George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. It is really incredibly unfortunate, and when we see that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and myself, we are arguing over education, and given the chance, all four of us would increase this year's education budget as it should properly be increased, as it is called for under Leave No Child Behind, and we would be able to deal with the Senate and get an increase for America's schoolchildren, but we are prevented from doing that because the Republican leadership will not let that bill come to the floor. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) says we cannot do that because we do not have a budget. We just passed a Military Construction bill without a budget. We just passed a Defense appropriations bill without a budget. We sent the Interior bill to the Senate without a budget. For 200 years we did not have a budget in this country, but this Committee on Appropriations, they fought the Second World War, they fought the Korean War, they fought the Depression, they launched a great society, they created Medicare, they created Social Security, and we did not have a budget, but we built America. All of a sudden today we feel because we do not have a budget we cannot take care of the needs of America's schoolchildren, of America's teachers, of our school districts, because we do not have a budget. It is just a phony argument. The fact of the matter is, the Republican leadership does not want to bring to the floor the Education budget as it is being insisted on being brought to the floor by the most right wing element of the Republican Caucus because it is an insufficient number for Education. They do not want to admit it before the election. The States have cut $9 billion because of the economy from the Education budget. The least we can do is uphold the Federal role in that effort, but we are told we cannot do it because we do not have a budget, and yet we are going to have a $50 billion tax cut bill out here next week. We do not need a budget to do that. The American public ought to be getting terribly tired of this argument. I know the Members of Congress are getting terribly tired of it, because most of us on both sides of the aisle would like to do our work, finish up, go home, see if we can get our option renewed for another 2 years with the public and get on about the public's business, but that is being thwarted here. The terrible thing is here it is not the punishment of us, it is not the punishment of the President or the Committee on Appropriations or any other committee in this Congress. It is starting to punish the schoolchildren of this country. Because this is not the money that we need to carry out the reforms that we have insisted upon as a Congress on a bipartisan basis to change the educational experience of the poorest children in this country, but that cannot be done without this money. School districts and States all over this country are engaging in the most dramatic reforms of the education systems at the local level in the last 30 years, and we told them we would give them the money to help them do that, and this budget does not do that. In 1 year's time we have broken faith. This was a 12-year contract with the school districts of this country, and in the first year, in the first year, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and the President's budget have broken faith with those school districts, with those school board members, with those parents and with those children. Give us the Health and Education appropriations bill so we can vote on it up or down. Let us go.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we have all read the on-going stories about the chaos engulfing the Florida foster care system. The story below describes the horrifying findings of a study commissioned, then subsequently suppressed, by the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). The Florida report, released September 19th, uncovered a 13-year-old boy living in a foster home--his 19th placement in under a year. In another case, auditors found a 10-year-old boy had been moved 12 times in two years and although a therapist thought he could not read, DCF had done nothing to ensure supportive educational services. Florida auditors blame the failed child welfare system on poor communication, ill-trained workers and insufficient resources. The situation described in the Florida audit is not unique to Florida. In August, an audit of Maryland's child welfare system revealed that the state had lost track of some foster care children for months, failed to ensure proper health care and, in at least one case, entrusted a foster child to a sexual offender. In July, Los Angeles County's foster care system was sued by child advocates, charging that foster children were routinely denied medically necessary mental health, behavioral support, and case management services, as required by federal law. District of Columbia officials acknowledged that several boys were sexually abused at various group home facilities, including a group home for mentally retarded foster children. The circumstances described in the following report, comparable to reports in Maryland, California, and the District of Columbia, clearly indicates that the child welfare system today is a national disgrace. States fail to meet federal child welfare law requirements of safety, permanency, and child and family well-being. In fact, child protection agencies make victims of the very children and families they are supposed to benefit. The history of Federal child welfare review efforts goes back to the law I authored in 1980 (P.L. 96-272). That law requires States to comply with a number of core requirements intended to protect children placed in foster care as a condition of receiving Federal foster care funds. Over the past 20 years, Congress has thrice charged the Department of Health and Human Services with developing new systems to review States compliance with federal child welfare protections. Yet the extent to which the Federal Government actually holds States accountable continues to be an issue of ongoing concern. The States have repeatedly failed to comply with federal foster care core procedural requirements. If those requirements cannot be enforced in a manner that adequately protects children, then Congress cannot delay longer in developing new standards to protect the well being of foster children. The article follows: [From South Florida Sun Sentinel, Sept. 20, 2002] Grim Tales Arise From Foster Care (By Megan O'Matz and Sally Kestin) Three Broward County boys were taken from their mother in 1996 and put into foster care. Five years later, the state decided it had no grounds to keep the children and reunited the family. By then, one boy had been whipped in foster care, and another had gone so long without seeing his siblings ``he forgot they were his brothers and thought they were just friends,'' according to a state review of the children's case files. ``The boys have been harmed by the system that set out to help them,'' the reviewers wrote. The case study was part of an exhaustive review by an Alabama consultant of more than 80 children under the care of the Department of Children & Families statewide. The summaries, released by the department this week, include disturbing descriptions of children wrongly kept from parents, lingering in the system for years and lagging behind in school, unprepared to live on their own. Evaluators blame the problems on poor communication, ill- trained workers and insufficient resources. Carolyn Salisbury, associate director of the University of Miami's Children and Youth Law Clinic, said the grim experiences described in the reports are not surprising. ``I have worse cases than that,'' she said. ``We all should be shocked, but those of us who work in child welfare are not.'' The analysis, conducted by the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group from February to April, looked at cases in seven DCF districts, including Broward and Palm Beach counties. The lead consultant, Paul Vincent, delivered data to DCF in May, but agency officials who were under attack for losing track of children withheld it from the public and two panels charged with investigating DCF until this week. The agency released nearly nine pounds of documents in response to public records requests from DCF critics and the media. ``Now that the document is public, we can see why DCF spent so much time and effort to hide it,'' Salisbury said. Below standards DCF officials were not available to comment on the case summaries; however, newly appointed DCF Secretary Jerry Regier expressed concern in a public appearance Thursday that recommendations in a 2001 study of Broward County by Vincent's team were never acted upon. ``That bothers me very much,'' he said. The subsequent review discovered problems statewide. Evaluators said three out of four cases failed to meet acceptable standards. Some common themes emerged. DCF caseworkers and supervisors often did not work collaboratively with therapists, teachers, foster families and parents. The system made few efforts to help parents overcome problems related to poverty and cut off contact with children, making reunification harder. And the agency regularly had difficulty finding suitable foster homes. The reviewers found a 13-year-old Palm Beach County boy living in a foster home--his 19th placement in under a year. The boy, who had a history of attacking teachers and students, shared a room with a 5-year-old whom he threatened to strangle. When the teen reported headaches and ``auditory hallucinations,'' DCF waited a year to complete the doctor- recommended brain scans. In another case, an Orlando teenager, abandoned at 15 by her adoptive parents, bounced among foster homes. ``These constant moves have placed her at least two years behind educationally,'' the report states. A frequent runaway known to climb into cars with strangers, the girl claimed to have been raped more than once. Reviewers found she ``is not safe, stable or moving toward permanence and independence. Her emotional status may be at a historical low point ... The child's progress is unacceptable and worsening.'' In Marion County, the consultants concluded that DCF should not have taken a 3-year-old girl from her mother. The agency received a report that the girl and her siblings were flea-bitten and dirty and that the house had no food. Shortly after arriving in foster care, the girl began pulling her hair out and banging her head. She smeared feces on walls and had trouble sleeping, awakening from dreams of ``monsters.'' Foster care ``should be a last resort, not a first step,'' Vincent's team wrote. Sleeping in office Lacking funds, DCF, meanwhile, could not find a bed for a disturbed 13-year-old in the Tallahassee area. Suspended from school and kicked out of a foster home for killing a litter of newborn puppies, the boy spent his days ``in and around'' a DCF office. At night he slept on the floor, next to his caseworker. The child flunked sixth grade twice and had been hospitalized numerous times for threatening to hurt himself and others. ``This is a case of the system failing the child for a multitude of reasons,'' the report states. The team faulted DCF in the case of another 13-year-old, whose adoptive parents abandoned her. The state could have prevented the failed adoption, the consultants found, but investigators did not act quickly after receiving reports of problems in the home, including harsh discipline and sexual activity between children. Later, the girl kicked a teacher and hit a Department of Juvenile Justice worker, sending her to a St. Petersburg delinquency program two hours from her hometown of Ocala. No relatives visit her, ``nor do any of the people in the system,'' the reviewers wrote. ``She seems to be a child who is 'out of sight, out of mind.''' Lawyer sees problems Richard Komando, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who represents about 90 children in DCF care, said he routinely encounters problems the consultants identified, including poor communication, too few foster homes and decisions driven by money. ``It's rare when I see a kid where everything's going right,'' he said. Indeed, the experts found little going right for a 10-year- old Brevard County boy. In his first two years in care, DCF moved him 12 times. His father, a convicted sex offender, committed suicide. The department, despite warnings, planned to return the boy to his mentally ill mother. ``The mother is presently living with a friend or in her car. No one is certain,'' the report states. The boy should have been in fifth grade but was functioning on a first-grade level. A therapist thought he could not read, yet DCF ``had no contact with the school regarding his progress,'' the report states. ``The child's remaining in one home since May 2000 after a history of instability is the only mark of progress,'' the consultants wrote. ``There is inadequate knowledge of this case, its history and its future by DCF.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is a serious debate about the future of our country and about the future that our country will play in the world in which we live. The decision to be made here after this debate is whether or not the United States would declare war on Iraq because, that is what in fact is being debated before the Congress of the United States. The President can argue, as he has, that he wants this resolution for a number of different reasons. He has said that he wants it to have a regime change. Later, he said he wanted it to disarm Saddam Hussein. He now says that he wants it simply to get leverage against the United Nations so that they will do what he has asked them to do, what he has quite properly asked them to do. But, at the end of the day, we will be saddled with a vote to declare war on Iraq. I say this because this is the same administration that was arguing that they did not have to come to the Congress because, from the resolution that we passed in 1991, that they had inherent authority to do this. So I suspect you will be living with the results of the vote here for a long time to come. There is no debate, I believe, in the Congress of the United States or most places in the world that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, that Saddam Hussein is engaged in some of the most atrocious acts against his own citizens and others around the world. But there is also no debate that he is in violation of the agreements that he signed at the end of the war, he is in violation of the United Nations' resolutions that have been passed, and a case can be made and clearly was made by the President of the United States that the United Nations should take action because of his contempt of those resolutions and his failure to comply. Those were the agreements that he signed; and, if necessary, the United Nations should back that up with force. This is not a matter of trusting Saddam Hussein or allowing Saddam Hussein to dictate where the United Nations will inspect or not inspect, and we have all been through that. This is not about him. This is about us, and these are the terms and conditions, and they should be enforced. If that fails, then it is not to suggest that the United States should go to war against Saddam Hussein. It is to suggest that the President then must come back to the Congress and meet the burden of proof that he, in fact, poses an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. So far, from the best information I have been able to receive from my colleagues on the various committees of jurisdiction dealing with intelligence and defense and in the briefings that I have attended, that case has not been made. That does not mean that it cannot be made. It does not mean that maybe there is information that they are not sharing with the Congress. But understand this: They are supposed to share it with the Congress. But that is a different burden of proof. That is a burden of proof of whether or not we will unilaterally make a decision to put American men and women in harm's way and whether or not we will invade another country for those reasons. That is a far different burden of proof. That is a far different decision than whether or not we will be part of or whether the United Nations will assemble a multi-lateral force to go in and to deal with the violations and the failures to keep the agreements that the United Nations has passed when he surrendered to the multi-national force in 1991. But I suggest to my colleagues that if we do it in the manner which was presented in the resolution, not only do we undermine the idea of working with the United Nations, I believe that in the long term we undermine our position in the world and our moral authority to conduct these activities. I think when we combine this with the announcement by the Bush administration of its doctrine on national security of preemptive strikes, preemptive war, it is a declaration of war. Be it preemptive or be it defensive, it is war. That is what it is about. We can dress it all up into fancy policy language, but the question is whether or not American men and women will be called upon for that sacrifice to this country. I think that, when we do that, we have got to make the case to the Congress and to the American people; and I think it is clear that case has not been made. I think it is also clear that the American people believe that we have got to deal with Saddam Hussein. I do believe that the President set out that course of activity when he went to the United Nations and rightfully asked the United Nations to take the action in support of those resolutions. The suggestion is here that somehow if we pass this resolution this will give meaning to the United Nations because they will know, whether they do it or not, we will do it anyway. I suggest it is just the opposite. That suggests to the United Nations that they really need not act because somehow the United States alone will take care of Saddam Hussein, even if that violates the tenets of the reason the United Nations exists, so that nations can act together. But if the United Nations does not act, then they remove the means by which we can prevent the unilateral action that so many people say they do not want. At the end of the day, I believe we have an obligation to vote against this resolution. I believe that if we are unsuccessful in the United Nations, then this President should come back to this Congress of the United States, make his case that Saddam Hussein/Iraq are an imminent threat to the United States, and let the Members of Congress vote how they will when that case has been presented and keep it out of just the notion of giving speeches and going to the newspapers. Come to the Congress and make the case. To date, the administration has not done so.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mt. Diablo Audubon Society as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. Founded in 1953, Mt. Diablo Audubon Society (MDAS) has an impressive record of environmental achievements in Contra Costa County, including the following: Involved extensively in the protection and recovery of McNabney Marsh in Martinez. Formerly Shell Marsh, this area was saved as part of a settlement over an oil spill years ago. It is named after Mt. Diablo Audubon Society's well-known and respected former vice-president of conservation, the late Al McNabney. Worked with the East Bay Regional Park District on the establishment and development of Waterbird Park in Martinez. Led fifty-four yearly field trips for MDAS members and the public. Supported the Muir Heritage Land Trust which has initiated a bold plan to link together many of our open space areas. Partnered with a local flood control district to restore and protect a 22-acre saline marsh in Antioch, the Julia Cox Freeman Marsh. Provided Audubon Adventures to over 90 classrooms (3,000 students) throughout Contra Costa County. Since 1984 Audubon Adventures has provided basic, scientifically-accurate facts about birds and wildlife and their habitats. Partnered with Native Bird Connections and Wild Birds Unlimited to develop a life science course of study for freshman and sophomore high school students. Currently two high schools are participating in this program. Supported the expansion of the California Bluebird Recovery Program and the placement of hundreds of bluebird houses in California. Participated in many events and festivals in Contra Costa County and northern California to help educate the public about birds and the habitat they require. Initiated the Contra Costa County Breeding Bird Atlas. This Atlas (a major five-year project underwritten by MDAS) will be an important tool in the battle to preserve open space and breeding habitats for birds. Conducted slides shows and nature presentations to many schools and other groups throughout Contra Costa County. Closely involved in the development of the Delta Science Center. Participated in fifty Christmas Bird Counts. I know I speak for all Members of Congress when I congratulate Mt. Diablo Audubon Society on its 50th anniversary and wish its members many more years of environmental stewardship.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to invite our colleagues to join us in recognizing the Children's Network of Solano County as it celebrates its 20th anniversary. Since its inception in 1982, the Children's Network has worked to improve the lives of children in Solano County. Once an organization that focused primarily on low-income and foster children, the Children's Network has evolved into the leading voice for all young people in Solano County. It is the convener of California's first and among its most effective inter-agency coordinating councils dedicated to improving the lives of children. The Children's Network works to educate people in Solano County about the needs of children and to bring together those who can help achieve the best outcomes for kids. In promoting the health, education, and well-being of all children in the county, the Children's Network conducts and disseminates research, offers training, administers grants, coordinates county agencies, advocates for policy changes at all levels of government, and works to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of county services for children and families. The Children's Network partners with a variety of private and public organizations to improve the lives of local children. Through contracts with Solano County, the Children's Network also provides staff support--such as budget development, research, training and administrative support--for three councils appointed by the Board of Supervisors (Children's Network Council, Child Abuse Prevention Council, and the Child Care Planning Council), as well as for a network of the county's Family Resource Centers. Accomplishments of the Children's Network include: Developed and helped foster successful passage of a California state law permitting funding for ``family preservation,'' which provides support and allows appropriate families to stay together in cases where children might otherwise be placed in foster care. Provided the leadership to establish the Solano County Children's Trust Fund, which raises more than $100,000 annually for child abuse prevention services in Solano County. Worked to create a system of Family Resource Centers, which provide family support services in every city in the county for more than 4,000 at-risk families each year. Advocated successfully for the county to maintain and increase the amount of money available for child care for families in the state's welfare-to-work program, who today receive more than $8 million annually in child care subsidies. Persuaded the County Board of Supervisors and all seven local city councils to adopt a set of Policy Principles that provide a framework for successful delivery of children's services. Convinced the Board of Supervisors to adopt the goal of improving the lives of children as its top priority for 2001-2003. Provided child development training and/or stipends to more than 400 early education professionals to support high quality child care in the first year of the Compensation and Retention Encourage Stability (CARES) program. Helped develop and coordinate the Integrated Family Support Initiative, a home-visiting program that allowed for nearly 1,000 visits to isolated, at-risk families in its first year, 2001. Raised awareness of children's needs through publication of The Children's Budget and The Children's Report Card, which drew attention to state and federal funding shortfalls that affect local families and provided data for grant proposals, thereby increasing funds for local children's services. Organized an annual Child Abuse Prevention Conference that has provided high-caliber training to approximately 900 government officials, parents, service providers and community members for each of the last four years. Current activities of the Children's Network include: Researching and publishing The Children's Budget, a series examining how government funding for children is allocated and spent in Solano County, and The Children's Report Card, a compilation of data about the county's successes, challenges, and progress in serving children. Involving parents and community members in forums to discuss what can be done to improve the lives of children. Established a strong child advocacy and fund-raising presence in Solano County as the action arm of the first children's inter-agency coordinating councils in the state. Seeking creative budget strategies in partnership with county agencies to achieve better, more efficient, and more effective investments in services for children and families. Encouraging officials at the local and state levels to consider the needs of children in policy decisions. Administering the county's program to provide stipends and child development training for child care professionals. Coordinating a home-visiting program present in all Family Resource Centers to provide family support countywide. Mr. Speaker, we know we speak for all the members of the House of Representatives when we congratulate the Children's Network for twenty years of effective advocacy on behalf of children in Solano County.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the chairman of my committee we have not been silent. We offered a budget alternative. We were not allowed to put that budget alternative in place, and the fact of the matter is you can keep saying that the budget is keeping you from doing your work, but you have already reached agreement on the military construction bill in defense appropriations. We are right there. That is done. Both Houses are working on it. So that was not an impediment there. Let us get on with the other national priority that the gentleman in the well just spoke about, and that is education. Let us do that. You were able to do tax cuts without a budget. You were able to get rid of all the money. You were able to take care of the wealthiest people in the country without a budget. But now you need a budget to take care of the poorest children in the country. I mean, you are starting to act like Enron executives. You are going to take care of us first, and then if there is anything left over, we will take care of the shareholders and employees, or if there is nothing left over, we will going bankrupt. That is kind of where we are. We have this huge debt. We have not taken care of the poor children in the country. We have taken care of the richest people, and we cannot get a time certain as to when we will get on with the rest of the business of this country. And you say it is because you do not have a budget, but without a budget you gave away taxes. Without a budget you arrived at defense numbers, you arrived at military construction numbers, but you cannot arrive at education numbers. The argument just does not hold. It just does not hold. And we ought to reject this CR, and you ought to go back to work over the weekend and get your work done.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Just two points, Mr. Speaker. One is members of the Democratic caucus did offer a budget, or tried to offer a budget, the Blue Dogs. The gentleman may ask what is the gentleman from California doing making the case for the Blue Dogs' budget? I voted for it, I think, the last several years. And the other point is could the gentleman enlighten us as to when you are going to meet these education numbers? Has the gentleman been informed when this is going to happen?

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from yielding me this time. It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we are here again today once again extending the time limit on the passage of the appropriations bills under the guise of a CR. When we passed No Child Left Behind, we told the school districts of this Nation and the States of this Nation that if they would engage in the most dramatic reforms of this program in 30 years, that we would adequately fund those reforms in terms of professionalization of teachers, teacher recruitment, on directing more money to poor children and schools that do not have adequate resources to provide a first-class education. Last year's funding level does not do the trick. School districts have already started this school year that carry them through our fiscal year. School districts in March will have to make determinations, certainly in California, about laying teachers off. If we have a CR that goes to March, if the Federal money is not forthcoming, then we start the process once again of starting and stopping reforms. We have laid out a 12-year timetable to have all of our children proficient. We have laid out a timetable for schools to make adequate yearly progress in improving the test scores and proficiency of each and every student in the schools. That is the commitment we make; those are the reforms we imposed. But the other part was accountability. It was about schools being held accountable, about teachers being held accountable, about students being held accountable. But where is the accountability when the Congress cannot pass the Health and Human Services appropriation which includes the Department of Education? Where is the accountability when we do not have the fund for the next fiscal year in place so the schools can count on that and make the changes that are going to be required? These reforms are very expensive. We believe they are worth it. We believe on a bipartisan basis they are worth it. We believe as a Congress with the President of the United States that they are worth it. But we have no education bill. We simply do not have it. It is not a political trick. We do not have the bill. It is not here. It was promised to us, the first bill up when we returned from the August break. It is now October and no bill. It is not that the Senate does not have it; it is that we have not done it. We have not done it because some on the other side of the aisle are insisting that we go to the President's numbers, which are not sufficient to allow us to carry out not only the school reforms, but many of the other educational projects in this country. Those numbers are not sufficient. The President, I am sure, sent those numbers up here knowing that Congress would add to them. We think it is more important that we add to them. We have bipartisan agreement that they should be added to, and part of the caucus on the Republican side is arguing that they will not vote for the bill because it does not provide sufficient education funding. Another part says it provides too much. And for that reason we do not have a bill today. For that reason we are here with a continuing resolution because, if I understand the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member, the rest of the bills we are fairly close on. But this is the logjam, this is the log that is crossways in the stream on the appropriations bill, because until this is resolved, no other bills can be resolved. So now we have a continuing resolution. What that does is it bites into the planning, it bites into the reforms that we have offered for the Nation's schools' children, and we know as a Nation these reforms are desperately needed. These standards must be met if America's children are going to take place in the American society of the future, of America's future economy. If these children are going to participate to their full potential, these reforms are necessary, but they must be funded. In fact, the easiest thing for a State superintendent to do is say Congress missed the deadlines on funding; I am off the hook. We should not allow that to happen. We have got to have an education bill, and I would hope that this contest in the Republican caucus would get resolved and we could get on with the children's business and the children's education in this Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5091, the CLASS Act. This bill would forgive student loans for teachers and of certain September 11 victims. I support this legislation to provide loan forgiveness for teachers in high-poverty schools and for special ed teachers. This legislation will be a very, very important tool in terms of recruiting and our desire to recruit and our ability to recruit and retain those teachers in high-poverty schools. All Members of Congress are pretty familiar with the challenges that are faced by teachers who are teaching in high-poverty schools and the set of circumstances that they confront. We believe by directing loan forgiveness to these individuals that we will have an opportunity not to have them just come in on a revolving-door basis, where they come in for 1 year and then bid out of those systems, but they will stay in those systems for 4 or 5 years, they will provide some continuity to those children, and we will get the results that we desire to have under the Leave No Child Behind Act. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and others on this legislation. I will have to say, however, that I wish that we would have been able to support the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Graham) original legislation, which was to provide that this forgiveness would be guaranteed and not subject to a year-to-year appropriations. That effort we will have to continue to work on. My concern is there teachers will not know that this incentive is really going to be in place on a year-to-year basis, and it will make our job more difficult in getting highly qualified individuals into high-poverty schools. If it was not subject to appropriations, then we could assure individuals who qualify for it that it would be available over the time that they spent in those schools. We have a similar program and equally important program dealing with child care providers. It is subject to annual appropriations, and so far I think we have only helped 76 people nationwide. That is not the kind of program that we envision for this piece of legislation, but it is also the kind of guarantee that we should be able to provide to teachers that that would not happen in this program. Depending on what happens in year-to-year budgets within the House of Representatives or in years like this where we do not get budgets, we do not get appropriations bills, what happens to the teachers who have already started teaching for this year? Would they know or not know whether they would be eligible for loan forgiveness? Next year in March in the State of California that my colleague has spoken to, and we are terribly concerned about the teacher shortage and recruitment in these schools, next year in March they will be getting pink slips because of the Federal funding. If we kick over the continuing resolution until March of next year, those teachers will not have the certainty of whether or not this appropriation would be available. That happens, unfortunately, all too often in the Congress, and that is why I would hope that this would be a guaranteed entitlement program for the length of the program. Finally, that part of the problem could be solved if we would, in fact, pass an education budget, if we would pass the education appropriations bill, but we will hear more about that on the topic of the continuing resolution tomorrow when it comes before this House where, once again, we will have to pass a continuing resolution because we have not been able to pass the appropriations bill because of the fight within the Republican Caucus dealing with the Education, Health and Human Services bill that has not been brought to the floor, although we were told in July it would be the first bill brought to the floor when we returned from our August break. Finally, let me just mention a portion of this bill. It is a rather small portion, but I think a terribly important portion in terms of a statement by this Congress, and a very humane statement by this Congress, and a compassionate statement of this Congress, and that is a provision that was added to this bill in committee by our colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). She represents a district in New York that suffered a great many losses from individuals who were killed in the vicious attacks of September 11 on the World Trade Center in New York City. Many people in the district suffered losses of friends in the attack of the Pentagon and the downing of the plane in Pennsylvania. This legislation that was added to the bill is to provide for loan forgiveness to the families of firefighters, police officers and military personnel killed on September 11. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) fought for this legislation almost immediately after September 11, and it took a whole year. We tried to offer it numerous times on the floor of the House. It was not allowed to come up. We tried to offer it as amendments. It was not allowed to come up. We were given assurances early on that it would be considered on the floor of the House last year. That turned out to be a hollow promise. It did not happen. Finally, this year the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our chairman, gave his word that the committee would address this legislation. His word was good. The deal stuck, and because of that guarantee by him and the tenacity and the doggedness of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) to make sure that this provision was brought to the Congress so the Congress would have a chance to vote on it so these families would get relief because of the economic setbacks that they suffered along with the tragedy they suffered of the loss of a member of their family in that tragedy, I simply want to recognize her for her effort. She was told so many times a lesser person might have gone away and figured out it could not be done. She continued to scheme and to persuade and to work on and to lobby Members of the House and the leadership and the rest to get this done, and I believe now today with the passage of this legislation she is going to realize the success that should have been hers many, many months ago and the benefits that will go to these families now; and I want to thank her, and I know Members of the committee want to thank her, for all of her effort on behalf of these families who suffer the tragedy of September 11. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) to manage the bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, those of us who have followed wrestling and have followed Iowa State, if you were just named one of the outstanding wrestlers at Iowa State, you would think you had had a very successful career. But to achieve this feat of 159 matches without a loss, for those of you who are better at mathematics than I am, you can figure out the probabilities of that happening. I once read the mathematics of Joe DiMaggio's 56 straight games and that streak and what it meant and what the probabilities were for happening. But this is an incredible feat. And I note here that ``Sports Illustrated'' said this is a most impressive college feat of all time, and they rated this the second. The first-place winner was Jessie Owens, who set four world records in 1935, which puts Cael Sanderson ahead of Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, Oscar Robinson and so many others that we are familiar with this string. And he is certainly due the congratulations and the honor of this resolution of this House. Madam Speaker, I would urge all Members to support this resolution and extend to him our congratulations. I thank the committee for bringing this resolution to the floor. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and the resolution to draw attention to the victimization of missing and exploited children. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who has given an extraordinary amount of his time and effort and public service on this issue.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just would say in closing that again I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their work on this legislation, and the fact that this legislation is on the floor, I think, is a tribute. I am sure many of us have heard our parents or grandparents say, out of a dark cloud comes a silver lining, and that is that some of these parents who have suffered some of the most horrible things that we could imagine happening to us, our families, our children, ourselves, have found the energy to carry on in the name of their children, efforts at the local community level and now at the national level with the national center. There are so many local organizations. I know in my own area in Contra Costa County and Solasta County, we have had a number of children who have gone missing; not only gone missing and later found, but clearly children who have gone missing and were killed and violently assaulted, that local organizations have come into existence because of the energy of these parents and of the community to help other parents and families when this happens to them and in a number of instances have, because of their quick response, because of their understanding of the nature of this crime and what needs to be done in the first few hours of the discovery, have facilitated the rescue of some children. And the national center has continued that effort and has provided recognition of those local programs, of those local individuals who really have taken a tragedy and turned it to positive energy, and have taken the tragic loss and victimization of a child and used that to save other children and to prevent other children and families having to go through this. I would say as part of this resolution to recognize those individuals, I think almost tragically so, but almost every Member of Congress has experienced this in their own congressional district where these individuals have gone on, where we think one would be so devastated that they would cease to function, they have gone on to provide an incredible amount of leadership, and fortunately the national center has recognized these individuals and their efforts. We had a young girl, Ms. Sanchez, who I had the opportunity to give an award to because of her courage, who was abducted, kidnapped, taken, but somehow found it within herself at a given moment when her abductor happened to look the other way, since he stopped to ask directions from somebody, she ran from his vehicle and was saved by a passing truck driver. Her own personal courage has been an example, and she shared that with other children. Amber Schwarz, who many years ago disappeared from our community in Pinole. Her mother has gone on to develop the Amber Foundation, which has provided assistance to law enforcement, assistance to families and to communities to cope with these incidents and to bring resources to try and save and recover these children, and the Amber Alert in California that was so successful just recently and now many States are looking at replicating. We owe a great deal of thanks to those families who have been able to summon the courage and the wherewithal to share their tragedy with others to try and avoid that tragedy from happening to other children and to the families. And again, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) so much for shepherding this resolution to the floor of the House. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to honor the foreign guest workers who worked in the United States from 1942 to 1964. Those of us who represent California and Texas and other areas along the border can clearly remember the hard work performed by the braceros. When I was a young person going to school, I worked alongside of many of the braceros in what is now my congressional district in the fields there and in the orchards, with people who worked very, very hard, toiled at great length, and provided badly needed labor in our agricultural sector of the California economy. As many have pointed out, they originally came here in World War II so we could free many of our citizens to go off and fight in the Second World War and they could continue to provide work here on the home front. This resolution honors those individuals, and it honors their dignity, and it honors the contribution that they have given to this country. What we should not honor is the conditions under which they worked, the conditions under which they were forced to live, the conditions under which they were separated from their families, the hours that they were required to toil, and the actual working conditions. We had what became a big issue, a critical issue of the short-handled hoe that they were required to work with that led to disabilities of very young people, and in many instances permanent disabilities of their ability to work. It was a fact that many of their children were kept from the schools of various States and this Nation, and there was very little or no sanitation for these individuals; that they were required to work constantly around pesticides that at that time were literally put on the crops without protective gear, without being able to wash up after work, without being able to protect their families and places that they lived from those very same pesticides. I say that because I spent time in what we called the bracero camps at that time, with as many as 12 or 14 people sharing a single room, or multiple families, or families sharing space with individuals, or individuals sleeping in the trucks at night when they were not used by the farmers that they were working for. So while we think back about the dignity of those workers and the contribution they made to this Nation, Madam Speaker, we should understand the problems that they had when they tried to get fair wages; when, in many instances, they worked and were not paid; when, in many instances, they were worked, and unjust withholding was taken from their paycheck. Yet out of this incredibly disgraceful treatment of these individuals, we saw the growth and the beginning of a very powerful movement that gave additional dignity and power to these men and women, led by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta of the United Farm Workers Union, born in the 1960s, to demand decent living and working conditions. That movement brought to the attention of consumers across this Nation how the inexpensive food, fruits and vegetables they were eating were subsidized by the poor working conditions and the poor wages of these individuals, which led to a nationwide boycott of the grape industry that was one of the most successful in the history of this country. That continues today to vigorously pursue the rights of these individuals to improve their working conditions. Just this week, Governor Gray Davis signed into legislation a bill that requires mandatory mediation of labor disputes in the agricultural industry in our State. Why? Because many of these workers had a right to a union 23 years ago, and they still have not gotten the union. They won the elections, they won them all. They have not been recognized. Now we are saying if, after 3 years, you cannot get it, we will have mandatory mediation. He also signed legislation to try to get back the wages that were withheld from them so they could pay for their trip back to Mexico, but they were never returned to them, the 10 percent that was withheld. I wish this House would address that same issue. I wish this House would address agricultural labor. I wish this House would address the restitution to these people. So as we speak here today and we talk about their dignity and their contribution, we have to recognize that many of these same conditions exist today. We have to recognize that this House, the Republican leadership, refuses to bring to the floor a resolution honoring Dolores Huerta, one of the most powerful labor leaders in the country, one of the most importantly symbolic labor leaders in this country with respect to females working in the agricultural movement and working in so many endeavors in this country; a woman who gave almost her life with the terrible illnesses, from all of her exposures in the field, this last year. Yet this House cannot summon its ability to recognize her dignity and her contribution to the American fabric and the fabric of this society. So I join this, because these people were entitled to this recognition. But this cannot be the only agenda for people who continue to toil in our fields, for people who continue to be exploited, for people who even have less status than the braceros, people who are hired every day. They are hired on Monday, and come payday on Friday, they call the INS service rather than pay them, and the government rounds up the workers in the Napa Valley, in the Central Valley, in the Imperial Valley of California, people who today have no housing, no housing. These are people today who harvest the grapes that go into a $100 or $200 bottle of wine, and they have no housing. They sleep in the fields, in the cars, in the culverts. Those are the descendents of the braceros. There are some who want to create a new bracero program. While we honor their dignity and contribution, let us remember before we ever contemplate a new bracero program that these people had no status in terms of their ability to have decent working conditions, decent living conditions, and decent wages. We can never recreate that situation in the United States. I thank my colleagues on the committee for bringing this legislation to the floor. I hope the braceros and their descendants will understand what we are trying to do with this legislation, but I also would hope that they understand that the struggle continues, and I would hope that this Congress understands that the struggle continues for these people to receive economic and social justice, and dignity for their families.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for bringing this together this evening to be able to express ourselves about Patsy and the wonderful person she was. Patsy had a wonderful sense of urgency about being a Member of Congress. She was so clearly aware that she had been given a gift by the people of Hawaii, and she was so clearly aware that it was not to be wasted and not a moment was to be wasted as long as she was in this body. When I first came here in 1974, she was a very senior member of the Committee on Natural Resources and of the Committee on Education and Labor, and I was the most junior member. When Patsy came back, I was one of the most senior members of those two committees, and she was the junior member of those two committees. The relationship never changed from the first day in 1974. I admired her skill on the Committee on Natural Resources as we argued mining law, public lands issues, forest issues, law of the sea. I asked her once, How do you do it? How do you do it? She was so engaged in the debate, and that is when debate really took place in the House of Representatives. She said, Read the bill and make them defend it. Make them defend it. And she did. She read every word in the legislation. And in those committee hearings, you had to defend your amendment; you had to defend your bill. And if you could not, she was not with you. No matter what the topic was, whether it was title IX or pay equity or natural resources or mining law, the issues that she was involved in span the globe, but the reason was always the same: economic and social justice. She never waivered. It did not matter if it was welfare reform or water reform. She wanted to know what the implications were for economic and social justice, who was getting and who was giving. She never waivered from that, and for that she made many of us uncomfortable, as we thought we could waiver; and she would reach out and grab you and say, you cannot do that. You cannot be for this. You cannot vote for this. She said it to me when I was her chairman, and she said it to me when I was her ranking member; and she said it to me when I was a freshman member. That little woman that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) described was so full of commitment that she was compelling in all of our lives. There are so many firsts in her history. But her sense of urgency and her sense of justice were her guiding stars. I think that when I came here at the end of a war, and here we are on possibly the eve of yet another war, and of those battles inside of the democratic study group which basically amends organization, and this woman went at it toe to head to toe to head on the arguments of ending the war. I also think tonight that we send Ben Rosenthal and Bella Abzug and Phil Burton a great companion in heaven.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, millions of Americans watched their television screens' transfixed by the horrific images of a woman repeatedly striking her 4-year-old daughter in a department store parking lot. As a result of intense media coverage, the mother eventually turned herself in and the state took protective custody of the child. The unsettling incident has unfortunately played itself out in the media like a tragic movie of the week. Clearly, the child needs protection to determine if this violence was a pattern of abuse, and to prevent additional incidences of mistreatment. The mother faces up to three years in prison. The 4-year-old child is left to struggle with the emotional scars caused by the mother's physical abuse and the subsequent trauma of being removed from familiar, albeit dangerously dysfunctional, family surroundings. The assumption and hope is that the child is now under the custody and supervision of the state and has been placed in a safe home. Unfortunately for the thousands of nameless children under the protective custody of state child welfare systems, the assurance of a safe and healthy enviromnent is inconsistent with the reality. Nationwide more than 550,000 children are currently in foster care. Class action lawsuits and multiple newspaper reports have documented the failure of states to meet the social service needs of vulnerable children and families in crisis, despite billions of dollars in federal assistance. Across the nation, allegations of limited access to services, improper placements, inadequate staff training, poor wage compensation coupled with massive caseloads, and high staff turnover rates are commonplace. In the following article, the Columbus Dispatch identifies an innovative program aimed at meeting the challenging objective of ensuring child safety and providing much needed support services to parents in crisis. The Family to Family program detailed in the article is based on the belief that some families in crisis can receive services in their own homes. The family preservation program links troubled families with social service agencies, community centers, and other social service networks. The goal is to coordinate service delivery in efforts to increase quality and continuity of services. The disturbing incident of child abuse caught on videotape taps into our greatest fears about abusive parents and the harmful experiences of children, who through no fault of their own, are subjected to inadequate care. This incident highlights the need for a competent child welfare system that swiftly and effectively meets the needs of vulnerable children and families in crisis. To that effect the following article presents one possible solution to this ongoing child welfare crisis. The article follows: [From The Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 22, 2002] Helping Mend Troubled Families; Agency's Innovative Program Keeps Kids at Home or Nearby (By Encarnacion Pyle) Sabrina Martin's oldest daughter told a teacher last winter that her mother had whipped her so hard that she had bruises. In the past, a social worker likely would have stopped by Martin's house, packed her two children's clothes into a garbage bag and dropped the kids off at a foster house far from their family, friends and school. But under a new program, Franklin County Children Services worked with the single mother from South Linden to safely care for her daughters as it investigated the abuse charge. Family to Family is built on the belief that families often can be helped to care for their children in their own homes. Or, when children need to be removed, that they should be placed with a relative, close friend or foster family in the neighborhood. The program linked Martin, 31, to St. Stephen's Community House, where she learned new skills for being a parent and the girls learned ways to control their behavior. During its investigation, Children Services discovered that a baby sitter had hit 8-year-old Sadie. And although Martin would rather not have been involved with the agency, she said, the Family to Family program helped her become a better parent. ``Parenting is hard, especially if you're single and your children are challenging,'' she said. ``I used to be so hot- tempered, I'd snatch the girls up by their arms. But I've since learned better ways to discipline them and deal with stress.,' Children Services and St. Stephen's introduced Family to Family in North and South Linden in 2000. It was so successful that the agency, with help from the Gladden Community House, expanded the program to Franklinton last year and hopes to start it on the Near East Side in October. The Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore created the program 10 years ago as a way of meeting the growing challenges facing the child-welfare system, said John Mattingly, the group's senior associate. ``It is not another social-services pilot, fad or new model for child-welfare work,'' he said. ``There is no quick fix.'' The number of children being cared for away from their parents' homes nationwide has more than doubled from 260,000 in the 1980s to more than 550,000 today, with only a few communities reporting a decline in the past few years. In Ohio, 26,000 children are in foster care. In Franklin County, 2,585 children are in paid placement, which includes all temporary and permanent custody, said John Saros, executive director of Children Services. As a result, social workers carry enormous caseloads, and children are staying longer in foster care and group homes and suffering more-difficult behavioral and physical problems. At the same time, the number of foster families nationally has dropped, so that fewer than 50 percent of the children who need temporary placement are placed with foster families. The others go to group homes, institutions and--in some cities but not Columbus--to homeless shelters. With Family to Family, instead of automatically taking custody of children, social workers from Children Services and the community centers meet with parents to work out ways to keep them home. When that doesn't work, the parents are invited to sit down with foster parents and social workers to plan the child's care. Friends, family, teachers, counselors, pastors, juvenile- justice workers and anyone else who can help the family are encouraged to attend. That's largely because children today have so many needs that parents must be experts in discipline, special education, learning disabilities, health care and mental health, said Marilyn Mehaffie, associate director of St. Stephens; During the meetings, parents are praised for their strengths before their weaknesses are discussed. ``Before, we'd start by criticizing them for being a crack addict with no money and no food in the house,'' said Walter Torain, who heads Family to Family and Children Services' north region. ``Now, we'd first praise them for being active in their children's schooling and caring enough to show up to the meeting.'' Family to Family has placed nine children in foster homes in their Linden-area neighborhoods. Five more stayed in their own homes. Thirteen new foster homes were created in the area. The biological parents are encouraged to tell the foster family what their children's favorite foods are, how they like their hair done, what makes them grumpy and how they can be comforted. ``That keeps birth parents from trying to find fault with the foster parents,'' said LaTisha Hines, Family to Family coordinator at St. Stephen's. Children, who rarely were consulted about what is best for them, often are included in the discussion. ``It helps the kids from feeling like something is being forced on them,'' said Marika Sanders, a social worker at St. Stephens. ``And it lessens their anxiety about divided loyalties.'' To help limit the alienation that comes with removing children from their parents, friends, school and everything they know, Children Services heavily recruits foster parents in the neighborhood. ``Keeping kids in their community cuts down on the trauma,'' said Cordelia Foster, 53, who has cared for more than 65 children in 14 years as a foster mother. The strategy represents an about-face to the traditional goal of child-welfare agencies of pulling children away from abusive or neglectful parents at all costs, often to the detriment of the child, said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va. ``It's the first good news I've heard about Franklin County Children Services in years.'' Despite the benefits, the program's introduction presents formidable challenges, notably because child-welfare agencies have to accept a new way of doing business. Compounding the task are the traditionally ill feelings between foster parents and birth parents and the public's general mistrust of child-welfare agencies. Still, Mattingly said, the program has flourished. It began in Ohio and four other states, and now is in 32 communities nationwide. Combined, they've received nearly $75 million in grants and technical assistance from the Casey Foundation, a private organization that works to improve the lives of disadvantaged children. ``Child-welfare agencies can improve,'' Mattingly said, ``but it's hard work.'' To become more community-friendly, Children Services plans to hire more translators and workers who speak foreign languages, because of the growing diversity in the county. And it will create a committee of child-welfare workers, court officials and mental-health and addiction experts to help decide where to place children with severe behavioral and mental-health problems. ``We've had such great success with Family to Family, it's time for more-revolutionary changes,'' Saros said. Sabrina Martin credits Family to Family with smoothing out her relationship with her daughters. ``I don't think we would have been able to get back on track without it,'' she said.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the conference report. I believe that it offers a balanced approach to reducing juvenile crime and promotes both prevention and accountability. States will have an obligation to protect children in the juvenile justice system. Runaways and truants cannot be contained in secured facilities; juveniles cannot be held in adult facilities. The States have to find a systematic method of addressing a disproportionate number of incarcerated minority youth. It also includes for the first time a measure aimed at preventing the abuse of juveniles in residential camps, many of whom are in federally funded, but State supervised, foster care. These camps have operated away from the public scrutiny for too long, and the result is that children have suffered serious injuries and, in several circumstances, children have died. This provision requires that residential camps be licensed in the State in which they are located and also meet the licensing standards of States which send juveniles for placements. I also want to take time to thank so many people who participated in these components of this legislation. I want to thank Bob Sweet and Krisann Pearce of the majority staff on the committee; Judy Borger with the staff of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood); and Ruth Friedman and Cheryl Johnson and Denise Forte of our staff on the minority side. On the Senate side I want to thank Tim Lynch and Beryl Howell with Senator Leahy, and Jeff Miller with Senator Kohl, and Leah Belaire with Senator Hatch. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for all the work that he did on behalf of this legislation to make it fair and equitable. It is a good piece of legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a sad, duplicitous argument from my colleagues on the other side as this one of why they cannot get their work done, why they cannot do the job that they were elected to do. They come out here and suggest that somehow it is everyone else's fault, but the fault lies within the Republican caucus. I find it rather interesting on the eve of the time when so many in this House are so anxious to send our troops into harm's way to establish democracy and defend democracy, they are so afraid of democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. Bring the bill out and let us vote. Somebody will win and somebody will lose. It may be a bipartisan coalition of moderates and Democrats or right-wing conservatives and conservative Democrats, I do not know. But bring the health and human services appropriations bill to the floor and let us vote. That is democracy. This is supposed to be the most democratic of all places on the face of the Earth, and you want to manage it because you are afraid to be accountable for your votes. It was not too long ago when the President of the United States said when he signed the No Child Left Behind education reform that I had the honor of working with him on, along with the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce (Chairman Boehner), he said to the American public and he said to every audience as we flew around the country as he had multiple signings, if you will, he said, This is the way Washington should work. This is the way Washington should work. The basic tenet of that bill at the request of the President of the United States was accountability. That bill holds State offices of education accountable, school districts accountable, chief State school officers accountable, teachers accountable. But now we have the Republican caucus, rather than bring out the funding for that bill, seeking to duck the accountability for the savage cuts that are going to happen if we kick this all over to March. This is not theoretical. My colleagues in California on both sides of the aisle know that in the middle of March, if we have not done this bill, tens of thousands of teachers in California will get pink- slipped, their lives will be disrupted, school budgets will be disrupted. Most of these local governments and school districts will start the budgetary process in January; and by March, April and May they will be deep into their budget. But there will be no education budget. There will be no education budget allowing for the additional billion dollars for special education on which we have bipartisan agreement. There will be no education budget for the 350,000 additional title I children, the children in most desperate need of this money to get a decent education in this country. There will be no education budget for them. There will be no education budget for 350,000 children with disabilities. Can you not see it in your heart to bring this budget to do your work to carry out the promise of the President of the United States, the promise of this Congress to the parents and to the children of this Nation that there would be a new day for education, there would be a system of standards and goals and accomplishments and, more importantly than anything, of accountability to the children and to the parents? When? When will this Republican caucus get the courage and the pride to do the Nation's business?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I would urge the Members to vote no on this legislation because to vote yes on this is to reaffirm the House to do nothing. The fact of the matter is most of this legislation was written before the Enron debacle. Most of this legislation was written because it was designed for the purposes of increasing the contributions that people could make to the 401(k) plans, allowing small businesses to make contributions; to the owners, they would not have to offer pension plans at that point because there is no need for them to take care of their employees, treating executives differently than we treat employees. All of that was already in this legislation. Yes, we had a hearing on Enron and we listened to these employees who were locked into their pension plans, could not sell their stock. This legislation would have those same people, the people who were locked into WorldCom, for whatever it is worth today, requires a 5-year phase- out period and then it is 3 years. We would like to talk about how the markets work and how fast they are and how they balance out. Those same people are stuck there today, riding this out as the market dropped to its lowest point in 6 years or in 4 years on the various indexes. They cannot sell that corporate stock because they are locked in. If this Congress really wanted to do something, just free those millions of American workers so they could diversify today. They could get out with what little they have left in their corporate stock. The gentleman from Ohio, in his State they have lost $8 billion in their 401(k)s. In California they lost $18 billion. He is right, those are not abstract figures. That means someone is not going to retire this year who planned on retiring. Somebody is not going to retire next year. I assume my colleague had constituents come to him, like they come up to me and told me how their retirement plans are shambles, how one of the spouses is going to have to continue to work. They thought he or she would be able to retire, how they now do not have the money to put their kids through school. Yet the Republican plan does not do anything for these people. It does not let them out of these plans. It does not let them put workers on the board. 100 percent of this money belongs to the workers. It is their money. It is in their 401(k) plan, and they will not let them sit on the pension board to discuss information about investments. Finally, they say, well, we give them more investment advice. After all we have learned out of Merrill Lynch, after we have learned out of Citicorp, after all we learned about the huge conflicts of interest about the investment banks and investment advice and touting these stocks, all we have learned, this bill does not respond to it because it allows those very same conflicts to continue. Wells Fargo now runs an investment fund. Other companies are scouring the landscape to try to buy these mutual funds because annuities are not doing so well. Insurance businesses do not want to be in the business. I know in the financial reform bill we had Chinese firewalls. They all broke down during the nineties. Everybody was doing everybody else's business. We owe it to the public to turn down this bill, and we have to understand the reason the bill has not moved in the Senate is because the Republicans will not accept any worker protections. Yes, they want a bill just like this bill that takes care of corporate greed, takes care of corporate criminality, does nothing for the worker. That is unacceptable to the people in this country, and it should be unacceptable to their elected representatives in the House of Representatives. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a member of the committee.