George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea. This law was built up about guaranteeing to these children and to their families that they would have certain rights that would provide them an access to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. And over the years we have built up a system of accountability to make sure that that education was, in fact, provided to these children. Now we come along with this voucher amendment where immediately upon the exchange of money from the school district to the private school, or from the parent to the private school, those rights are eviscerated. Because this bill deems upon acceptance of the voucher that these children are getting a free and appropriate education. We do not know whether they will or not. If the children decide they are not and they come back to the public school system, does the school system get to bring some of the money back? Is the money stuck over there? Does the school system now have to pony up additional money to educate that child? I think the answer is yes, they do because they have an obligation. The fact of the matter is these schools, they do not have to accept the child if the disability is too expensive. They do not have to accept the child. They get to pick and choose among the children. The public schools have to take the children as they come to give them a free and appropriate education. These schools do not have to be certified. They do not have to be qualified. They do not have to be State licensed. What happens to the money? You just get to take this money, the taxpayers' money and not have these accountabilities. I can understand the desire; and, in fact, the law provides for parents who think their children can get a better education at a private school with special skills or special talents or a record of handling these children in the appropriate way. They can petition to go to these schools. In 1997, we had so many people leaving the system that we said you cannot do that because you are sticking the school district for so much money. And there was no process, there was no determination whether or not this was a suitable placement. Now you can just opt out. If the parent is lucky and if the child is lucky and it works, fine. If it does not, the school district is out the money, the child is out the education, and we are back in the stew. This is just an unacceptable amendment. Nobody is required to make adequate yearly progress with these children under Leave No Child Behind. There is no accountability under that. There is for the school. There is no accountability in this legislation. There is no accountability under, in many instances, State law. So I do not understand. The President, the Congress decided that we are going to build a system of accountability, and now, still, simply, you can opt out of that. If students need supplemental services, your legislation provides for supplemental services without limit to provide for that child that is hearing impaired, that is sight impaired, where they can get additional services. I assume that is the purpose of the supplemental services. But this voucher goes far beyond that. This voucher simply gives some level of scholarship to the parents to take. But that does not mean the parents will get into that school. They may settle for a school that does not quite provide those services. It turns out that does not work, and they are back in the public school system. Meanwhile, the public school system trying to hold on to a critical mass of people skilled to deal with the education of children with disabilities, finds out that the cost per service per child goes up. Again, as we have seen in the McKay program, about 25 percent of these people go out into those things. They get their scholarships. They go to schools, and they are coming back. We do not know quite why yet they are coming back; but obviously as they come back to the public school system, they are more expensive than when they left. There ought to be some screen to know that this, in fact, is going to enhance the children's education. We understand and deal with, all the time, parents who want another location for the child. That is not this system. This is just a wide open voucher system without any accountability. It ought to be rejected by the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) because I think this amendment causes a great deal of trouble in terms of the questions of the stigma of people. I have talked to an awful lot of parents who have great qualms about whether their children should be identified in special education programs, whether to try to get the child into the program when they know the child needs help or not because they are concerned about what that means in the future. We have struggled with this in the committee and on both sides of the aisle, this question of underidentification, overidentification, and of the illnesses that we should be treating in this setting. I do not think that this language, and maybe it can be improved before the end of this process, but I do not think that this language is proper. It suggests that only a select number of people are fit to pass judgment on whether or not these children are eligible or not, and I think it does create a problem in terms of the question of mental disability and of special education. I hope that we would not agree to this amendment. I think it is very damaging on the front that we have tried to make some progress on with the public.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. The arguments here are very similar to the previous amendment. One, it is a very bad idea in terms of policy and accountability and responsibility to these children, but it is also a bit of a hoax. The idea that the parent can take the Federal share of the money, which the gentlewoman says is $1,400, maybe as high as $1,800, and go out and buy the same education they are going to get in the public school system for their children on the school-year basis, well, where does the rest of the money come from? At least if this bill had some intellectual integrity, it would say take all the money the school district is going to spend, take the $6,000 on a national average, give that to the parent and let them try to find this education. Obviously, if the parent cannot come up with the additional money, they cannot provide for an education. Or if the child is severely disabled, this will not begin to cover those services. Remember, most of the people who go out to get these services end up suing the school district for those services and the school pays the whole amount. They pay $15,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 because of the kind of intense services that these children need in order to qualify to get a free and appropriate education. That is not what this amendment is about. This is just a shuck and a jive, that somehow you can go out and get these first-class services for a severely disabled child for $1,400. Again, the bill allows for, and I think it makes sense on one level, supplemental services. If $1,400 will buy the kind of services for a child that is moderately disabled or has a reading problem or something, and is labeled as disabled, fine, give them the supplemental services. But the notion someone can go out and buy an education for $1,400 is a hoax on the parents.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this committee has struggled long and hard over many years to try and reduce litigation in this legislation. I think we have a magnet here in terms of litigation. And I also think because the definition of ``medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition,'' I am not quite sure how we are going to comply with that in the number of conditions that children have. The number of means by which we now diagnose children I am not sure fit within that definition. By the same token, I suggest that does not mean that they are not properly enrolled in these programs and do not have a disability that requires special attention in terms of their ability to get an education. I think this is a really bad amendment, and I would urge Members to oppose it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important piece of legislation and I hope the Members will have an opportunity to listen to the debate. I wanted to thank my colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of our committee, for the work and effort they have put in on behalf of this legislation. We went through an extensive mark-up. We had an opportunity to offer a number of amendments. Unfortunately, most of them from our side were not accepted. But I believe that, in fact, this is a matter of good intentions by both sides of this debate. I must state, however, at this time I think this bill does considerable harm. I think that this bill falls short in protecting what is the basic civil rights of children with disabilities to get a free and appropriate education. That is the intent of the law. And I am concerned that this bill does not do what it says it should do with respect to guaranteeing the basic rights of those children. This bill also falls short on another front, and that is the guaranteed full funding of this Act. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is right, the Congress has done a much better job in the last 6 or 7 years in providing those fundings, but the fact is that the promise that has been made to the local school districts has not been kept; and even this year in an appropriations bill passed just a couple of weeks ago, we are $1 billion 200 million behind that curve; and yet we will not be allowed to offer amendments to require that that funding be mandatory and that full funding be achieved by this legislation. That is a 30 year-old promise that we made, and it is unfortunate that we will not be allowed to have that amendment. Yes, many in the school establishment and the education establishment are for this Act. It probably makes their lives somewhat easier; but we ought to be thinking also about the rights of these children and the protections of these children and the needs of these children and their families; to make sure that, in fact, the educational opportunity is provided to these children with disabilities. It is for that reason that after reviewing this legislation that the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Education of Young Children, and so many other organizations have contacted the Members of Congress and said that this bill is unacceptable, that they oppose this bill because it does not provide that protection along with 14,000 other people who have sent e-mails and petitions against this legislation, representing the parents and families of these children who know how difficult it is to get that education for the children. And yet at the same time, when we have not met full funding, when we are weakening the rights of the children and the families, we also see that this legislation allows for the diversion of funds, some of which are for good purposes, but when you do not have the funding in place, you have to raise the question of whether or not this money ought to be diverted from the system. And also, we have to look at that diversion of these Federal funds targeted for the education of children with disabilities at a time when these funds at the local level are becoming more and more scarce because of the budget problems of our States that is now so well documented. Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am deeply concerned about the waivers that are authorized in the name of paperwork reduction for the States. I am very concerned that this will allow the waivers of documentation to ensure access to a general education curriculum, documentation ensuring accommodations of State tests, information on a child's academic achievement, information on transition plans for post secondary education, procedural safeguard notices provided to parents so that they are aware of their rights, prior written notices to parents of the services and placements that their child will receive. These are fundamental to these families. It is fundamental to these children. It is fundamental to making sure that they can get the education that they have sought for their child so that the child will have a full opportunity to participate in American society. And yet we see as we go into the due process hearings, you go in to enforce your child's civil rights, that you would be barred from raising new issues at a process hearing even if the evidence surfaces. If there is new evidence that comes to the attention of the school and the parents, you cannot raise it in these hearings. You cannot raise it. You cannot. All they have to decide is whether or not you are getting a free and appropriate education. But if there are errors made, the parent cannot raise them. Why are we precluding these parents? The fact of the matter is that many school districts, we may not want to say it is one in our district, but there are a huge number of school districts that make it very difficult for parents to get the free and appropriate education, to get the services. Huge numbers of these children do not get services. They get put on the list for services. And there is a world of distinction between being on the list for services and getting services when your child is in an educational setting and you run the risk that they are going to fall further and further behind, and then you need additional services to have them catch up. Then we have a cap on attorneys fees on this legislation, which says that it is going to be harder and harder for low income parents to find a lawyer to take these cases to challenge the school districts where that educational opportunity is being denied. But the school district, there is no limitation on their use of tax dollars paid for by these parents to defend what they have done. Now, nothing there. It is just that you cannot get attorney's fees when you bring a case because your child has been denied that education. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this legislation is taking us back to another time. With the discipline provisions, where we are now going to determine this basic right to an education, this basic civil rights action based upon the code of conduct in individual schools, so that children with autism, children with cerebral palsy, severely emotionally disturbed children, are going to be determined by that code of conduct. You ought to read those codes of conduct and see whether or not that is how you would like your child to be measured up if they have Down syndrome, because unacceptable displays of affection are reasons for suspension. You say a school district would not do that, but these are the same school districts that are throwing Harry Potter out of school. So we cannot take the educational needs of these children and the civil rights protections in this law and have them open to that kind of whim. And I think we ought to be very careful about that. I would urge Members to vote against this legislation. It fails on the protections for children and it fails on the funding, and this will be our last chance to try and get and redeem the promise that every Member of this Congress has made to local school districts that we would provide the funding. We said we would provide the funding in No Child Left Behind. We are $5 billion behind on that one, and we are a $1.2 billion behind on this one this year. That is $7 billion that we are down at a time when the States are struggling, and at a time when it is becoming more and more expensive to educate these children. We ought not do that. We ought to have an amendment here on full funding and we ought to make it mandatory, and we ought to protect the rights of these children. This is a very, very important bill that we take up here today. I urge members to listen carefully to this debate. I first want to thank my colleagues on the Education Committee, Representative Castle, Representative Woolsey, and Chairman Boehner, for the time and effort they have put into this legislation. I appreciate the other side's willingness to discuss the issues in this bill, and to take the time in Committee over a 2-day mark-up to debate the 30-some amendments that members on both sides of the aisle offered. However, despite what I know were many good intentions on the other side of the aisle, this bill is fundamentally flawed. The Bill Does Harm: The bill we will consider today has many, many provisions that jeopardize the quality of education provided to children with disabilities and their civil and due process rights under current law. This Bill Falls Short In What It Does Not Do: Moreover, this bill breaks yet another promise to couple resources with reform. Despite promises made last year by the Administration, and by the Republican leadership of this Congress, the bill before us today fails to ensure that additional resources will accompany these major changes to the law. Stakes Are High: The stakes in this reauthorization are very high. The reason we need a Federal law is that students with disabilities have special needs. They require extra attention and accommodations. And for a variety of reasons, without external pressure and assistance, many schools cannot or will not provide the services and accommodations necessary to ensure that every child has a free and appropriate public education. Before 1975, approximately 1 million children with disabilities were excluded from public education. Millions more were given an inferior education even though they attended school. There are many provisions in this bill that would turn back the clock on the progress we have made. But you don't have to take my word for it. I have received stacks of letters on this from parents, educators, and experts who have expressed grave concerns about this bill. Dozens of national organizations--including the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Education of Young Children, and almost every group that exists to advocate on behalf of students with specific disabilities--opposes this bill. And an ever growing list--at current count 14,000--of individuals has signed an on-line petition expressing their opposition. Many of the fights we will have today pit the interests of parents and students against those of school board members and administrators. What drives these fights primarily is the scarcity of resources. It is a problem we could easily solve. If we had the will. Almost every member of the House is on record in support of full funding either as cosponsor of a bill, as a ``yea'' vote on non-binding resolution, or as a speaker on special orders. And all of the other vehicles we have in this body for pretending we are doing something. But now the moment of truth has arrived. And suddenly the past supporters of full funding, under pressure from their leadership, are scrambling for cover. It would have taken only an additional $1.2 billion in the appropriations bill just passed in February to put us on the road to full funding. The other side will tell you that we have done all that is possible. That there are no offsets to provide additional funding. With all due respect, those arguments do not stand up under scrutiny. What we are asking for to ensure that children with disabilities have the accommodations, the aides, the qualified teachers, the curriculum, and other things they need to receive a quality education is chump change compared to other legislation this House has passed within the last couple of years. No one asked for an offset when this Congress spent over a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. No one asked for an offset when we provided $99 billion over 10 years to repeal the estate tax for the richest 2 percent of decedents. No one asked for an offset when we spent $87 billion over 10 years on the farm bill. No one asked for an offset when we spent $36 billion over 10 years on a pointless energy bill. But suddenly we cannot come up with a measly $1.2 billion. Shame on us. Shame on us. Diversion of Funds: To add insult to injury, H.R. 1350 contains many provisions that allow States and school districts to divert funds--all IDEA funds--away from direct services to students with disabilities during the regular school day. Here is a partial list: Fifteen percent of funds can be diverted to a new ``pre-referral'' program; Twenty percent of funds can be used to supplant local education funds; and An unlimited percentage of funds can be diverted to ``supplemental services'' required under the Title I program of Federal education law. These are all worthy purposes. But because we fail to provide the necessary funding, we are setting an even more intense competition for scarce resources. Resources that--given State and local budget crises and the prolonged economic downturn--are becoming scarcer and scarcer every day. H.R. 1350 authorizes a pilot project under which the Secretary of Education may grant waivers to up to 10 States under the auspices of ``paperwork reduction.'' Under this authority, many bedrock requirements of IDEA could be waived, including: Individualized Education Programs-- Documentation on ensuring access to general education curriculum; Documentation ensuring accommodations on State tests; Information on a child's academic achievement; and Information on transition plans for postsecondary education or employment. Procedural Safeguard Notices--Notices provided to parents to ensure they are aware of their rights. Prior Written Notices--Notices to parents on the services and placement their child will receive. Accountability and Public Reporting--State and local achievement and drop out data, disaggregation by race or LEP status, disproportionate representation of minorities in special education. This bill Weakens Due Process Protections for Parents in All 50 States--even if children and their parents are lucky enough to live in one of the States that is not part of the waiver program, they cannot escape this bill's damage. The Republican bill would fundamentally undermine the due process rights of all parents: Parents would be barred from raising new issues at due process hearings--even if new evidence has surfaced; Hearing officers would be hamstrung to limit rulings to the denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); Schools would not be liable for procedural, due process, and other violations; and Schools would have little to fear in denying parents due process rights because parents would effectively have no recourse, no remedy. H.R. 1350 institutes a one-year statute of limitations on violations of IDEA. Virtually the only thing that would have a shorter statutory reach would be parking tickets and traffic violations. H.R. 1350 Caps Attorneys' Fees Reimbursement to parents, requiring Governors to set the rate of attorneys' fees reimbursement when a parent wins a due process hearing. This would allow caps on attorneys' fees but only for parents. School districts would still be free to hire and pay, at public expense, the salaries of lawyers who are on the opposite side of the legal battle from parents. This provision will effectively prevent low- and moderate-income parents from acquiring legal representation to protect the rights of their disabled children. H.R. 1350 would allow students to be expelled unilaterally and placed in an ``alternative setting'' for any violation of a school's ``code of conduct.'' This is the single most egregious provision in this bill. It will set back the disability rights movement 30 years. Under the guise of discipline, many children will confront the same obstacles they confronted before IDEA was passed--school districts that can say unilaterally: ``You are not welcome here. We do not want to educate you.'' Under this provision, a student could be expelled for virtually anything: chewing gum, shouting out in class, carrying a plastic eating utensil with their lunch, inappropriate displays of public affection, being late for class, not completing homework. Moreover, placement in an alternative setting is unilateral. There is no ``manifestation determination'' that would mitigate the consequences for students whose violations are the result of their disability: A child with Tourrete's syndrome could be expelled for shouting out in class; A child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for inadvertently making contact with another student or teacher; A developmentally disabled child (low IQ) could be expelled for an ``inappropriate public affection;'' A child with Attention Deficit Disorder could be expelled for repeatedly being late for class or getting out of his or her seat. As I said in my opening, I think many of the provisions in this bill are well-intentioned. Some make sensible improvements in the law. But overall the bill is fundamentally flawed. I hope we are able to improve the bill here on the floor and in conference and look forward to working with my colleagues in that effort. I hope we can make these so that this law makes a positive change in lives of children with disabilities and their families. And so that it garners the strong bipartisan support and consensus it has long enjoyed.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman for her remarks, and to thank again the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his help in getting this legislation to the floor; to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his cosponsorship and his support for this program; to our speakers this afternoon in support of this resolution; and the gentleman from Nevada for taking time out to bring this to the floor this afternoon under suspensions. Finally, I want to thank my very long-time dear friend, Peter Yarrow, for all the time and the effort that he has taken on behalf of the children of this Nation to promote their healthy development and their emotional stability. He has reached out to so many people across this country and made them aware of this effort, of this need on behalf of our children. It is a wonderful gift that he has given to the children of this Nation, to the educators of this Nation, to caregivers in all different settings for our children, and I just really want to thank him for that effort. I am honored to sponsor this legislation, and I want to thank the House for giving us time to bring it to their attention and I ask my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his remarks. The fact that he and I are working together on this, when we disagree on so many other issues, is in the spirit of this program. And as our great former Speaker, Tip O'Neill, used to say, you have to be able to disagree around here and not be disagreeable. I am working on that talent, but I have not achieved it yet. But this is in that spirit. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House of Representatives today is considering my resolution to honor the outstanding program that is working with school districts, camps, teachers, and students across America to promote the healthy social and emotional development of children. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his cosponsorship of this legislation and for his own strong support of Operation Respect. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) was responsible for arranging for Peter Yarrow to visit the Republican Conference last year to talk about this program and to sing some of the songs, an achievement that deserves recognition in the House as well. I also want to thank my cosponsors for their support of this resolution, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is a strong supporter of character education programs in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in recent years. Lastly, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and his staff for their assistance in having this resolution placed before the House expeditiously. Most of us here are familiar with the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program. Last year, its founder and tireless advocate, Peter Yarrow of the legendary trio Peter, Paul and Mary, spoke to both the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus about the necessity for, and the success of, this program. Many of us have seen him as he has appeared before dozens of school boards, teacher organizations, parents groups throughout this Nation promoting sound emotional development and tolerance among our children. We are all painfully aware of the images, language and experiences of children that assault their self-esteem, their attitudes toward others and their sense of compassion and tolerance. From bullying in the schoolyards to the lyrics of many popular songs, to the violence in film and news broadcasts, young children in our society, and adults too, are assaulted by messages and images of intolerance, brutality, victimization, and bias. Any reasonable person must be concerned about the impact of those values on these young children, now and throughout their lives. And we were concerned that they be taught alternative values that help us build closer personal relationships and stronger communities. Fortunately, there are efforts and institutions that are effectively promoting positive values and respect, tolerance and understanding and compassion. Our churches and synagogues play that role. Programs like Head Start and after-school programs and sports and cultural experiences heavily influence children as well. The character education programs that this Congress has been funding in recent years have similarly made great contributions. One of the innovations enjoying great popularity and success and which we honor today by the passage of this resolution is Operation Respect. Through the diligent efforts of Peter Yarrow and many educators, psychologists and advocates that work with him, Operation Respect has conducted over 230 workshops throughout the Nation reaching over 18,000 educators in 27 States. Tens of thousands of copies of its professionally developed curriculum have been distributed to teachers in after-school programs and camp operators and others who are similarly committed to making a difference in the lives of these children. Teachers love this program and have given it their strong endorsement. And today we should add the United States House of Representatives to that list saluting this great effort on behalf of America's children and America's best values. Lastly, I would like to note that Steve Seskin, the composer of the song ``Don't Laugh At Me,'' which has inspired Mr. Yarrow's efforts, is a resident of my congressional district. Mr. Seskin is a very highly respected composer and recording artist as well in the folk and country venues; and in this case his music has helped to inspire a movement that is having dramatic and beneficial effects on millions of young Americans. And I appreciate the support of all Members of this House on the resolution. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House of Representatives today is considering my resolution to honor an outstanding program that is working with school districts, camps, teachers and students across America to promote the health social and emotional development of children. I want to thank Duke Cunningham for his co-sponsorship of this legislation and for his own strong support for Operation respect. Congressman Cunningham was responsible for arranging for Peter Yarrow to visit the Republican Conference last year to talk about this program and sing a few songs, and that achievement deserves the recognition of the House as well. I also want to thank my other co-sponsors for their support for this Resolution, and particularly, Mr. Obey for his strong support of character education programs and the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in recent years. Lastly, my thanks to Chairman John Boehner and his staff for their assistance in having this Resolution placed before the House expeditiously. Most of us are already familiar with the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program. Last year, its founder and tireless advocate, Peter Yarrow of the legendary trio Peter, Paul and Mary, spoke to both the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus about the necessity for, and the success of, this program. Many of us have seen him as he has also appeared before dozens of school boards, teacher organizations, parent groups and others throughout the nation promoting sound emotional development and tolerance among out children. We all are painfully aware of the images, language and experiences of children that assault their self-image, their attitudes towards others, and their sense of compassion and tolerance. From bullying in school yards to the lyrics of many popular songs to violence in film and news broadcasts, young children in our society--and adults, too--are assaulted by messages and images of intolerance, brutality, victimization and bias. Any reasonable person must be concerned about the impact of those values on these young people now and throughout their lives, and we are concerned that they be taught alternative values that help us to build closer personal relationships and stronger communities. These concerns have great immediacy. Just last week, there was yet another example of terrible school violence. A study of school violence in California recently concluded that ``alienated and disaffected young people are escaping the attention of families, friends and teachers until they explode.'' Meanwhile, programs like boot camps, may enjoy public approval but consume huge amounts of money and do not have a record of success. Fortunately, there are efforts and institutions that are effectively promoting positive values of respect, tolerance, understanding and compassion. Our churches and synagogues play that role; programs like Head Start and after-school programs and sports and cultural experiences heavily influence children as well. The character education programs that this Congress has been funding in recent years have similarly made great contributions. One of the innovations that has enjoyed great popularity and success, and which we honor today by the passage of this resolution, is Operation Respect. Through the diligent efforts of Peter Yarrow and many other educators, psychologists and advocates who work with him, Operation Respect has conducted 230 workshops throughout the nation, reaching over 18,000 educators in 27 states. Tens of thousands of copies of its professionally-developed curriculum have been distributed to teachers, after-school programs, camp operators and others who are similarly committed to making a difference in the lives of these children. As H. Res. 161 states, the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program ``increases mutual respect and fellowship among hundreds of thousands of elementary school children, creating an environment for students that improves focus on their schoolwork and encourages social and emotional growth.'' Evaluations of the program have found overwhelming support for its message among teachers, parents and students alike, as well as increased tolerance and a reduction in such negative behaviors such as bullying. Among professional educators and others, Operation Respect has enjoyed similar popularity. Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program has been recognized by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City Colleges and Education, the National Education Association, the Council of Great City Schools, the American School Counselors Association, the National School Boards Association, the National Middle School Association, and the American Federation of Teachers. Teachers love this program; here's a representative comments from a teacher in southwestern Virginia: Over the years I have used many approaches and programs, all of which have good points. ``Don't Laugh At Me'' encompasses all those strong points into one easy to use program. I've seen a difference in my class even though we have only used it for a few months. One of the biggest benefits is the dialog that comes from using the program. The kids love the CD and found the video to be very powerful. Now that I have had a chance to use ``Don't Laugh At Me'' and see its benefits, I will be doing a presentation to our staff about it. I guess I sound like a commercial, but I honestly loves this program! Today, we should add the United States House of Representatives to that list saluting this great effort on behalf of America's children and America's best values. Lastly, I would like to note that Steve Seskin, the composer of the song ``Don't Laugh At Me'' which inspired Mr. Yarrow's efforts, is a resident of my Congressional district. Mr. Seskin is a very highly respected composer and recording artist, well known in the folk and country venues, and in this case, his music has helped to inspire a movement that is having dramatic and beneficial effects on millions of young Americans. I appreciate the support of all Members for this Resolution today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the distinguished majority leader got up here and said the first priority of the President was the economy. That is interesting for a President who over his 2 years in office has lost 2\1/2\ million jobs, 2\1/2\ million American workers who do not have jobs and hundreds of thousands of others that have run out of unemployment and the President has resisted extending their unemployment benefits. And we will see what happens this May as hundreds of thousands more lose their unemployment and they have no income support for their families, to pay for their homes, to try to help keep their children in school and to pay the doctors' bills. It is also interesting that he says that there are two purposes: one is to give tax relief to stimulate the economy, and the other is to keep the government from spending the money because they want to spend all the money. The last time I looked, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the Republicans controlled the Senate, and the Republicans controlled the White House; but apparently we have got to destroy the American economy with these tax cuts before they kill again. They cannot control themselves from spending trillions of dollars. They cannot control themselves from running up the deficit. They inherited a $2 trillion surplus, and they have turned it into a $4 trillion debt. What happened with these people? They have no fiscal discipline. So now they want to spend a trillion dollars to create half as many jobs as the Democratic plan will create for $150 billion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who served in this House with the late Phillip Burton, who remember his vibrant, unrelenting and passionate leadership, and who share his dreams for an America where every resident enjoys dignity and equality--for those of us fortunate enough to have known and collaborated with him, today is a day of rededication. It is almost impossible to believe that 20 years have passed since Phil Burton departed this scene, far too early and, I am sure he would admit, with far too much work left undone. He served with distinction in this Chamber from 1964 to the day he died, 20 years ago today. They simply do not make politicians like Phil Burton anymore, or at least, not enough of them, and this House and the country are much the worse for the shortage. Those who worked with Phil never forgot the experience, for good or bad. He was a brilliant tactician, an unrelenting liberal, and a tireless advocate. He was not especially lovable, but he wasn't looking for love; he was looking for results, and he won the respect of friends and adversaries alike. Phil would not like what he would see in American politics today. After decades of struggle and a decade of unparalleled economic prosperity, Americans work the longest work hours, for the lowest disposable income, with the smallest pensions and health insurance coverage and the least vacation time or maternity leave of any Western industrial nation. Today, the distribution of wealth in this country is more unequal than at any time since the New Deal, and is the most unequal of any society in the advanced industrial world. This is not the world Phil Burton would have wanted two decades after his death. And yet our country in 2003, however enduring its problems, is a vastly better place for Phillip Burton's service. Virtually all of the important steps forward taken in America during the turbulent 60's and 70's--civil rights, labor protections, pension security, education, land preservation, national parks--were deeply affected by Phillip Burton's tireless efforts. He was, in the words of Ted Simon in the Los Angeles Times, a ``stupendous and original figure'' who changed the political and legislative landscape as few before him ever dared to imagine. Surely the greatest disappointment of his life was his failure to become Majority Leader, a race he lost by a single vote. And yet how proud he would be to know that one of his political godchildren--of which I happily count myself as one--would two decades later occupy the highest position in this House held by a Democrat, and the first woman to ever lead a party in Congress, his fellow San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi. I knew Phil Burton throughout my entire life. He and my father worked together to build the modern California Democratic Party in the years after World War II. Many of the outstanding political leaders of our state, including George Moscone, Willie Brown, scores of members of the Legislature and Congress--including our current senate president John L. Burton--were students, friends and collaborators of Phil Burton. When I came to Congress in 1975, I was placed on the same committees as Phil--Interior and Education and Labor. As a junior member, I saw first hand his extraordinary political acumen in meeting after meeting, often in his secret office in the Longworth Building, as he planned everything from minimum wage increases to welfare policy, to his historic mega-parks bill, or his even more impressive reapportionment map in 1982. Phil knew more details about any issue than just about anyone I have known here, and he knew more about almost everyone's district, too. Members might beg him to draw a line a little more in their favor, but Phil would be able to recite from memory, and without computers, the precise registration numbers in the newly configured district. ``You're in your mother's arms,'' he'd tell disappointed colleagues, ``now get to work.'' The Congress and the Nation are very different from when Phil served here. The tone is different; the agenda is different; and our dedication to using the power granted us by the voters to improve the lives of the working people, minorities, the poor, the immigrants and to improve the environment--well, that's very different, too. I'd like to believe we'd be a better country if Phil Burton had gotten to be Majority Leader and Speaker of the House. Instead, 20 years ago today, we lost a ``brawling character and legislative strategist extraordinaire,'' in the words of Richard Cohen. In the sprawling, wildly popular Golden Gate National Recreation Area that he created--the Nation's most popular urban park--stands for all time an imposing statute of Phil Burton, tie askew, jacket flapping, arm outstretched. It is Phil at full throttle, in command, perpetually barking out a command direction and organizing the troops. There are a number of smaller models of that statute in some offices on the Hill, reminding us what it was like to serve with a true congressional legend, and continuing to summon up the best we have to offer for all the people of this nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I have been to Kaktovik. I have been to the North Slope. I have been to the mountains. I have been to the plains. I have been there in the winter, I have been there in the spring, and I have been there in the summer. And, yes, it is a wilderness area. No, it does not have 200-foot-tall trees. No, it does not have lakes. It does not have a lot of attributes that we consider here in the lower 48, but it is pristine, and it is a wilderness, and it is worth saving. And it is certainly worth saving when you consider how much energy, how much energy this Nation is prepared to waste under this legislation. If it is so valuable, why are we wasting it? Certainly you would not waste it to go in and invade this wilderness area for this purpose. It simply makes no sense at all. I have talked to the natives up there. I have talked to the whaling captains. I have been all through their community, and I understand their desire. But this is a national asset. This is not to be determined by the whaling captains. This is not to be determined by the Congressperson from that district. This is a national asset and it ought to be protected as such. We ought to understand that we do not have an energy policy that is worthy of this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to invite our colleagues to join us in honoring the Jimmy Doolittle Raiders on the 61st Anniversary of their remarkable bombing raid during World War II. After Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, a series of sudden assaults against several Pacific Islands, and a devastating invasion of mainland China, the Japanese appeared invincible. In a mission cloaked in secrecy, Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle was selected as the leader based on his prowess as a military pilot and skills as a titleholder in civilian air races. Doolittle had the right stuff--inspiring leadership skills, flamed by a successful track record of pushing military and civilian aircraft to their operational limits. On April 18, 1942, fifteen B-25s lifted off the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Hornet and headed for Japan. The challenge was to launch sixteen Army Air Corps B-25 bombers, designed for takeoffs from long land-based runways, from a perilously short 250-foot takeoff area on the deck of a U.S. Navy carrier, and then fly 450 miles to Japan. The plan was to fly at treetop level to evade radar detection, then bomb seven targets selected as the enemy's primary war-making industrial sites, before heading to safe landing sites in China. However, to preserve the element of surprise, the B-25s were launched 700 miles out to sea, a decision that did add to the surprise but also limited the effectiveness of the raid. One plane managed to land near Vladivostok, Russia, where its crew was interred for 14 months before escaping through Iran. In one of the other crews, two men drowned and one died on bailout. Eight Raiders were captured by Japanese forces and, became POWs for the duration of the war. Of these, three were executed and one died of malnutrition. The other four were released after three and a half years as POWs. Other Raiders bailed out over China and were assisted by the Chinese. While the raid did not succeed at destroying the selected targets, some of the crews dropped their bombs in Japanese territory. But more importantly, the raid has been recognized as a major turning point for the United States, boosting its morale and leading to an American offensive and the battle of Midway, which ultimately led to victory in the Pacific. Of the 80 original Raiders, 73 survived the raid, 19 of whom are still alive and celebrating today. The 61st Reunion of the Doolittle Raiders will be held from April 15 to April 19 in our California congressional districts, in Fairfield, Vacaville, and Travis Air Force Base. The event will jumpstart the fundraising phase of the Jimmy Doolittle Air and Space Museum Foundation--a $50 million project that honors the history of flight, military air power in the defense of our nation, and the future of space technology. We know that the Members of the House of Representatives join us in honoring all the Doolittle Raiders for their service, their courage and their sacrifice.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, and I yield to the gentleman to explain his request.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I want to join the gentleman in supporting this resolution congratulating the Laborers' International Union for the 100th anniversary of the founding of this union. Our resolution cites the grand history of this union from its beginning, when Samuel Gompers, the first president of the American Federation of Labor, challenged laborers across the country to coordinate their activities into one cohesive unit; and in response, 25 delegates from over 17 cities, representing 8,000 laborers, met in Washington, D.C., on April 13 in 1903. From that date to this date, again the laborers meet in this city under the leadership of Mr. Terry O'Sullivan, their current president, to deal with the issues confronted by this union. This is a union, if we look across the American landscape, that has simply built America. The laborers were there first on most construction projects, be they public or private projects. It is a grand union that has undergone many reiterations in the past and represented many different kinds of workers, but most of us know today it is the hard-working members of the Laborers' International Union; and I want to extend my congratulations. And I also want to recognize the work of their director of legislative affairs, Don Kaniewski, who does such outstanding work on Capitol Hill on behalf of the Laborers' Union. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today my good friend from Vermont, the Honorable Bernie Sanders, in cosponsoring his bi-partisan legislation to protect the pension benefits of older employees. Over 100 members of the House are original co-sponsors of this important bill. I am also very pleased that this bill enjoys the support of the AFL- CIO, the AARP, the Communication Workers of America, the Pension Rights Center, and other organizations as well as individual employees throughout the country impacted by what are known in the pension world as ``cash balance plan conversions.'' These groups and individuals have been important leaders in this very difficult but important fight. Millions of white-collar employees and other workers in America will benefit from our bill. Our bill is about fairness. Our bill says that if a company with a traditional defined benefit plan switches--in mid- stream--to a cash balance plan that costs that company less, an older employee has the right to choose to be in whichever of the two plans is better for him or her. We say, let the employee choose. As you know, the reason that employers can save hundreds of millions of dollars by switching to the increasingly popular cash balance plans is because they will pay their employees less in benefits. We are not proposing that all employers must have a traditional defined benefit plan for all employees. We are not saying that, nor could we. We are saying very clearly, however, that if you promised an employee a certain pension, pay that employee the pension you promised. Our bill would guarantee the right of employees who are 40 years old or older, or who have worked for ten or more years for the same company, to choose to stay in the traditional defined benefit pension plan even if the company decides to convert that plan to a cash balance plan. When Treasury Secretary Snow visited with Senators Durbin and Harkin this past January prior to his confirmation, he told them that he believed in choice. He told them that his railroad company, CSX, offered choice. He said a board he sat on, Verizon, offered choice. But now he is overseeing a pending change to pension regulations at the Department of Treasury that would not require companies to offer choice. Under the pending rules, a well-meaning company would be allowed to offer choice or otherwise treat their employees fairly. The problem is that the rules do not require that they be treated fairly. That is wrong. And that is why we are sponsoring this legislation. As Bernie pointed out a few weeks ago, no member of Congress would want to see the pension system here changed in mid-stream if it meant that after working for 25 years you would find your expected pension cut in half Millions of employees across the country don't want to see their hard-earned benefits cut either. But they are afraid. They are looking at their retirement years, after a lifetime of work, and they are afraid that after a cash balance conversion they will lose half of the benefits they expected and worked so hard to achieve. The General Accounting Office has documented that conversions especially hurt older employees and can cost them as much as half of their pension benefits. These employees are looking at the cost of health insurance, the cost of college for their children, and the cost of retirement. They have counted on their pension to help them through some of those costs. But under a conversion, they risk seeing those benefits and those dreams, cut. Mr. Speaker, I have been contacted by employees in every industry from across the country, from the airline industry, the finance industry, and industrial companies. They are wondering why in the world would President Bush promote new rules that deliberately give employers the legal protection to slash pension benefits. The President's proposal raises serious questions about the direction in which he is taking the nation and the people who work so hard every day to make ends meet. The President does not have a policy to create jobs. The President does not have a policy to eliminate the budget deficit. The President does not have a policy to provide health insurance to the uninsured. But President Bush does have a plan to help companies slash employees' pension benefits. The business press is full of stories about this problem--retirement security. This isn't something Bernie Sanders and Rahm Emanuel and I have made up. The economic future of Americans is in serious jeopardy and these pension rules are one important part of that problem. Our legislation will not create jobs, or restore the budget surplus, provide health insurance, or turn around the stock market, although we have proposals to accomplish those goals. Those are not the goals of this particular bill. But our bill will establish fairness for the treatment of older employees' hard-earned pension benefits. That is what they deserve, what they expect, and what they need.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong opposition to the Hoekstra amendment. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). This amendment does, in fact, do great damage to those who have already earned their educational stipend. As my colleagues have pointed out, these individuals that have joined the Freedom Corps have joined AmeriCorps for the purposes of rendering service to our country and a bargain that we struck at the end of that service, a stipend that would be available. Yes, it is true that apparently there has been some mismanagement in this program, but this administration has made this request for two reasons: one, they say to clean up and deal with the problems that have been discovered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and others; and the other is to pay the commitments that they already have. These people have rendered their service. The stipend is due, and we ought not to break that faith because what we want to do is we have seen after 9-11 more and more people have offered to participate in the Freedom Corps, more and more people have offered to participate in service to the country; and for many of these individuals, that educational stipend is terribly important. It is now put on the footing that maybe a person got the stipend, maybe they do not. We are going to damage the reputation of this corps. As my colleagues have pointed out, any of my colleagues who have visited these programs, these are rather remarkable young people from very different walks of life, from a cross section of our community; but for whatever reasons, they decide they are going to make this commitment of service and they do it to the elderly. They do it in education. They do it in public safety. They do it in health care. They do it in so many areas where our communities are in need. Then when we meet them later in life, like so many of our Peace Corps volunteers, they have a little bit different cut to their jib, little bit different style because they have rendered that service and the pride that they carry with them of the time they spent with their colleagues in national service. We ought to be encouraging this, and it would be a terrible, a terrible comment if we accept this amendment to simply take this money out and an amount of money at the time the administration is telling the Congress that we are trying to deal with those problems, but we are also trying to honor our pledges to these young people who have joined national service. We have had debates in this Congress time and again about expanding national service, about having mandatory national service, having an alternative to the draft or to military service; and people on both sides of the aisle have recognized the value that is rendered by the people who engage in this service. Yes, it is expensive; but we have constantly thought about how do we expand this so people invest in America. So they invest in their communities. So they invest in service to this country. This is not a message that we want to send. This is not a message we want to send after 9-11 when people are screaming to volunteer. This is not a time we want to send this message when people are offering, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and others, to help and assist some of these families. Maybe it is working fine in Fort Campbell, but a lot of other facilities are in communities that do not have that kind of impact on the community; and these services are very helpful, certainly for those communities where the National Guard have been called up or the Reserves have been called up and families are away, their soldiers are away, and in those communities, they do not necessarily live in a military community, but they are rendering a service. Many of these people are trying to help them through these times. It is a very bad amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the following column authored by Bob Herbert that appeared in today's New York Times. ``Mugging the Needy'' accurately details the serious dangers posed by the budget plan recently passed by the House: that in providing $1.4 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy, House Republicans are slashing billions of dollars in funding that aids low- income Americans. These cuts will affect Medicaid recipients, children in foster care, the national school lunch program, as well as veterans' benefits and the ability of students to afford their higher education. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is not just a political document that details their misguided vision for America. It is far more serious than even that, for it fails to stimulate the economy and create jobs, it saddles future generations with enormous deficits, and it robs needy Americans--both young and old--of critical services. The Congress should reject this budget. Mugging the Needy (By Bob Herbert) I had wanted today's column to be about the events in Tulia, Tex., where a criminal justice atrocity is at long last beginning to be corrected. (For those who don't know, prosecutors are moving to overturn the convictions of everyone seized in an outlandish drug sting conducted by a single wacky undercover officer.) But there is another issue crying out for immediate attention. With the eyes of most Americans focused on the war, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress are getting close to agreeing on a set of budget policies that will take an awful toll on the poor, the young, the elderly, the disabled and others in need of assistance and support from their government. The budget passed by the House is particularly gruesome. It mugs the poor and the helpless while giving unstintingly to the rich. This blueprint for domestic disaster has even moderate Republicans running for cover. The House plan offers the well-to-do $1.4 trillion in tax cuts, while demanding billions of dollars in cuts from programs that provide food stamps, school lunches, health care for the poor and the disabled, temporary assistance to needy families--even veterans' benefits and student loans. An analysis of the House budget by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that its proposed cuts in child nutrition programs threaten to eliminate school lunches for 2.4 million low-income children. Under the House plan, Congress would be required to cut $265 billion from entitlement programs over 10 years. About $165 billion would come from programs that assist low-income Americans. This assault on society's weakest elements has been almost totally camouflaged by the war, which has an iron grip on the nation's attention. The House budget does not dictate the specific cuts that Congress would be required to make. In its analysis, the center assumed (as did the House Budget Committee) that the various entitlement programs would be cut by roughly the same percentages. If one program were to be cut by a somewhat smaller percentage, another would have to be cut more. The analysis found that in the year in which the budget sliced deepest: ``The cut in Medicaid, if achieved entirely by reducing the number of children covered, would lead to the elimination of health coverage for 13.6 million children.'' ``The cut in foster care and adoption programs, if achieved by reducing the number of children eligible for foster care assistance payments, would lead to the elimination of benefits for 65,000 abused and neglected children.'' ``The cut in the food stamp program, if achieved by lowering the maximum benefit, would lead to a reduction in the average benefit from an already lean 91 cents per meal to 84 cents.'' When's the last time one of the plutocrats in Congress waded through a meal that cost 84 cents? The Senate budget is not as egregious. It calls for a total of about $900 billion in tax cuts, and there is no demand for cuts in entitlement programs. But it is not a reasonable budget. In fact, there's something obscene about a millionaires' club like the Senate proposing close to a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich while the country is already cutting social programs, running up huge budget deficits and fighting a war in the Middle East. At least in the House budget the first--if not the worst-- of the cuts are in plain view. In the Senate plan the inevitable pain of the Bush budget policies remains concealed. ``There is a significant human toll in the Senate budget, but it's in the future,'' said Robert Greenstein, the center's executive director. ``What I mean is that given the deficits we're already in, you can't keep doing tax cuts like this--you can't keep cutting your revenue base--without it inevitably leading to sharp budget cuts.'' House and Senate conferees are now trying to resolve the differences in the two budget proposals. They will do all they can to minimize the public relations hit that is bound to come when you're handing trainloads of money to the rich while taking food off the tables of the poor. So you can expect some dismantling of the House proposal. But no matter what they do, the day of reckoning is not far off. The budget cuts are coming. In voodoo economics, the transfer of wealth is from the poor and the working classes to the rich. It may not be pretty, but it's the law.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday April 1, 2003, I meant to vote ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 96. I support H.R. 1412, the HEROES Act of 2003, a bipartisan bill recognizing the contributions of our men and women in uniform serving in the Middle East. Hundreds of thousands of the United States military personnel have been called upon to serve in active duty for ``Operation Iraqi Freedom.'' Some of our troops serving in this conflict are student reservists who were called up from their college campuses to serve their country, many of whom receive financial aid to help pay for their college education. While many other active military personnel are paying back their student loans. The Act extends waiver authority to the Secretary of Education to ensure that members of the Armed Services and students are not punished financially as a result of their voluntary service to our country at time of war, or a national emergency. While H.R. 1412 is a necessary and appropriate step, we should also recognize that Congress should be doing more to provide relief to our active military personnel. We should take additional steps such as allowing military personnel to defer their student loans while they are on active duty, so that military personnel would not be charged interest on their student loans for the duration of their active duty. We must do everything that we can to recognize and to reward the sacrifices of the courageous men and women who are fighting in ``Operation Iraqi Freedom.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the sad side effects of this unfair rule is that we will not be able to consider the Obey amendment to provide additional money for homeland security, and specifically, we will not be allowed to consider additional money for the protection of our sea ports of this Nation. According to the CIA, it is more likely for a terrorist to sneak nuclear material into our ports than for a missile to reach our shores. According to the prestigious task force headed by Senators Rudman and Hart, port security is a critical mandate which needs adequate funding. And according to Steve Flynn, a highly respected security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, an explosion from nuclear material smuggled into any American port would not only inflict devastating casualties, it would bring America to a grinding halt. Our economy would simply shut down. We cannot check every container that comes to our ports every day, but there is much more that we can do. The Obey amendment would have allowed us to start to put in place security provisions overseas before the containers come to the United States, before they present a risk to our citizens, before they present a risk to our economy, before they present a risk to our national security. But we will not be allowed to consider that amendment because this closed rule would not allow a Democratic debate.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, unfortunately, the Democrats will not be allowed to offer an amendment that would dramatically increase the security of this Nation from terrorist activities, and that is an amendment to provide for the nuclear detection of nuclear devices that might be put into containers in ports overseas. We have 6 million containers a year that come to the United States. The CIA has told us, the intelligence agencies have told us that this is one of the prime ways to deliver nuclear material by a terrorist. The Hart-Rudman Commission that warned us of 9-11 prior to 9-11 has warned us that this is the main way in which a terrorist would have an opportunity to deliver a nuclear device. But what do we do? We wait until the containers get to the port of San Francisco, to the port of Oakland, to the port of New Jersey, to the port of Miami to then check them. It is too late if they get inside of our ports. If a nuclear device went off in one of our ports, it would not only devastate hundreds of thousands of lives, it would not only devastate the city, it would devastate the world economy. The Democratic amendment should have been allowed so we can check these containers before they leave Asia, before they leave Europe, before they leave Africa. That is security for the Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and colleague, Dr. Edward Zigler, who has recently retired after over 40 years as a distinguished professor of psychology at Yale University. Dr. Zigler has been a tireless and effective advocate for children for four decades. I, and many others in this Congress, have counted on his impeccable knowledge of children's development, his wisdom about its application to the Nation's most significant issues facing children and families, and his unassailable honesty and integrity. Edward Zigler is a Sterling Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, Head of the psychology section of Yale's Child Study Center at the School of Medicine, and Director of Yale's Center in Child Development and Social Policy. He is the author, co-author, and editor of hundreds of scholarly publications and has conducted extensive investigations on topics related to normal child development, child psychopathology and mental retardation. He is the founder of the School of the 21st Century, which has been adopted by more than 1300 schools nationwide. Because of Dr. Zigler's expertise and his commitment to our Nation's children, he has been asked to assist every Administration, both Republican and Democratic, since the term of President Lyndon B. Johnson. He was one of the planners of Project Head Start during the Johnson Administration. From 1970 to 1972, Dr. Zigler was the first director of the U.S. Office of Child Development (now the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families) and Chief of the U.S. Children's Bureau. President Ford then asked him to consult on the resettling of Vietnamese children following the ``Baby Lift''. President Carter asked him to write the 15-year report on Head Start. In his ongoing role as an advisor on the Head Start program, he has worked with several Secretaries of Education, Health and Human Services, Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); and Labor, including Secretary Bennett in the Reagan Administration and Secretary Riley in the Clinton Administration. Currently, he is on Secretary Tommy Thompson's Head Start Research Committee. His work extends well beyond the Federal level to his own State of Connecticut, where he has played an instrumental role in establishing high quality school readiness programs for low-income children, and the city of New Haven, where he enlisted the police department in child abuse prevention efforts. The fact that his counsel has been sought consistently by both parties, and by decision-makers at all levels of government through the years is a testament to his nonpartisan focus on what research indicates is best for children. Even a brief review of Zigler's research and writing makes it abundantly clear why his advice has been sought by so many for so long. Starting with an interest in mental retardation, Zigler's theory that children who experience an inordinate amount of failure would do better in school if they believed they had a chance to succeed, captured the imagination of the Planning Committee for Head Start in 1965. It was not long before Zigler was asked to head the agency responsible for Head Start. Thus began his sojourn into public policy. Since then, in addition to his sustained commitment to ensuring that Head Start offers young children living in poverty the comprehensive services they require to enter school ready to learn, Zigler has worked on issues ranging from child abuse to child care to children exposed to the trauma of war. He and his students have surveyed child care standards in the States as well as their preschool programs to raise awareness of the importance of quality and to guide policy makers in mandating better programs. He has been a pioneer in the development of effective family support programs. His work on child abuse and neglect has guided significant Federal and State legislation aimed at preventing this tragic social problem. During the Vietnam era, he worked relentlessly to assist with the resettlement of Vietnamese children. He was a member of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion and of the planning committee for the Early Head Start program for families and children ages zero to three. Recently, Zigler completed work on a revision of the Head Start Program Performance Standards, and is currently serving as the Honorary Chair of the National Advisory Panel for the Head Start 2010 Project. Children always come first for Edward Zigler. If children come first to this distinguished academician, Zigler's students follow as a close second. He has played a more central role than any other developmental psychologist in creating the field of child development and social policy. He was the major figure behind the creation of the Bush Centers in Child Development and Social Policy, which stimulated the development of several cross-disciplinary doctoral and post-doctoral training programs. He was also a key player in the establishment of the Congressional Science Fellows programs of the Society for Research in Child Development, from which many in the House and Senate have benefited through placement in our offices of outstanding post-doctoral experts in child policy. All told, he has mentored over 70 graduate and postdoctoral students and countless hundreds of undergraduates who are now following in his large footsteps to ensure that our public policies for children and families are guided by the best available science. Dr. Zigler's many honors include awards from the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Research in Child Development, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy on Mental Retardation, the American Orthopsychiatric Association, the National Head Start Association, the Heinz Foundation, and Teachers College, Columbia University. He has also received honorary degrees from Park University in Missouri and McGill University in Canada. Throughout his career, Dr. Zigler has exemplified the socially responsible scientist. He is honest even when it angers the advocates; he is outraged when outrage is called for; and he never gives up on even the most stubborn problems. He is rare in his dual commitment to scholarly research and to public service. The Nation's children have benefited vastly. I am pleased to honor him and to express my gratitude for all he has done and continues to do to ensure both happy childhoods and promising futures for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a bipartisan resolution, together with seventeen of my colleagues in the House, recognizing the accomplishments of Operation Respect and of Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary, who founded and helps to promote this outstanding program nationwide. Operation Respect and its ``Don't Laugh At Me'' initiative are helping to promote anti-bullying, compassion and tolerance among children in after-school programs and children's camps. The ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program has been presented in 230 workshops in dozens of congressional districts. Over 18,000 educators in 27 states have received its training materials and professionally-developed curriculum. As we all know, Mr. Yarrow has described in words and song the program's goal and objective to enthusiastic meetings of the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus of the United States House of Representatives. The ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program uses character education to promote the social and emotional growth in children. When a child has fewer worries of bullying and intolerant classmates, that child is able to focus on schoolwork as well as create new bonds with fellow students. It is no wonder that teachers, parents and students alike have given very high marks to the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program. Many organizations have commended Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, who passed a resolution in August of 2001 that recognized the value of Operation Respect. Major educational organizations supporting this important initiative include the National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, American Association of School Administrators, Council of Great City Colleges of Education, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, American School Counselors Association, National School Boards Association, National Middle School Association, and the American Federation of Teachers. The House should recognize the achievements of Operation Respect and Peter Yarrow in helping to make schools and camps safer, more tolerant, more learning-friendly environments for our children. I would hope that the House would be able to consider this bipartisan resolution in the near future.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members of the House of Representatives will want to join me in saluting the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) on the 100th anniversary of its founding. LIUNA, through its millions of members over the years, has long played a vital role in building America through the construction of highways, bridges, dams and power plants, factories, office buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, apartments, and houses throughout the country. The first president of the AFL-CIO, Samuel Gompers, convened the meeting in April, 1903, that resulted in the creation of the International Hod Carriers' and Building Laborers' Union of America. That union represented just 8,000 workers. In 1965, the name was changed to the Laborers' International Union of North America to reflect the expansion of the union beyond the construction field. Today, LIUNA consists of approximately 800,000 members in more than 650 locals throughout the country. LIUNA members work in a wide variety of fields including local, state and federal governments, health care, shipbuilding and hazardous waste removal. LIUNA is one of the most innovative unions in the labor movement, with state of the art training centers across North America. LIUNA has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to protecting the rights of laborers and is among the most successful unions at organizing within the labor federation today. LIUNA's success is predicated on the protection and promotion of its members--goals that are achieved through the dedication and hard work of union officers and their representatives working at all levels of government. The efforts of these men and women to protect and enhance the welfare of LIUNA's members serves to better the lives of all workers throughout the United States. LIUNA's efforts to raise the standard of living for laborers are deserving of our attention and admiration. This is an extraordinary union whose leadership works hard every day to protect members' health and safety, provide laborers a strong voice in the workplace, provide extensive skill training to empower members to reach their full potential, and perhaps most importantly, to ensure dignity, respect and security for laborers in the workplace. Mr. Speaker, I join LIUNA's officers and members in celebrating their 100th Anniversary, and I salute the work of the Laborers International Union of North America. I encourage my colleagues to similarly respect the positive impacts LIUNA has had within their home districts and states, and I encourage them to express their support of this historic anniversary.