George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as we all prepare for college basketball's ``March Madness'' this month, I am introducing a bill, the Student Athlete Fairness Act, along with Representative Rob Andrews, to deal with another kind of madness. Recently a number of institutions of higher education have penalized student basketball players for misconduct, by banning them from post-season intercollegiate play. I support actions by colleges and universities to hold their coaches and players accountable when they engage in misconduct of any kind. Recruiting violations, academic fraud and financial improprieties have no place in college or college sports, and deserve punishment. However, these particular institutions are penalizing the wrong student athletes--students who were not involved in any wrongdoing. In one case, Fresno State University is barring an entire basketball team from post-season intercollegiate play for the transgressions of previous players and coaches, even though none of the current student athletes or coaches were involved in the wrongdoing at all. We can no longer allow colleges and universities to penalize innocent student athletes. Instead institutions of higher education must focus their efforts on the guilty parties. The Student Athlete Fairness Act would prohibit colleges from penalizing players or coaches who had no involvement in a rules violation and would also prohibit colleges and universities from being affiliated with intercollegiate associations, like the NCAA, whose policies might include sanctioning players, teams and/or coaches even if they were not involved in any rules violation. While many schools and teams work hard to follow the rules that are intended to preserve a quality academic and campus life alongside a vibrant athletic program, some schools have chosen to make innocent students scapegoats for the actions of runaway athletic programs that give win-loss records more priority than ethics and fair play. An integral ingredient of the college and university mission is to foster both the academic and personal development of their students-- from civic engagement and community service, where students learn how to become active participants in democracy, to team athletics, where students gain valuable leadership experience. These objectives are severely undermined when students are punished harshly, in ways that can significantly affect their future careers and earnings, for violations of rules by others. This kind of substitute punishment has no place in our courts, and it should have no place in our colleges and universities either. The Student Athlete Fairness Act would make certain that the coaches, school officials, or students who break the rules are the ones who are punished. Innocent student athletes should be free to play ball.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeff Faux, who is the founder of the nationally respected Economic Policy Institute. During his long career, he as been a merchant mariner, railroad worker, blueberry farmer, antipoverty official, Labor Department statistician, and instructor at Harvard University. Jeff Faux used these work experiences to his advantage when undertaking the great task of founding and building the Economic Policy Institute, the nation's only think tank expressly dedicated to examining economic issues from the vantage point of how they affect working families. Named after the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, Faux grew up in Queens, New York, as an avid reader but an apathetic student. Dropping out of high school, he joined the merchant marine and shipped out to the Caribbean, before realizing that he didn't want to spend the rest of his life that way. Completing high school years before open enrollment at New York's City University, his wide-ranging reading stood him in good stead when he aced an examination that qualified him for Queens College, in spite of his uneven record in high school. On evenings, weekends, and summers while in college, he worked as a bartender (following his father who had been a charter member of Bartenders Local 164), on a railroad, and in an American Can Factory in Brooklyn. After he severely injured his back, Faux was treated in Queens General Hospital, sparing him from what might have been a lifetime disability. While hospitalized, he mused that he was, in a sense, the product of public programs--born in a public hospital, educated in public schools, and put back together again in another public hospital. Faux traces lifelong commitment to progressive politics to this period of recuperation and reflection. Inspired by President John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, Faux moved to Washington, D.C., where he worked, first, for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and, then, for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Meanwhile, he enrolled as a graduate student at George Washington University, doing graduate work in economics. Moving to the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), Faux became one of the originators of a new kind of anti-poverty program: the Community Development Corporation. Modeled after a project initiated by Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, community development corporations promote economic development in low- income areas, from the inner cities to rural America. Traveling throughout the country, and briefly living with migrant farm workers in Colorado and New Mexico, Faux helped to turn the concept of community development corporations into a national program. He also found the time to participate in the historic Selma-to- Montgomery march for voting rights and to register black voters in Virginia. In the 1980's, Jeff returned to Washington, D.C. and set about a new mission: founding a progressive think tank that would focus on economic issues. Others involved in the project included Barry Bluestone, Robert Kuttner, Ray Marshall, Robert Reich, and Lester Thurow. In 1986, the Economic Policy Institute opened its doors, with a staff of Faux, communications director Roger Hickey, an administrative assistant and a graduate research assistant. Originally commissioning papers by academics, EPI build its own capacity with the hiring in 1987 of Larry Mishel as research director. A year later, EPI published the first biennial edition of its signature publication, The State of Working America, which would be researched and written by Mishel and many of the economists who later joined the staff of EPI. In the later eighties, as a wave of deindustrialization swept over the U.S., EPI helped build the case for plant closing legislation, work that bore fruit in the WARN Act of 1988. A few years later, EPI shaped the debate on the minimum wage, showing that the benefits of raising wages for the poorest workers far outweighed the potential cost in terms of inflation or job loss. Joining the debate about the North American Free Trade Agreement, EPI explored international issues as well, pioneering the proposal that labor standards be included in trade agreements. On domestic issues, EPI developed a trademark tactic, releasing statements signed by prominent economists supporting increased public investment, opposing the balanced budget amendment, endorsing President Bill Clinton's first budget plan, and opposing President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy. Surveys continuously find that EPI is the most widely quoted progressive think tank in the nation's news media. In 2002, Faux stepped down as president of EPI and assumed a new role as EPI's first Distinguished Fellow. He has begun work on a book about the North American economy. Today, we thank Jeff for his enormous contribution in improving the well being of working families all across the world.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit, with sixty-three of my colleagues in the House, the College Affordability and Lifetime Savings Act. According to the Department of Education, more than 7 million students will take out a Federal student loan this year to help finance their college education. As tuition costs swell and grant-aid fails to keep pace, students and their families are increasingly turning to loans as the primary mechanism to finance a higher education. While student loans make the college dream a reality for millions, they all too often turn into a nightmare of debt. Over the past eight years the typical student loan debt has almost doubled to $16,928. In addition, 39 percent of all student borrowers now graduate with unmanageable debt levels. Too many student borrowers struggle to make their monthly loan payments, and many must forgo savings, public service careers, and major purchases. Borrowing for higher education should be a sound investment for the future, both for the student, and society. Yet, today we are asking far too many students to mortgage their future at too high a cost. Unfortunately, President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress have ignored the pleas from millions of Americans to make student aid funding a priority. Instead, just at the time when students and their families need help the most to make ends meet, President Bush and the Republican leadership have responded by cutting key student aid programs. Just last week, House Republicans demanded that we finance President Bush's tax cut on the backs of students by cutting $4.7 billion in aid to student borrowers. This could force the typical borrower to pay an additional $170 in student loan taxes over the life of their loans. This is unacceptable, and we must do better by delivering sound legislation that helps Americans to make the college dream a viable reality. The College Affordability and Lifetime Savings Act will help ease the burden of student loan debt for millions of Americans. The Act will change the current student loan tax deduction benefit to a tax credit-- which will deliver a larger rebate on the interest paid on student loans to borrowers, particularly those who are struggling the most to make ends meet. The savings for the typical borrower who is earning $20,000 a year will more than triple, to $347, in their first year of repayment. The Act will also help expand this benefit to more middle class families, allowing them to claim rebates, too. I urge you to support the College Affordability and Lifetime Savings Act as a means to ensure that a college investment remains the investment of a lifetime for all Americans.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit, with sixty-three of my colleagues in the House, the College Opportunity for a Better America Act. Higher education has become more important than ever to ensure America's economic prosperity, national security, and health. Yet, swelling enrollments among low-income and working class families, massive state budget cuts, and rising tuition continue to strain our ability to ensure access to a college education for all Americans. As a result, increasing numbers of students and their families are relying on debt to finance their college dreams. Over the past eight years the typical student loan debt has nearly doubled to $16,928, with 64 percent of students borrowing to finance their college costs. In addition, nearly two-fifths of all student borrowers graduate with unmanageable debt levels, and as a result, many may seek higher- salaried positions rather than public service careers. At the same time, severe shortages of highly qualified personnel in many public service sectors, such as teaching, nursing, childcare, and child welfare, threaten the health and well being of our nation. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the United States will need more than 2 million new teachers over the next 10 years. In a recent report, the American Hospital Association found that there is a national shortage of 126,000 nurses; just as the number of nursing school graduates decreased by 29 percent between 1995 and 2001. In addition, the number of unfilled child welfare specialists is growing rapidly; while the nation's childcare programs are plagued by high staff turnover, fueled by poor compensation. We can no longer afford to ignore the growing shortage of a skilled public service workforce. We must invest in our recent graduates to enable more of them to pursue public service careers. The College Opportunity for a Better America Act would take an important step to filling shortages of highly skilled workers in the public service sector by providing up to $17,500 in loan forgiveness for graduates who enter teaching, child care, nursing, child welfare, and other high priority public service careers. In short, the Act would provide the financial means necessary to attract and retain a highly skilled public service workforce. America's higher education system has long served as a vehicle to achieve economic prosperity, national security, and an educated citizenry. From our nascent beginnings, when public education served as the means to equalize our society, to the National Defense Act of 1958--which launched many of our federal student aid programs--we have used higher education as a tool to move this country forward. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this tradition by supporting the College Opportunity for a Better America Act. It is an important step to help fill America's critical public service work gap.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Congressional Daily reports today that in a speech to the bankers, Majority Leader Tom Delay said that ``nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.'' Not only does that defy the history of great leaders in the Western world who understood the necessity of harboring our resources in times of uncertainty and times of war, but it also defies what the American community expects at a time of war. That is the notion of a shared sacrifice. At a time when we are on the eve of sending our young men and women in harm's way, we have to think about what the contribution is of the rest of us. We understand the implications of this war in terms of costs are now said it could exceed $100 billion, but we do not know that, because the war has not been fought yet. We also understand that there is going to have to be a long-term commitment in Iraq after the war, and we do not have any idea of what that cost is going to be. We know that, in fact, these costs, whatever they are, are not in the budget as submitted by the President of the United States, nor are they in the budget that is being formulated by the committees in the House and the Senate, but what this does suggest is that this tax cut and when we add to them the tax cuts that the President has proposed, ending with the taxation on dividends by providing huge amounts of tax free income for the wealthiest people in this country, what it suggests is when the bill comes due for this war, when the $5 trillion debt comes due because of the spending and because of the war and because of the Bush economy, that one group of Americans will not have to participate in that shared sacrifice. Those individuals, because of these tax cuts, will live in a tax free world. So when the interest mounts on the debt year after year, when we have seen in a matter of 2 short years going from almost a $5 trillion surplus to a $2 trillion deficit, when we see the deficit reestimated into the hundreds of millions of dollars within a matter of months, apparently our colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the President believe that somehow the wealthiest Americans in this country should not share in that sacrifice; they should not be burdened with the responsibility of helping to pay that back. That will be left to people who earn their income through wages. They will continue to be taxed. They will continue to pay high rates of Social Security taxes, but the wealthy will not. They will escape that. No, that is not the most important thing in the face of war. It cannot be cutting taxes. It cannot be how this country works its way through that war. It is more importantly how we make the decision to go to war. The President has offered a number of rationales for going to war. Most of them have been stripped away in the debate that is taking place in the international community, in the debate that is taking place in this country. We have seen evidence offered and the evidence falls apart time and again. We have seen connections trying to be made between the war on terrorism and Iraq. The evidence has not been sustained, and yet as we proceed into that war the one thing that is on the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. DeLay) mind is cutting taxes. I think it defies what we know this country has done in the past when we have engaged in these conflicts and the necessity of what must be done, and I would hope that once again we would understand that the burden must be shared across American society because there are those who will be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice and that will be their lives and their futures in pursuit of this war should the President decide to go forward. Clearly those who are at home must continue to engage in the kind of effort to pull this Nation through this period of time, and so we cannot embrace the philosophy of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that somehow the most important thing that we can do is to cut taxes and our most important obligation is somehow to tell the wealthiest people in America that they will not share in that sacrifice, they will not be there when the bill comes due for future generations.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, too many Americans continue to be uninsured and too many of those Americans are Hispanic. A recent study by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation found that over 70 million Americans under 65 were uninsured for at least some time during the last 2 years. This is unfortunate enough, but the statistics are even more alarming when we look at the Hispanic community. In the last 2 years, over half the Hispanic population under 65 has gone without health insurance for some time. In California, half of the Hispanic population is currently uninsured. We cannot ignore the problem as a country, and I certainly cannot ignore it as a Californian. More Hispanics live in California than any other State, and they contribute to the State's economy and culture in countless ways. But there remains a huge disparity between the Hispanic population and the rest of the population when it comes to the accessibility to health insurance and health problems. Studies consistently show that Hispanics suffer disproportionately from diabetes, obesity, HIV/AIDS and asthma. We as policy makers need to commit ourselves to closing this gap. At a time when the economy has soured and the American families are feeling the effects, we need to bolster long-standing programs which have served Americans well. Medicaid is one of those programs. Instead of the current administration's proposals for tax cuts that will pad the pockets of the rich but will do little to shore up the programs that have served Americans admirably during times of economic downturn, the administration then turns around and tells our Nation's governors that there is no money to shore up these programs.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave concern over the Bush Administration's approach toward Iraq. I believe that this Administration is now, and has always been, determined to go to war and that it has never taken all the steps available to avert a war while also achieving its goals toward that country. This Administration's approach ill serves the American people and is dangerous for America's position in the world. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein should adhere to the demands of the United Nations Security Council to destroy any weapons of mass destruction, to refrain from further development of such weapons, and to cease and desist from hostilities towards his own people and his neighbors. He has not yet done so. But the fact is that the United States has never given the United Nations process its full respect. The President's national security advisors have said they have intelligence to prove that Iraq is failing to comply with the United Nations' resolutions and is deceiving the weapons inspectors, but it has not fully divulged that intelligence to the inspectors. The President has said that the United Nations must vote to use force because the weapons inspections are not working. And yet he has never advocated for a robust weapons inspection regime. Even though chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is reporting that progress is being made, albeit slowly, the fact is that we could have made even more progress with a tripling of the inspections team and an early insistence on the use of U2 spy plane overflights. The President has an obligation to take every step possible short of war before determining whether or not war is necessary. I do not believe that the conclusion today can be reached that war is necessary. I believe that more time can safely be given to weapons inspections without risking a unilateral attack by Iraq against the United States or our allies. I do not believe that the facts indicate that Iraq poses a threat to the security of the United States. But perhaps just as important, I believe that the weapons inspection regime is keeping Saddam Hussein occupied and that an even more robust weapons inspection regime would cripple any offensive capability he might contemplate. Mr. Speaker, America's standing in the world is jeopardized by the President's position on Iraq. President Bush has stood by while North Korea becomes a nuclear nation, but he has badgered and bullied nearly every nation in the world to support his position against Iraq, whose military capabilities are far more limited than those of North Korea. The world community has rarely received such bellicose and belligerent treatment as they have from the United States on the issue of Iraq. The President weakens the international alliance against terrorism and other world threats as he bullies nations to support his march to war. These nations are not admirers of Saddam Hussein, but they are opponents of war when war has not yet been proven to be necessary. And the American people are not admirers of Saddam Hussein. But they too strongly believe that war must be the last resort and only when absolutely necessary and only with international support. This Administration chose war as its first response and has not changed course since. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Administration would strongly consider world opinion that advocates more time for weapons inspections. I would hope that this Administration would strongly consider the harrn to America's standing in the world as it deals with the members of the United Nations. And I would hope that this Administration would remember that America is a peaceful nation, it is a just nation, and a strong nation. America is not, and should never become, a nation that is proud to go to war. Should it be determined that war indeed is necessary, I have every confidence that the armed forces of this country will perform their responsibility with strength and character. I have always admired the men and women who choose to serve in the armed forces. I admire them for their hard work, their sense of duty to our country, and their sense of responsibility. But it is because of that very character and sense of duty to our nation that our government must exhaust every alternative to war before placing those men and women in harm's way. The measure of the strength of a nation is its ability to show appropriate restraint just as much as it is its ability to protect itself and its allies. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans and people throughout the world support allowing more time for weapons inspections. I believe they are right and I believe our nation will be well served to allow more time for a rigorous inspections program.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this morning, President Bush announced his prescription drug benefit plan for senior citizens in this country. When it was all said and done, at the end of the speech it became clear that there really is no plan for prescription drugs from the Bush administration for the seniors in this country. The President said he wanted to give seniors more rights to choose and it be more flexible, but the fact is, there is nothing to choose and nothing to be flexible about. He promised comprehensive benefits, but he refused to define what a comprehensive benefit was. He said he wanted to protect against high drug costs, but he refused to say what a high drug cost was. He said he wanted to provide catastrophic care, and yet he refused to say what that catastrophic figure would be so that the seniors could take benefit of it. Why is that so? Because the prescription drug benefit announced by the President today is no different than the one that was announced just a few months ago; that is, he does not use prescription drugs to benefit the seniors of this country that need it to maintain their health, to prevent diseases and illnesses, and to help them recover from illnesses; rather, he uses prescription drugs to beat down the Medicare system. The plan he announced today is the same as he announced before: seniors must leave the Medicare system. In order to get a prescription drug benefit, they must leave the Medicare system that has served millions and millions of seniors so well over the last 40 years. It has provided them the health care they would not have otherwise been able to have; and it also kept millions of them out of poverty, because it provided that health care. It has improved all of the health statistics with respect to seniors. Now the President says if they want a prescription drug benefit, they have to leave that system. They have to go into the HMO system. In the last several years, millions of senior citizens went into the HMO system. They enticed them with glasses, hearing aids, with prescription drug benefits. Only later did the seniors find out, as they read in the newspaper, that their HMO was going bankrupt, that their HMO was withdrawing service from that area. Millions of rural seniors have found out that the HMOs are not available to them if they do want to take advantage of them. Hundreds of thousands of seniors in northern California participated in the HMOs. Now those HMOs have gone, and they are looking for health care somewhere else. Why would we do that again? Why would we rerun that history of trying to bait and trick the seniors out of the Medicare system, where every day they have health care coverage, where every day they are able to choose their doctor, where every day they are able to choose their physician, where every day their physicians should be able to do what is best for them? The President wants to use prescription drugs to trick the seniors out of that system. That is not the answer. That is not the answer. Later this morning, the Democrats introduced a prescription drug benefit. It has no tricks, it has no sleight-of-hand, it has no gaps, it has no secret thresholds, it has no small print. It simply says that we will provide a prescription drug benefit to the seniors of this country in the Medicare system, all of those who are eligible, for $25 a month with a deductible of $100 a year and co-insurance. The beneficiary will pay 20 percent of all drugs, and Medicare will pay 80 percent. After one reaches $2,000, the government will pick up the rest. That is the prescription drug benefit that essentially Federal employees and Members of Congress enjoy. That is what the President stood here and said he wanted for America's seniors; but that is not the plan, that is not the plan that the President offers to America's seniors. Instead, what he offers them is a plan to dismantle the Medicare system, to do away with it; and for those who stay in the Medicare system, he offers them a discount card, a discount card. That is not a prescription drug benefit. So for those seniors who leave and join an HMO, lose the choice of their doctors, lose the choice of their pharmacy, lose the choice of their drugs; for those seniors, they will get a prescription drug benefit of minimal coverage, of minimal coverage. When the HMO goes bankrupt or refuses to see them, they will come back and they will not have their drug coverage. He wants to make whether or not your drugs are covered based on where you get your health care as opposed to what your illness is, as opposed to what the doctor says you need, as opposed to what all of the indices say you might need for a particular illness. His determination is whether or not you are in Medicare. That simply does not comport with the health care needs of America's seniors. America's seniors today need prescription drugs, just as they need coverage for doctors' visits, for surgery, for outpatient and inpatient care. It is part of the continuum of health care. The President should not, the President should not do a bait and switch with America's seniors so that they can get a prescription drug benefit. Every Medicare beneficiary should be covered for prescription drugs, and that is what the Democratic bill does that was introduced today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to be joined by 73 of my colleagues in introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. The legislation that we are introducing today provides for a $1.50 increase in the minimum wage, in two steps. Our bill raises the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per hour to $5.90 sixty days after enactment and raises it again to $6.65 one year thereafter. In addition, the legislation extends the applicability of the minimum wage to the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Our bill is identical to legislation introduced in the other body by the Democratic Leader, Mr. Daschle, and 34 of his colleagues. The minimum wage has not increased from its present level of $5.15 since 1997. A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week, fifty-two weeks a year earns $10,712--almost $7,500 below the poverty level for a family of four, more than $4,300 less than the poverty level for a family of three, and $1,200 less than the poverty level for a family of two. The real value of the minimum wage today is 30 percent below its peak in 1968 and 19 percent below where it stood in 1981 at the start of the Reagan Administration. Even if the minimum wage is increased to $6.65 by 2004, the real value of the minim wage will still be below its 1981 level. However, by enacting this legislation we will restore purchasing power to minimum wage workers, better enabling them to support themselves and their families and to more fully participate in our economy. Raising the minimum wage to $6.65 will lift the wages of seven million low-wage workers. While women makeup less than half of the workforce, sixty-one percent of the workers who will benefit from a minimum wage increase are women. One-third of the affected workers who benefit from a minimum wage increase are African American or Hispanic, though those groups together make up less than a quarter of the workforce. A minimum wage increase is especially beneficial to workers in low-wage industries and occupations, including those employed in sales, service, and food preparation, and especially those in retail trade. A $1.50 increase in the minimum wage will add $3,000 to the annual income of full-time minimum wage workers. For a low-income family of three, $3000 means 15 months of groceries, 7 months of utilities, or tuition for a community college degree. Enacting this legislation will restore purchasing power to minimum wage workers and better enable them to support themselves, their families and the economy. Work should pay. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Mr. Speaker, a fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. The failure of Congress to increase the minimum wage is driving more and more working families into poverty. We owe it to them and to the Nation to act quickly on this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit to my colleagues in the House the Act to Leave No Child Behind. The Act to Leave No Child Behind 2001 was endorsed by more than 1400 groups and organizations around the nation, more than 400 state legislators and mayors, and it has been the focus of numerous community rallies, petition drives and advocacy events in Washington and throughout the country. Our nation currently faces many great challenges. We are engaged in a war on terrorism--a war we can and must win. We are on the brink of a possible war overseas, in Iraq. If the time comes, we will put aside our differences on the merits and the timing of this war and rally in support of our men and women in the armed forces. But we cannot afford to neglect our responsibilities at home. We cannot afford to turn our Federal programs into piggy banks that Governors can raid to fill gaping state budget shortfalls. We cannot afford--morally, socially, or economically--to write off the needs of a generation of children. This bill is intended to remind us of those obligations. We have obligations to ensure that our children have access to quality health care; obligations to provide our children with an education that will prepare for their role in our workforce and our society; obligations to make sure our child have a safe, affordable, and stable place to live. Together with many of my colleagues in the House and my friend Christopher Dodd in the Senate, we are introducing this bill today because we can no longer afford to abandon the children and families in this country who struggle daily with poverty, hunger, inadequate health care and education, poor housing and crime. This bill calls upon the federal government to lead the way with vision and commitment toward a future where all children have quality health care, educational opportunity, family stability and safe communities. No child in this country should grow up poor, or hungry, or sick, or scared. Now is the time. America must make a choice when it comes to the future of our children. We must decide whether we will invest in the healthy development of all our children or in tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens in this country. We cannot do both. This bill represents a vision and a commitment toward a future where all children have a chance to succeed so that we may use our resources in a constructive way to truly leave no child behind. This legislation provides every child and their parents with health insurance, lifts every child from poverty through tax credits, work supports, and a new minimum wage, and ends child hunger through the expansion of food programs. This bill makes sure every child is ready for school by fully funding quality early learning programs, and offers significant reforms for our system of public education that increases accountability, reduces classroom size, and guarantees that all children will be taught by qualified teachers in modern and safe classrooms. This legislation also builds affordable housing and safe communities through sensible environmental protections, gun safety laws, and programs to reduce children's exposure to neglect, abuse, and violence. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Act to Leave No Child Behind.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, everyone in the nation was deeply touched by the terrible tragedy involving the recent loss of seven astronauts aboard the Columbia Space Shuttle. As in the case of the Challenger Shuttle explosion 17 years ago, Congress must become deeply involved in reviewing the causes of this accident. That review, as our former colleague and highly respected expert on the space program, Tim Roemer reminds us, must be an independent study. Far too much--in money, in effort and in lives--is invested in the manned space program for us to fail to undertake a thorough and fully credible review, including whether or not congressional funding decisions might have affected the adequacy of the resources devoted to shuttle safety. Congressman Roemer offered sound advice to the Gehman Commission that is charged with investigating the Columbia tragedy in a recent column published in Roll Call, which I am submitting to the Record. The article follows: NASA Panel Needs To Find Real Solutions (By Tim Roemer) After the Challenger space shuttle exploded on takeoff in 1986, the prominent physicist Richard Feynman dramatically conducted an experiment visually linking the cause and effect for all to understand. He carefully dipped the rubber O-rings into a glass of ice water to replicate what had happened when they hardened, cracked and, consequently, malfunctioned. An independent panel, known as the Rogers Commission, generally concluded that NASA officials and contractors were largely at fault. The report went on to list poor communications with management, sacrificing standards to remain within the budget, and not paying enough attention to hazards and warnings. Now, 17 years later, the Columbia has disintegrated upon re-entry. We cannot merely round up the usual cast of suspects, appoint the same names to an investigation board and point the finger at the predictable target. It is too important to understand how this happened, with decisions led us there and how to fix it. Whatever the final conclusion, the newly appointed Gehman Commission tasked with discovering the cause should be loaded with independent and aggressive individuals willing to challenge Congressional budgeting decisions and oversight performance. Everything should be on the table. The commission should have begun its investigation 10 years before last month's takeoff of Columbia. On June 23, 1993, Congress voted 216-215 to authorize $13 billion for space station costs over the next decade. While Members of Congress, the administration and especially NASA recognize that the space station was experiencing significant design glitches, cost overruns and scheduling delays, they also knew that more money would eventually be needed in the overall NASA budget. But the overall NASA budget level would decline in real dollars over the next 10 years. The space station overruns multiplied. Something had to give. The overall NASA budget went from $14.36 billion in 1993 to $14.9 billion in 2002. However, this declining budget in real dollars included an increase in 2002 for securing the NASA facilities from terrorist threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. What happened during this same period to the space shuttle budget? In 1994, the budget for the shuttle was $3.8 billion. It was cut each year for eight years by more than $500 million. In 1997, $200 million was moved from the ``shuttle account'' to the ``space station account'' by NASA with Congress' approval. Meanwhile, the space station budget grew to $2.4 billion and then went down to $2.1 billion. Due to NASA's many alternations in accounting during this 10-year period, it is exptemely difficult to calculate precise figures for many of these programs. The commission should get a detailed and thorough explanation on how much was spent and where the money went. By 1996, a single prime contractor took over the shuttle operations. The ``USA'' on the astronauts' uniforms now stood for ``United Space Alliance,'' a collaboration of private- sector companies. Did Congress object? Approve? Ring the alarm bells? I was a member of one of the responsible committees, and we didn't do enough. The Gehman Commission should analyze the role of Congress in many of these important decisions. In the end, Congress may or may not be part of the problem. But it can be part of the solution. The House and Senate space oversight committees have a historic opportunity to conduct 18 months of comprehensive oversight hearings over the remaining 108th Congress. They should produce a comprehensive and long-range report detailing general options for a pared down space station, a plan for robotic space exploration even beyond Mars, a robust replacement shuttle, a bigger and better Hubble telescope, and a vision for human space travel using nuclear propulsion technology. And they must propose an affordable and sustainable budget without sacrificing the viability of one program for the benefit of another. This would be like the phoenix rising from earth, a testimony and living memorial to the seven Columbia astronauts. Together, their spirits and earthly remains would break ``the surly bonds of earth.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to recognize and commend the appropriators for the difficult task that they had over this past year in coming together on this legislation. I also want to express my very serious disappointment on what happened in the conservation accounts in the Interior appropriations portion of this legislation, that we were not able to fund the commitments that we had made that so many local communities and conservation organizations rely on, where we have partnerships with business and civic organizations and individuals coming together to try and provide for the conservation of our lands and our open spaces, which have been terribly successful. The urban parks being zeroed out is a major disappointment to so many urban areas where we have, again, put together coalitions from the NBA, from women's sports to neighborhood organizations, from the Urban League and so many to rebuild these recreational facilities and opportunities for young people. It is a major disappointment. I also must tell my colleagues that the forest stewardship contracts now simply open up the forest in a most unregulated fashion. The disappointment is really this, and it is not the fault of these appropriators, it is the process. Because with this process it is not a fact that I did not get to be heard on this bill at one particular time or another, but my constituents did not. So many millions of Americans that are deeply concerned about the health of our environment, about the health of our forest, about the activities on our public lands are shut out from this process because those decisions were made last night or this morning or the night before, and they have had no time to respond to them. The vote will be taken about it, and they will read about it in the newspapers over the coming weeks. That is a major affront to democracy. That is a major affront to the basic principles of this institution, to the basic principles of representative government, that the people in this country have been closed out of this process. Yes, the process has gone on a lot longer than it should have, but it was far more closed than at any time in the history of the House of Representatives. And that is a major, major disappointment for those of us, as we sit here on the brink of war talking about freedom and we think about bringing freedom and democracy to other countries and we see it shut down in the people's House. Legislation sits here and nobody has the ability to read it. Nobody knows what is in it, but we are going to be asked to vote for it. That is not the democracy we should be exporting. That is not the process we should be exporting. It is a process that denies our constituents. Whether they are interested in education or the environment or public health or aerospace, it denies them the opportunity to be heard; and it is a corruption, an outright corruption of the basic and fundamental principles of our government, of our constitution, and of this institution, and it ought to be stopped.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues attention to an article that appeared in the February 13, 2003 issue of the The New York Times. The article was written by Ginger Thompson and appeared under the headline ``Behind Roses' Beauty, Poor and Ill Workers.'' This St. Valentine's day, many of roses Americans will purchase as expressions of love for spouses, parents and others will have been produced in Ecuador. In a 20-year period, Ecuador has become the fourth-largest producer of roses in the world. The Andean Trade Preference Treaty of 1991 provides tariff-free access to American markets. It, therefore, behooves us, both as Members of Congress and as consumers, to be aware of the conditions under which these roses are produced. As Ms. Thompson's article makes clear, there is reason for serious concern that workers, making as little as $156 a month, are being poisoned as a result of the misuse of pesticides, fungicides, and fumigants. The Ecuadorean rose industry employs 50,000 workers, 70 percent of whom are women. I commend the following excerpt from the article to the attention of my colleagues and the public and urge you to read the entire article. In our efforts to express affection for a loved-one through the purchase of a flower, I am sure that none of us wants to be a part of the poisoning of another. [From the New York Times, Feb. 13, 2002] Behind the Beauty, Poor and Ill Workers (By Ginger Thompson) Cayambe, Ecuador, February 10--In just five years, Ecuadorean roses, as big and red as the human heart, have become the new status flower in the United States, thanks to the volcanic soil, perfect temperatures and abundant sunlight that help generate $240 million a year and tens of thousands of jobs in this once-impoverished region north of Quito. This St. Valentine's Day, hundreds of American florists and catalogs are offering the roses of this fertile valley. Calyx & Corolla, for instance, bills it as a place ``where Andean mists and equatorial sun conspire to produce roses that quickly burst into extravagant bloom, then hold their glory long after lesser specimens have begun to droop.'' But roses come with thorns, too. As Ecuador's colorful blooms radiate romance around the world, large growers here have been accused of misusing a toxic mixture of pesticides, fungicides and fumigants to grow and export unblemished pest- free flowers. As in other industries like garment production, bananas and diamonds, the poor worry about eating first and labor conditions later. They toil here despite headaches and rashes here for the wealthier of the world, who in turn know little of the conditions in which their desires are met. Doctors and scientists who have worked here say serious health problems have resulted for many of the industry's 50,000 workers, more than 70 percent of them women. Researchers say their work is hampered by lack of access to flower farms because of reluctant growers. But studies that the International Labor Organization published in 1999 and the Catholic University issued here last year showed that women in the industry had more miscarriages than average and that more than 60 percent of all workers suffered headaches, nausea, blurred vision or fatigue. ``No one can speak with conclusive facts in hand about the impact of this industry on the health of the workers, because we have not been able to do the necessary studies,'' said Dr. Bolivar Vera, a health specialist at the Health Environment and Development Foundation in Quito. ``So the companies have been able to wash their hands of the matter.'' . . . Dr. Cesar Paz-y-Mino, a geneticist at the Catholic University, said several pesticides used on a farm that was the setting for his research in the late 1990's were restricted as health hazards in other countries, including the United States, and labeled as highly toxic by the World Health Organization. Among the most notorious are captan, aldicarb and fenamiphos. Dr. Paz-y-Mino refused to identify the flower farm under an agreement that he said he had with the owners. He described the conditions as astonishing and recalled workers' fumigating in street clothes without protective equipment, pesticides stored in poorly sealed containers and fumes wafting over the workers' dining halls. When asked what government agencies monitor worker health and safety, Dr. Paz-y-Mino said, ``There are no such checks.'' . . . Industry representatives denied that there was a health problem or that unacceptable risks were taken. ``The growers we know are very conscious of environmental issues,'' said Harrison Kennicott, the chief executive of Kennicott Brothers, a wholesaler in Chicago who is a former president of the Society of American Florists, a trade group. ``They go to lengths to get certified environmentally,'' Mr. Kennicott said. ``The growers take care of the people. They provide housing and medical care. ``Our job is to satisfy our customers, who are the florists and retailers who deliver flowers to the public. Our interest is having the best quality product at a competitive price.'' Yet it is hard to erase images of workers like Soledad, 32, and Petrona, 34, both mothers and both looking jaundiced and bony. In interviews after quitting time, they asked not to be fully identified out of fear that they would lose their $156- a-month jobs cutting flowers in greenhouses. The women said they had elementary school educations but did not need high- level science to tell them why their kidneys throbbed at night and heads throbbed in the day. ``There is no respect for the fumigation rules,'' said Petrona, who has worked on flower farms for four years. ``They spray the chemicals even while we are working.'' ``My hair has begun to fall out,'' she added, running a hand from the top of her visibly receding hairline down a single scruffy braid. ``I am young, but I feel very old.'' Soledad, who has worked on flower farms for 12 years, slowly turned her head from side to side. ``If I move my head any faster, I feel nauseous,'' she said, and then pulled up her sleeve to show her skeletal limbs. ``I have no appetite.'' When asked whether the farm where they worked had a doctor on duty, the women rolled their eyes. ``He always tells us there is nothing wrong with us and sends us back to work,'' Petrona said. ``He works for the company. He does not help us.'' . . .

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank her publicly for all of the work over the last several years that she has put into our Democratic substitute, trying to advance this discussion about our obligation to try and help those individuals who want to work to be able to go to work and to be able to get a job that not only takes them off of the public assistance rolls but it also takes them out of poverty. That has to be our goal. It is unbelievable that the Republicans would introduce the very same bill that they introduced almost a year and a half ago when the economy has changed entirely. During that time what we have seen is the highest unemployment rate since 1994. We have seen almost 1.7 million jobs lost since 2001. Almost 2 million jobs have disappeared. In those sectors of our economy where people are likely to go to get entry-level jobs, in the hospitality industry, in the retail industry, in the fast food industry, they are all in trouble. They are all laying workers off. Yet we want to act like today is how it was a year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years ago. No. What we need is we need jobs and we need child care for those individuals who are seeking those jobs. The Republican bill fails to provide that. It fails to recognize how lousy the Bush economy is and how many people are in trouble. We have 1 million people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and cannot find work. And somehow we are suggesting that these people just go out and look, that they will be able to find that work. I hope they are able to, but they will not unless we provide the kind of child care that is necessary. The gentlewoman from California has made it clear: In 20 States we have a waiting list of the working poor, of people trying to get off of welfare, of people who are working to try to find child care for their children. In California, 200,000 people are waiting for child care. The money they have in the bill will not take care of the problem in California, much less nationwide. The problem nationwide is $11 billion in child care. They put in $1 billion in mandatory child care. The Republicans have got to wake up and understand what has happened to our economy. We want these people to be able to go to work. We want those people who are working now to be able to stay in the workplace. But the economy has to improve, and they have got to provide the underpinnings so these individuals can take advantage of those job opportunities should they come along.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Obey motion because it keeps a promise with the American public. It keeps a promise with America's schoolchildren, and it keeps a promise with the parents of those children and the teachers that teach them. And that promise was made by the President of the United States, that promise was made by the Congress of the United States, that in the process of enacting the most far-reaching reforms in the Federal role in education in this country, that we would fully fund the means by which the States and localities and school districts could carry out those reforms. But almost before the ink was dry, the President submitted a budget that, in fact, made cuts in that education promise. Last night the President talked about the accomplishments that he had had. He talked about setting standards and having young children achieve those standards. That is the promise, but it is not happening. It is not happening in this country, and now it is even under greater threat because of the cuts that are taking place in education because of the economic distress in our country and the budgetary distress in our States. The question for us is whether or not we will help these school districts carry out these reforms so that these children can have a higher level of achievement, a higher level of accomplishment, and a better chance of participating in the American dream. That is what the Obey amendment is about. That is what this vote is about. It is about whether or not this Congress will redeem that promise on behalf of America's schoolchildren. We cannot have a freeze on those, as the House appropriations bill did. We cannot have the measly increase that the Senate has suggested. What, in fact, we need is to add this additional $5.7 billion so that the promise of no child left behind is, in fact, a reality. And it is important because States are required under this law to do many things differently, many things better than they have done in the past, and we believe, and most educators believe, that the result will be that America's schoolchildren will have a higher level of accomplishment, will have a higher level of performance. By the same token, those very same independent observers of the American education system understand that if the resources are not there, this promise will be hollow. The President made the promise, the President should keep the promise, and the Congress of the United States should help him to keep that promise by passing the Obey motion to instruct.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for the Congress to overhaul the failed child welfare system. In 2000, almost 3 million instances of child abuse or neglect were reported and more than 870,000 incidents substantiated, and 556,000 children lived in foster care. A particularly horrendous example of abuse, and the failure of state agencies to address it, fills the newspapers today in reporting the tragedy in Newark, NJ. Despite spending billions of dollars on child welfare, we continue to fail these and other children every day. Recent audits by the Department of Health and Human Services have found that every state examined is out of compliance with federal regulations to protect children. Unfortunately, nearly every Member can find horrific stories in their own state about the failure of the child welfare system. In the most recent New Jersey tragedy, despite the state welfare system being repeatedly notified about abuse in this family over 10 years, two young brothers were found starving and neglected with their brother laying dead in another part of the basement. Serious reform at the local, state and federal levels is long overdue. In November 2002, Representatives Rangel and Cardin and I convened a Child Welfare Summit that brought together child welfare experts, administrators, judges, and academicians to discuss the state of child welfare reform. Summit participants discussed the great need for reform and the communities in which improvements have been achieved. They called for more community involvement and partnerships, better investment in prevention, standards of accountability for welfare systems and improved caseworker training, supervision and retention. The following article from The Washington Post discusses the urgent need for reform and some of the recommendations of the Summit. Congress needs to act without delay to review these findings and implement changes to safeguard our most vulnerable children. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2003] Before the Next Tragedy By Susan Notkin We have become accustomed to the headlines: A child in foster care is missing. An infant is left alone in a locked car on a hot day. A child dies at the hands of a parent whose acts of abuse or neglect went unnoticed--or, worse, were noticed and ignored by those who might have helped. One week's troubling stories may come from Florida, Michigan or Texas, but the next week it could just as easily be another state, another child in the news. These tragedies initiate predictable events. Politicians, journalists and others point fingers. A caseworker, supervisor or child welfare commissioner resigns. A blue ribbon panel is convened. But real system reform seems impossible, and the sense of urgency fades until the next headline. In the year 2000, nearly 3 million cases of child abuse or neglect were reported, with more than 870,000 incidents substantiated. For each day of that year, three children died as a result of abuse or neglect. In 2000, more than half-a- million children were in foster care nationwide, many residing in communities far from their homes and families. The problem is not lack of caring. Child welfare workers and administrators go to work everyday hoping to do their best for vulnerable children and families. But state and local agencies suffer from inadequate resources, high turnover, poor training, low pay and outrageously heavy caseloads. At present, dozens of states are either involved in child welfare class action lawsuits or are operating under court order for failing to adequately protect abused and neglected children. Still we lack the political will for major reform. Recently, national child welfare experts and congressional leaders held a Child Welfare Summit to discuss urgent problems confronting child welfare services and to recommend priorities for reform. Participants called for major changes in our nation's approach to protecting children. They recommended investing in prevention instead of continuing with inadequate after- the-fact responses. They stressed that efforts to hold child welfare systems more accountable must be coupled with relevant standards for child welfare practice that make accountability possible. They supported measures to build skills and improve compensation for caseworkers, increase caseworker retention and provide rewards for superior performance. Nearly all participants spoke to the need to address the over representation of children of color in our child welfare system. Perhaps the area of greatest consensus was that government alone cannot effectively protect children. We need much greater community involvement, especially in the form of partnerships between public child welfare agencies and local communities. Such partnerships make keeping children safe everybody's business. Neighbors and community leaders reach out to vulnerable families to talk about good parenting. They carry the challenge of child abuse prevention to neighborhood meeting, block parties, picnics and congregations of different faiths. These partnerships offer individualized services based on a family's needs and give families at risk more say in the decisions that affect their lives. Because child welfare, mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence agencies typically work with the same families, community partnerships ensure that their services are coordinated. And when children must be placed outside their homes, every effort is made to keep them in their own communities. Community partnerships are already showing great promise in more than 50 locations across the country, including cities as diverse as Jacksonville, Fla., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Atlanta. The task of changing the way we conduct child welfare is demanding, but we have no choice. The terrible cost to children and families who fall in the cracks of the current system is obvious enough, but the financial cost is also daunting. Prevent Child Abuse America reports that we spend more than $93 billion annually in direct and indirect responses to child abuse and neglect. We could spend this money far more wisely by implementing the types of reforms recommended by the nation's leading child welfare experts. This is the future we must invest in.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to bring to my colleagues' attention, and to the attention of their constituents who may wish to get involved in peace education, the recently released United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education. The study is the result of successful collaboration between the Hague Appeal for Peace--a citizen's organization dedicated to reducing wars and armed conflict and promoting reconciliation and economic development--the Government of Mexico and the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs. By working together--governments, civil society and the United Nations--the effort to sustain peace through education stands a greater chance of success. Humankind's genius invented technological wonders in the last century that have made life more livable and longer for many. It also produced, and then governments used, the atomic bomb, and then perfected it to incomprehensible destructive capacity. We are discovering new pieces of information from direct participants about how close we came to a global nuclear exchange during the Cuban Missile crisis 40 years ago. And we are confronted with a new awareness of dangers that might arise with the use of weapons of mass destruction for terrorism. Education alone is not a security blanket. It is not a guarantee for progressive thinking. Indeed, we have learned that young people being educated in some religious schools in the Middle East were being indoctrinated with hatred for the West and the United States. However, in a democratic society, education is a tool for enlightenment. As H.G. Wells said in his 1921 work, The Outline of History, ``Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.'' We would do well to heed his warning. Fortunately, the complacency and lack of interest in questions of disarmament and non-proliferation, especially about extant nuclear dangers and solutions, is starting slowly to break down. During talk of war and inspections of weapons of mass destruction, we find ourselves in a teachable moment. Mr. Speaker, we are at a time in history when it is critical to embrace the idea that peace, dialogue, and disarmament can and should be taught in school and that it should be taught as an integral part of school curricula and programs in the United States and across the world. And there has emerged a plan to help educators learn how to teach peace. A ten-country United Nations group of experts issued a study in October on the status of disarmament and non-proliferation education efforts world-wide, making a set of 34 recommendations to Governments, the UN, other international organizations, and civil society on how to improve peace and disarmament education as a means of fostering tolerance and a culture of non-violence. It calls for a joint effort to revitalize disarmament education to empower young people through knowledge to help make the world a more peaceful place. Surely this is an idea that all of us in Congress, regardless of party or political persuasion, can support. The Study is available on the United Nations Web site at http:// disarmament.un.org/education/index.html, and I commend it to my colleagues for further reading. I am also enclosing several additional documents for the Record about the project for the benefit of my colleagues and their constituents. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share this information with my colleagues and I also appreciate the hard work that the Hague Appeal for Peace, the United Nations, and the Government of Mexico put into this exciting and important peace education project. [lsqb]From the Report of the Secretary-General, Aug. 30, 2002[rsqb] Section VIII. Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education and Training: Practical Recommendations All the following recommendations are important. They vary, however, in the resources required for their implementation, the pace with which they can be put in place and the amount of time needed before they yield significant results. Those recommendations with asterisks represent steps that can and should be taken rapidly and at a relatively low cost. *1. Member States are encouraged to accord importance to disarmament and non-proliferation education and training in their programmes and policies, consistent with their national legislation and practices, taking into account present and future trends. They are also encouraged to use, designate or establish public advisory bodies, where appropriate, whose responsibilities include advising on disarmament and non- proliferation education and training practices. Member States are encouraged to share their experience in disarmament and non-proliferation education and training with other Member States, international organizations, civil society and the Department for Disarmament Affairs. *2. Relevant United Nations offices and other international organizations and agencies should prepare, adapt and disseminate a wider range of user-friendly educational material on disarmament and non-proliferation. The current experience in this field should be tapped and existing educational material, including educational modules, resource books, guide and online programmes, should be tailored to the needs of individual countries, specific audiences or the international community at large. *3. The United Nations and other international organizations should translate its disarmament and publications into all United Nations official languages and, when possible, into other languages for additional dissemination. Upon request by the United Nations or relevant international organizations, Member States, academic and research institutions and NGOs are encouraged to support or assist in translating relevant materials. 4. The United Nations and other international organizations should increase their capacities to disseminate disarmament and non-proliferation education-related materials (print and audio-visual) more widely to all regions of the world. While strengthening existing distribution channels, they should explore new ones, such as cooperation with educational networks, teachers unions and curriculum committees as well as electrical access. Member States, local academic institutions, research centres and NGOs are also encouraged to assist in dissemination efforts. As it is essential to reach the local community level, channels of dissemination such as school libraries, gathering places, radio and television are highly recommended. 5. The Department of Disarmament Affairs should gather information about the involvement of regional and intergovernmental organizations in disarmament and non- proliferation education, training and data collection activities. The Department should examine ways to foster an exchange of experiences and regional perspectives to facilitate the development of disarmament and non- proliferation education programmes. 6. The Department of Disarmament Affairs should examine, accumulate and make public and easily accessible the different disarmament and non-proliferation curricula and programmes that States have developed for their formal school systems and university courses as well as for informal training. 7. UNU and UPEACE are encouraged to develop intensive postgraduate and other courses on disarmament and non- proliferation for representatives of all regions of the world, including government officials, legislators, military officers, NGOs, the media and students, working in cooperation with academic and non-governmental institutions that have expertise in designing and implementing such courses. UPEACE, in coordination with the Department of Disarmament Affairs, may wish to host seminars and workshops as well as to develop model university and school material. 8. Member States are encouraged to include parliamentarians and/or non-governmental advisers in delegations to United Nations disarmament-related meetings, taking into account national legislation and practices. 9. The Department of Disarmament Affairs and its regional centres, in cooperation with UNIDIR, UNU and UPEACE, are encouraged to establish a virtual library of reports of ``lessons learned'' on disarmament-related aspects of peace operations and make it available to both Governments and NGOs on a disarmament and non-proliferation online education resource site (see recommendations 25). 10. Municipal leaders, working with citizen groups, are encouraged to establish peace cities, as part of the UNESCO Cities for Peace network, through, for example, the creation of peace museums, peace parks, web sites and the production of booklets on peacemakers and peacemaking. 11. UNU and UPEACE are encouraged to provide assistance to those city councils and prefectures that are willing to host seminars on disarmament and non-proliferation issues for the media, academics, local and national politicians, trade union representatives, religious leaders and the wider public. 12. Religious leaders and institutions are encouraged to develop educational material promoting a culture of peace and disarmament. *13. Member States, in cooperation with the United Nations and relevant international organizations, are encouraged to sponsor training, fellowships, and awareness programmes, on as wide a geographical basis as possible, for researchers, engineers, scientists and other academics in areas of particular relevance, but not limited to treaties and agreements on weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. They are also encouraged to give special emphasis to training customs, licensing and law enforcement officers for the purpose of fulfilling international obligations of Member States in the disarmament and non-proliferation fields. *14. The Department of Disarmament Affairs, in cooperation with UNU and UPEACE, should be encouraged to organize a programme of training for educators and trainers in disarmament and non-proliferation. These programmes may be implemented cooperatively with international organizations such as IAEA, OPCW and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization. 15. The Department of Disarmament Affairs, in cooperation with UNESCO, UPEACE, UNIDIR and NGOs, should produce and maintain an updated international bibliography of reference literature for teachers, including an updated directory of peace studies programmes and disarmament and non- proliferation research centres, and make this available on a disarmament and non-proliferation online education resource site (see recommendation 25). 16. UNESCO IBE is encouraged to convene regional meetings with ministers of education, educational administrators and university presidents to discuss the issues involved in developing disarmament and non-proliferation education for primary, secondary and university students. The International Conference on Education is encouraged to devote one session of a future meeting to disarmament and non-proliferation education, for example, through a workshop on science and ethics. *17. The United Nations, relevant international organizations, Member States, NGOs and research institutes should develop and strengthen programmes, workshops, fellowships and materials or disarmament and non- proliferation topics for journalists and media representatives in order to enhance their knowledge of these issues. Special attention should be paid to the development of programmes and materials designed for local media in post- conflict situations, as essential partners in the disarmament and non-proliferation education process. 18. Disarmament and non-proliferation educational materials developed by the United Nations, such as the Cyberschoolbus web site, should include complementary material on how parents can encourage attitudes of peace and non-violence. Efforts should also be made by educators, parents and the business community to devise and produce toys, computer games and videos that engender such attitudes. 19. Additional fellowships and scholarships should be provided for various target audiences by or through the Department of Disarmament Affairs (directly or through its regional centres), UPEACE, UNIDIR and the NGO Committee on Disarmament, among others. An important educational supplement to disarmament and non-proliferation classroom training should be on-the-job training, which may be conducted at the sites of international organizations, national governmental agencies, NGOs and research centres. Opportunities for such on-the-job training should be expanded. *20. The United Nations, relevant international organizations, Member States, and corporate and private donors are encouraged to provide assistance, including funds, educational material and equipment to NGOs in different regions of the world and to universities to establish or expand their disarmament and non-proliferation libraries with free and open public access to their resources. Member States should be encouraged to fund research institutes that focus on disarmament and non- proliferation and offer scholarships for advanced university students to carry out research on disarmament and non- proliferation and its pedagogy. The United Nations should make greater efforts to tap the financial resources of private enterprises in the fields of information and communications technology.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the lifelong achievements of Marilyn Briggs, who is retiring after 33 years of dedicated service to school children and their nutritional development. Marilyn Briggs, R.D., M.S., S.F.N.S., is the Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction, Director of the Nutrition Services Division, for the California Department of Education. She is responsible for child nutrition, commodity food distribution and nutrition education programs statewide, where over four million meals are served daily to California's children. In her thirty-three years of work in diverse food and nutrition programs, over twenty of which have been directly involved with child nutrition and nutrition education, Marilyn has effected numerous changes that have advanced good nutrition for children, adults and families not only in California, but also across the nation. As a result of her commitment, leadership, and hard work, she leaves a legacy upon her retirement of many nutrition and nutrition education programs that will continue to be utilized by Child Nutrition Programs in California and other states. Marilyn's accomplishments are too many to list, however the following are some of the most noteworthy: She created the concept of the nationally acclaimed 5 A Day program as part of the development of the California Daily Food Guide. This well-known program, aimed at improving the nation's health through increased fruit and vegetable consumption, has received over $1 billion in contributions from the food industry and public and private organizations, and is now used in markets and schools across the country. She coordinated the Shaping Healthy Choices Initiative including the establishment of statewide SHAPE (Shaping Health As Partners in Education) model programs, which serve as catalysts to improve the quality of comprehensive nutrition programs in California. She initiated and developed national standards for the Healthy School Meals Initiative, which are now part of the Coordinated Review Effort audit for every National School Lunch Program in the United States. She reviewed and rewrote the 5-a-Day Adventures CD-Rom for elementary school students, which is now used in over 2 million classrooms. She developed the conceptual model for the Team Nutrition Schools network based on California's SHAPE program, and mapped out the plan for all materials to be used in the program. Along with two other Nutrition Education and Training staff, she developed the comprehensive school health initiative, ``Healthy Kids, Healthy California'', which is now used by the Center for Disease Control as the model program to be implemented nationwide. She coordinated the development, field-testing, evaluation, and publication of a state nutrition education curriculum series, ``Choose Well, Be Well'', for students, preschool age through grade twelve. She coordinated Nutrition, Education and Training Section Publications such as The California Daily Food Guide, Better Breakfast Better Learning, Eat Well Learn Well, and Strategies for Success. She has provided expert testimony and analysis to both State and Federal Legislators, and answered inquiries from Congress regarding USDA Nutrition Programs. She has served as a consultant to the USDA in developing regulations for implementation of the National School Lunch Act, such as the highly complex issue of competitive food sales. Throughout her career, Marilyn Briggs has participated in numerous nutrition and nutrition education professional organizations and councils, where she donates extraordinary amounts of volunteer time and expertise to further child and other nutrition programs. Most recently she has completed a one year term as President of the National Society for Nutrition Education, where she had previously held other Board positions, led their strategic planning process, and founded and chaired the Division of Specialists in Nutrition Education for Children. She has also been President of the National Association of State NET (Nutrition Education and Training) Program Coordinators, where she led a Nutrition Education and Training strategic planning process which resulted in the publication by USDA in 1994 of ``Promoting Healthy Eating Habits for Our Children: The Strategic Plan for Nutrition Education'' that is still used today as the framework for the national NET Program. As President of the California Nutrition Council, she coordinated a multi-disciplinary process to make policy recommendations in the areas of Food Safety and Quality, Food Security and Delivery, Food Supply and Agriculture, Nutrition Education and Marketing, Nutrition and Health, and Nutrition Research and Professional Development. The Council then used these policy recommendations to establish a statewide food, nutrition, and health policy that prioritized and addressed the nutrition needs of California, to be introduced as legislation during the 1996-1997 California legislative session. Marilyn has clearly been a leader in promoting lifelong nutrition and health for children and their families. Marilyn has also served on several Boards and Committees, including the Research and Education Advisory Board to the National Food Service Management Institute, the Nutrition Section of the American Public Health Association, the Legislative Committee of the California Dietetic Association, the School Nutrition Practice Group of the American Dietetic Association, the 5 A Day Steering Committee, and the Credentialing and Certification Council, Foundation Board, and Youth Advisory Committee of the American School Food Service Association. She has chaired the American School Food Service Association Nutrition Committee, the American Dietetic Association Public Relations Committee and Education Section of the School Nutrition Practice Group, and the California School Food Service Association Education and Training Committee, Nutrition Standards Committee, and Youth Advisory Councils. She has acted as the California Department of Education liaison to the California School Food Service Association for more than ten years. In addition, Marilyn has authored and acted as an expert reviewer for numerous nutrition publications, and presented keynote speeches on nutrition related topics across the country. In recognition of her exceptional contributions in the field of child nutrition, Marilyn Briggs has received several awards. They include the ``Friends of Agriculture'' outstanding public service award by the California Farm Bureau and the California Agriculture in the Classroom Program, the California Department of Education Unit Award, a graduate student fellowship from the University of California at Berkeley, and the ``Moscone Commitment to Nutrition and Nutrition Education Award'', which has been given to her twice by the California School Food Service Association. In addition to working as the Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction, Marilyn has held several positions within the Nutrition Services Division of the California Department of Education since 1981. They include Nutrition Education and Training Specialist, Child Nutrition Consultant, Administrator of Nutrition Education and Training, and Assistant Nutrition Services Division Director. She has also worked in a temporary Intergovernmental Personnel Assignment as a Special Assistant to the Associate Administrator of Food and Consumer Service, United States Department of Agriculture, in Washington, D.C. during 1994 and 1995. In each of these positions, Marilyn has not only demonstrated her passion for child nutrition and nutrition education, but she has worked tirelessly to lead collaborative efforts to develop nutrition programs and curriculum and ensure their implementation. Marilyn was born Marilyn Mae Briggs on June 6, 1946 in Washington, D.C. to Eleanor Reese Briggs and George McSpadden Briggs, Jr. She attended Bethesda Elementary School in Bethesda, Maryland, where she earned straight A's all seven years, and excelled in music and performing in school plays. She graduated from Leland Junior High School in Bethesda, Maryland, and Acalanes High School in Lafayette, California, where she continued to excel in academics, music, and drama. In 1968, she received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Dietetics and Nutrition from the University of California at Berkeley, where her father was the Chair of the Nutritional Sciences Department. She completed her Dietetic Internship at the United States Public Health Service Hospital in Staten Island, New York, and became a Registered Dietitian in 1969. After working a few years, Marilyn earned her Master of Science Degree in Nutritional Sciences, again from the University of California at Berkeley, and she became Credentialed as a School Foodservice and Nutrition Specialist (S.F.N.S.) through the American School Food Service Association in 2000. Marilyn has three children, Nancy, Catherine, and Robert, two grand daughters, Emma and Samantha, and two sisters, Nancy Louise Briggs and Catherine Briggs Hanafi, in addition to her mother, Eleanor, and her father, the late George Briggs. Marilyn Briggs's career has been one of continually giving above and beyond what has been required of her. As Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction, Director of the Nutrition Services Division, for the California Department of Education, she has been responsible for the administration of the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, Food Distribution Program, Special Milk Program, and State Meal Mandate in California. While managing these programs with perfection, Marilyn has continually sought development and implementation of new concepts and programs to advance good nutrition and nutrition education in California and beyond. Many of her dreams and ideas have become national models and standards, yet Marilyn seeks no personal credit. She is humble in her success, a strong but gentle leader, and highly respected by everyone with whom she has ever worked. She accomplishes what she sets out to do, finds ways around roadblocks, and is a master of communication, with the ability to bring consensus among dissenting groups when necessary to focus on the common goal of good nutrition. The vision of the Nutrition Services Division, ``Working with our partners, we will lead the nation in providing exemplary nutrition programs and services,'' has definitely been achieved under Marilyn's direction. She is truly a great friend and advocate to all who value nutrition and nutrition education.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened by the tragic death of Senator Paul Wellstone, his family members and staff, and I have prayed for the families of all the victims of this accident. I rise today to support this resolution honoring the short but powerful life of Paul Wellstone, the people's senator. I will miss Paul, a good friend, a good person, and an invaluable and courageous colleague. Paul and I joined together on many occasions to fight for legislation to help those who have so little power in our society. Most recently, we co-authored a bill to provide mental health and substance abuse treatment to juvenile offenders. Paul understood that many young offenders suffer from problems that are treatable and that contribute to their troubles, but for which they rarely receive effective treatment. It was not a bill written for the powerful or wealthy interests. It was not a bill written because it would be popular in the press. It was just one of the many examples of Paul's genuine desire to help people and demonstrated his understanding of his role as a representative in government. Paul Wellstone fought for working families, for better schools, and for a cleaner environment. He was a dedicated public servant who was passionate about his work and who was proud to fight for progressive causes. His loss is a loss for all of America and for all those Americans who so desperately need champions on their side. Paul was a man of principle, courage, and great intellect. Sadly, he will not be easily replaced in our society and we will miss him deeply.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5598, The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. Let me first thank Chairman Castle and Congressman Kildee for their outstanding work on this bill. Both members have championed the need for quality education research and this legislation is a reflection of their leadership on this issue. H.R. 5598 complements the bipartisan effort started with the No Child Left Behind Act. In that landmark reform measure enacted this year, states and schools districts will now be held accountable for providing a quality education to all children. The availability of scientifically based research that demonstrates what works and what doesn't work will be critical in this effort and H.R. 5598 establishes the framework to make this happen. H.R. 5598 brings research directly into the classroom where it is needed the most. Through a system of regional technical assistance, school districts will be able to receive support tailored to their needs. The bill also establishes 8 research centers to focus on long term research in such critical issues as teacher quality, early childhood education, and assessments and standards. The research conducted by these centers will help to inform the efforts of educators all over the country. I am proud that this bill will continue to support the efforts in my State of: West Ed in San Francisco, CRESST at UCLA, and CREDE at UC Santa Cruz. All of these programs offer top-notch work that is of direct benefit to our entire educational system. Perhaps most important this legislation authorizes a new level of investment in education research to match the demand for quality science on what works to improve education. Again, I commend the work of my colleagues Congressman Castle and Kildee and urge support of this bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the story below, from Sunday's Pittsburgh Post Gazette, offers yet another example of a child welfare system's failure to provide children and their families with necessary services and safeguards--even in one of the nation's best child welfare systems. The story below discusses several examples of bad casework that are frightening, and some examples of good casework that are inspiring. But most frightening is the fact that these stories come from one of the best child welfare systems in the country. In most other jurisdictions, the child welfare system is worse. While this story describes caseworkers that failed to use resources available to them, in most communities, resources and supportive services are not available at all. In other jurisdictions, not only have child welfare workers been found derelict in their duties, but children have died under agency supervision. We cannot continue to spend billions of federal dollars on a system that does not provide what children need to thrive, or in some cases, even to survive. The government must require greater accountability to ensure the health and safety of every child in its custody. The article follows: [From the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Oct. 13, 2002] Dana Perkins wasn't looking for any help, though she'd admit getting by as a single mother of three was a relentless struggle. Sometimes, too tired to argue, she let her children skip school. Sometimes, too tired to face reality, she numbed herself with cocaine. Then, about 18 months ago, a judge informed her that she'd accept help whether she wanted it or not. Common Pleas Judge Cheryl Allen decided the combination of truancy and drug abuse endangered the Perkins children. That meant the judge could place them in foster care. But she didn't. She said Perkins could keep her children as long as she cooperated with Allegheny County's Office of Children, Youth and Families. Allen directed CYF to help Perkins get off drugs and get her kids to school. Perkins' first caseworker reached into the treasure chest of tools and services available to Allegheny County caseworkers with one hand and grasped Perkins with the other, in a focused attempt to pull her and her family up to the solid ground of sobriety and school success. Perkins' second caseworker, however, seemed to have no reach at all. The quality of a caseworker can make or break a family. It can be the difference between reunification and termination of parents and children. Some caseworkers are renowned in juvenile court for their ability to solve problems and bring together strengthened families. Others are notorious for the opposite. Frustrated juvenile court judges have tried to crack down on such workers. Last month, Common Pleas Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan directed CYF to pay a $150 penalty because a caseworker had failed for 30 days to formally explain why she'd placed children in foster care and neglected to call witnesses for a hearing to determine whether the removal was justified. Lawyers who practice in juvenile court say casework has improved over the past five years as workers' salaries have risen and a promotional ladder was constructed within CYF to retain the best ones. Still, they say, bad casework happens all too often. Allen, who has the longest tenure on the juvenile bench at nearly 11 years, and who worked as a lawyer for CYF for more than a dozen years before that, recognizes the stress under which caseworkers labor, with high caseloads and constant fear that a child will be hurt. ``Most caseworkers try to do the best they can under horrible circumstances,'' she said. But, she added, ``You just never know how far away from a disaster you are.'' Fault on both sides The Perkins case was relatively simple for CYF. The children weren't in foster care and hadn't missed so much school that they were failing. The mother used drugs but wasn't so addicted that she sold the children's toys to pay for them. And the family had a home, even if it was in a Garfield public housing project liberally splattered with the brown of boarded windows. Perkins' first caseworker, Juanita Bryant, signed her up for a drug treatment program and set her up with a recovery sister--a former drug addict who acts as a mentor. Bryant also got the family an in-home service worker to visit several days a week and help with budgeting and getting the kids to school. At that point, however, Perkins' cooperation was not as good as Bryant's casework. She started one treatment program, then left. She attended another, but quit it too. Good caseworkers, like Bryant, know such behavior is typical of addicts. But Bryant would remain on the case only a few months because she is an intake worker. She investigates allegations against parents, then begins help. In August 2001, Perkins' case was moved to Bill Besterman, a family service worker, the kind who assist families through recovery. Soon after Besterman was assigned to her case, Perkins decided she wanted to go into a 28-day in-patient drug treatment program. She says Besterman frustrated her efforts by losing papers, failing to sign forms and missing appointments. Besterman is prohibited by CYF policy from speaking about the Perkins family, but CYF is sanctioning him for his handling of this case. In a review hearing last May, Allen again ordered Besterman to help Perkins get in treatment, to enroll the two younger children, Brandon, 12, and Brittany, 13, in summer camps and help the oldest, Bryan, 15, get a summer job. Juvenile court routinely orders CYF to send teens to camp or summer school to keep them busy and out of trouble. Allen also repeated an order that was by then more than a year old. She wanted CYF to arrange for psychological evaluations of the children. By July, Besterman hadn't enrolled the children in camp or Perkins in treatment. So Perkins signed up for Zoar New Day program herself. She told Besterman it would require her to be gone for several hours a day, and he told her not to leave the children home alone. Perkins did it anyway, reasoning that they were old enough, especially since her brother and sister lived in the same housing complex. On Perkins' second day of treatment, Besterman showed up on her doorstep to take the children. Only the intervention of Perkins' brother and sister, who said they would watch over the youngsters, kept them out of foster care. Perkins stopped going to treatment while she pleaded with Besterman for a letter permitting her to leave the teens alone. He finally wrote it, she says, but by then the treatment program had discharged her. When the case returned to court for review on Sept. 4, Besterman told Allen that Perkins had dropped out of another drug treatment program, but he never mentioned that it was because he'd threatened to take her kids away while she was there. Information, disinformation The kind of information--or dis[chyph]in [chyph]for [chyph]ma [chyph]tion--case[chyph]work[chyph]ers give judges can be crucial in deciding a case. ``If you do not trust the case work done by CYF, and you are not sure of the information presented in court, then you are in a quandary,'' Mulligan said, ``You could get involved in a case with no basis, and that is not fair to the parents. Or you could end up dismissing a case that does have a basis, and that is not fair to the child.'' ``In a civil case,'' she said, ``if the plaintiff attorney does not present enough evidence, I dismiss, and the plaintiff can go after the attorney for malpractice. But in these cases, the consequences are so scary. You have children's lives at stake. You cannot say, `I will just dismiss it.''' One caseworker who simply didn't have the information a judge needed arrived in Allen's courtroom Aug. 21. In March, the caseworker had placed a teenage girl, a runaway who was working as a prostitute, in what was supposed to be a temporary shelter until the teen could be moved to a therapeutic group home. Five months later, the girl remained in the shelter, not placed where she could get help, and the worker couldn't tell the court whether she was receiving any therapy. The child's lawyer asked, ``is she getting therapy.'' The caseworker replied, ``I know she is in a shelter.'' Allen pressed, ``You are not sure if she is getting mental health services?'' ``I am not sure. She should be getting it,'' the worker said. She told the judge she did know the child was taking medication. ``For what,'' Allen asked. ``I am not sure,'' the worker said. Frustrations on the bench As Besterman testified at the Perkins review hearing in September, Allen grew increasingly red in the face. It wasn't so much what he didn't know as what he hadn't done. Allen asked Besterman if he'd set up drug screens for Perkins at the Allegheny County Health Department, as the judge had ordered repeatedly for a year. ``It was never done, I don't think,'' Besterman said. Had Besterman arranged psychological evaluations of the Perkins children? Allen asked. That was never done either, Besterman said. How about helping the older Perkins boy get a job? Besterman had done nothing more than get a copy of his birth certificate. Besterman also admitted he never enrolled the two younger children in camp. Finally, Allen told him, ``Mr. Besterman, it just seems as though nothing happens in this case. We drag these people in here every three months and nothing has happened.'' That frustration is a common one for judges and families alike: The work just doesn't get done. Caseworkers don't return phone calls, don't process payments, don't follow court orders. The claims of ignored phone calls are so commonplace that judges don't doubt them. In one case, CYF wanted Common Pleas Judge Robert Colville to relieve the agency of its duty to work toward reunification for a father who hadn't visited his baby. Colville refused after the father testified he'd repeatedly called his caseworker, left message after message and none was returned. ``It is a plausible, credible scenario that he called through December and no one answered his phone calls,'' Colville said. The failure of the agency to make various types of payments is just as problematic. In one case, a judge ordered CYF in June to cover the rent of a 17-year-old girl for three months until she turned 18. CYF was responsible for her until then, and the program that was supposed to teach her independent living skills while she lived in an apartment had closed down. CYF did not pay the rent, however, and the landlord threatened to evict the girl and her 10-month-old baby. Though ordered again in September to pay, CYF still hasn't done it. In another instance, a caseworker refused to provide bus passes for a low-income mother who needed to take two buses to get to her court-mandated drug screens. Though the agency routinely provides such passes, this caseworker refused. The mother pleaded for Allen to order it. She did. In a more egregious case, CYF failed to provide payments to a woman who was caring for her three nephews, even though they received Social Security, which was forwarded to CYF when the boys were removed from their mother. For months, the aunt cared for the boys without getting either foster care payments or the Social Security money. Finally, the financial stress in the household prompted the aunt to ask the caseworker to move the boys. A month later, CYF paid the $4,392 it owed her. Marc Cherna, Allegheny County's director of Human Services, conceded casework could be better. ``Not every case is handled as well as it should be,'' he said. ``I am very realistic about this stuff. I get the stack of complaints from the Director's Action Line.'' Still, he noted, the agency is always trying to improve the quality of casework, and the good work of the agency should not be forgotten. ``We do things that other places do not do,'' he pointed out. And if the agency is a little slow in providing these services--such as bus passes--it should still be commended for doing it at all. He stressed that he believes most caseworkers handle the job with empathy and professionalism. Perkins' new caseworker, Nadiyah McLendon, is among those. She took over the case after Besterman was removed in September. She helped get Perkins re-enrolled at Zoar, which will also do the drug screens, saving Perkins extra trips to get them. And she got the psychological evaluations of the three children done. She did everything she was supposed to do, fulfilling the duties of CYF. Allen reminded the agency at Perkins' September hearing that it must be accountable: ``Once kids are brought to court, CYF has some responsibility.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the only federal law that focuses on the prevention of child abuse and neglect and the improvement of child protective services to better address the critical needs of children who have been reported as abused and neglected. I am pleased that we have been able to reauthorize this vital program with several key new features that will help facilitate better prevention and treatment efforts. There are approximately three million reports of child abuse every year. Of these 3 million, nearly 1 million are substantiated. In 1999, an estimated 1,137 children died as a result of abuse and neglect. Children who are abused and neglected are more likely to suffer mental health problems, such as depression, delinquency, and suicide. Child abuse is also likely to lead to school failure in adolescence and economic instability as adults. With such serious and life-long consequences from child abuse and neglect, clearly greater attention must be given to effective prevention and intervention services. Our nation's current system of protecting children is heavily weighted toward protecting children who have been so seriously maltreated they are no longer safe at home and must be placed in foster care or adoptive homes. These are children whose safety is in danger; they demand our immediate attention. Unfortunately, far less attention is directed at preventing harm to these children from happening in the first place, or providing the appropriate services and treatment needed by families and children victimized by abuse or neglect. CAPTA plays an important role in the federal response to protecting children and preventing child maltreatment. CAPTA provides resources for strengthening child protective services systems, so that children and families can be better protected and served. It provides resources for state grants that provide for prevention and treatment services for abused children and children at risk of abuse. I strongly support Congress' on-going efforts to reauthorize this important legislation to better meet the needs of children, families and communities. I am especially pleased that in this reauthorization significant improvements have been made to CAPTA overall and that important provisions have been added to Title 1 that that encourage and support new linkages between child protective services, and health, mental health and developmental services. These linkages will prove critical to ensuring that the youngest, most vulnerable children receive the help they need before problems escalate to tragedy. I would urge grantees in implementing these critical linkages to look to the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) protocol in the Medicaid Program to help ensure that comprehensive services are being delivered. I also support modifications to Title II of the Act to strengthen state support for community-based child abuse and neglect prevention activities. I am disappointed, however, that while the H.R. 5601 includes respite and home visiting in its definition of community-based child abuse and neglect programs and activities, the modifications do eliminate some of the references to respite care and home visiting. Children with disabilities, whose families rely on respite for support, are nearly four times more likely than children without disabilities to be abused or neglected. I would also like to register my disagreement with language in the Senate report accompanying the CAPTA bill approved by the Senate HELP committee that singled out respite care by saying that it is too expensive and that states should rely on other funding sources to support it. The Senate report cited no data or information to support this misconception. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that respite is a proven, cost-effective approach to child abuse and neglect prevention. Research overwhelmingly demonstrates that respite and crisis nurseries are directly linked to reductions in abuse and neglect and in avoiding much more costly out-of-home institutional or foster care placements. One Iowa crisis program found a 13% decrease in the reported incidence of child abuse and neglect in the initial four pilot counties after the program's implementation (Cowen, Perle Slavik, 1992). In a recent evaluation study of families of children at risk of abuse or neglect who utilized Family Support Services of the Bay Area's Respite Care Program in northern California, over 90% of the families using the service reported reduced stress (93%), improved family relationships (90%), improved positive attitudes toward child (93%), and other significant benefits that can help reduce the risk of abuse (Owens, Sandra, et al, School of Social Welfare, Berkeley, California, 1999). In April, 1999, the Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, Family and Children's Services Division, reported that crisis nursery clients in 15 crisis nursery programs serving 18 counties showed a 67% reduction in child protection involvement after using nursery services. The Hennepin County Children and Family Services Department's evaluation of the Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery found that families with no prior child protection involvement had a 0% risk of subsequent child protection involvement six months after using the Nursery's services. Families with prior child protection involvement who used the Nursery had only an 8% risk compared with an 84% risk for families who did not use the Nursery. The Relief Nursery in Eugene, Oregon, reports that in 1997-98, 91.3% of children attending the Nursery were free of any reports of abuse, and 89% had no involvement with foster care. This is remarkable, because two-thirds of the families had more than ten risk factors, and 95% had five or more. A family with five risk factors is deemed to be at extremely high risk for abuse and neglect. An evaluation of the Iowa Respite Child Care Project for families parenting a child with developmental disabilities found that respite care results in a statistically significant decrease in foster care placement (Cowen, Perle Slavik, 1996). A study of Vermont's respite care program for families of children or adolescents with serious emotional disturbance found that participating families experience fewer out-of-home placements than nonusers and were more optimistic about their future ability to care for their children (Bruns, Eric, November, 15, 1999). Preliminary data from the ARCH National Resource Center Outcome Evaluation project in which seventeen respite and crisis care programs nationwide participated, show that over 80% of caregivers using crisis respite services for their children reported that the crisis care they received helped protect their child from danger. Nearly half of those caring for children said without respite they would have had to leave their child in unsafe or inappropriate care or requested foster care. Contrary to the Senate report, respite care can be very cost effective. According to the ARCH National Resource Center on Respite and Crisis Care, an average monthly cost of planned respite care can be estimated by multiplying the average number of hours a family receives respite per month (12), by the average cost of respite per hour ($10.02). This model suggests an average cost of $120.24 to provide respite to one individual per month or $1,442.88 per year. The Child Welfare League of America reports that the average monthly cost of foster care for children up to age 16 with special needs is $971.00 per month or $11,651 per year. The average cost of crisis respite for families at risk of abuse or neglect is $8.71 per hour. While the average number of hours a family receives crisis nursery or crisis respite services per month is not available, it can be assumed that it is significantly less than the average number of hours a family might receive planned respite, since crisis respite is used only in extreme emergencies when the family is at imminent risk of abuse or neglect. As a result, it can be estimated that the annual cost per family using crisis nursery or crisis respite services would be significantly lower than $1,400. The Senate Committee Report also suggests CAPTA Title II resources are better spent on services other than crisis respite, but like all important prevention and treatment services for at-risk families, crisis respite lacks sufficient resources to meet community need. ARCH reports that 63% of surveyed crisis respite programs and 48% of surveyed planned respite programs had to turn families away in a given year. Nationally, this represents a conservative estimate of 258,000 families who were on waiting lists for planned respite care last year alone, and 840,000 families who were turned away. I would urge the Department of Health and Human Services to consider this evidence when it writes the program instructions for Title II of CAPTA and urge State and local community-based programs to consider it as well in implementing these services. With this reauthorization we have made some important changes to these laws that should lead to better prevention and treatment services for children and families who need our help. We must do a better job preventing child abuse and neglect and providing services to children and families in need. Failure to help these children and families cannot be tolerated.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment and commend my colleague from California for all of her work on behalf of this peaceful effort to resolve this issue.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the gentleman makes an important point. If in fact the test is whether or not we are going to go to the President's budget or whether or not we are going to go forward with the appropriations bills, which I think both the chairman and the gentleman from Wisconsin would pass to increase education funding but are being held up, if we go back to the President's budget, we have a real cut of about $90 million below last year in the No Child Left Behind Act, a real cut of $90 million. The gentleman makes a very important point.