to talk about fairness in America? They want to talk about justice in America? They want to talk about freedom in America? I do not think so, Mr. and Mrs. America, because they made a conscious decision.