George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for offering this motion to recommit. I think she goes right to the heart of the matter, and that is the uncertainty that is being presented by the legislation on the floor today. Other Members tried to deal with this issue of uncertainty. Mr. Heck from Nevada tried to deal with this uncertainty by providing an incentive for those students who borrowed money and were able to pay 4 years on steady payments to give them incentive to continue to do that. Mr. Rice of South Carolina sought to have a lower rate. This lower rate isn't chiseled in granite. This isn't the market rate. This is a choice of the Republican Members of the committee to choose these rates. Mr. Rice thought this time couldn't we have the lower rate to begin with, but the Rules Committee turned that out. Then Obama's plan was offered, and they turned that out. So now we're stuck, and that's why we need this motion to recommit, to do as the gentlewoman from Arizona has said: to protect the students from the escalation of their interest rates, to protect the students from the escalation of the cost of college. These are families and students. Companies and colleges create calculators to try to show students what it will cost over 4 years. This legislation takes all of that uncertainty out for families: how they set money aside, how they save money, how they borrow money. Those calculators don't work with this variable rate, and this variable rate can go on and on and on and on. That's the problem here. This is a big choice for most families. I appreciate for some families that it's not a big deal as they've got enough money. From where I live, my family, people around me, my neighbors, this is a big choice and commitment to finance the education of your children. That's why this motion to recommit from the gentlewoman from Arizona is so important. There should be truth in lending for America's students, truth in lending for America's families, and we should get rid of the rates that will just punish them and crush them into the future as they graduate from college and they seek to participate in the American economy and in a career of their choice with the talents that we need as a Nation. I want to thank the gentlewoman so very much.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children were murdered, the issue of keeping children safe has been on the minds of all Americans. Since this tragedy occurred in a school, districts and States have, understandably, focused conversations on preventing and responding to violent crime that occurs in the school building itself. However, protecting children will require much more than preventing an outside intruder from committing acts of violence against students or a good emergency response plan to deal with an event. We need to recognize that violence--or the fear of violence--against children does not begin or end at the schoolhouse door. That's why I've devoted this month to introduce legislation that focuses on the safety needs of children as a national priority. First, I introduced legislation to establish the minimum safety standards to prevent abusive seclusion and restraint practices in schools across the country. The Keeping All Students Safe Act would protect schoolchildren from inappropriate uses of seclusion and restraints and provide school personnel with the necessary tools, training, and support to ensure the safety of all students and school personnel. These practices are, at best, cruel and, at worst, deadly. They continue to be used on children across the country. In Indiana, an 8-year-old girl with Down syndrome had her shoes duct- taped painfully to her ankles because she refused to put her shoes on. In North Carolina, a 14-year-old boy with a traumatic brain injury was confined inside a cardboard box as a form of timeout. In some cases, children have even died from improper restraints and seclusion. My bill also would stop these abusive practices, but safety shouldn't stop at the schoolhouse door. Investigations conducted by the Government Accountability Office, at my request, in 2007 and 2008 found that private and public residential programs, including therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavior modification facilities are not always run in a safe manner. Recently, the Tampa Bay Times confirmed that problems of abuse and neglect continue, with stories of children being bruised, bloodied, and choked into unconsciousness at these programs, all in the name of discipline. More horrific stories of child abuse, including deaths in some cases, have been documented in seven States' residential programs in just the past 2 years. Last week, I introduced the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, a bill that would set basic health and safety standards the State would need to adopt to enforce and protect teens from physical, mental, and sexual abuse in these programs. It would also create easily accessible information for parents about the safety records of the programs so that parents can make sound decisions about if they want to send their child there or not. No one disputes that our schools and residential programs must be a safe place for children where they can focus on learning and improving their lives, not fearing for their lives. Though some States have made progress developing policies to protect children from acts of violence, abuse, and neglect, a patchwork of protections, riddled with holes, is not acceptable when it comes to our Nation's children. We cannot sit idly by as incidents of children being abused or killed continues to occur. Today, I'm introducing legislation that will prevent registered sex offenders and criminals convicted of crimes against children from working at schools. The Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act would require public schools to conduct comprehensive background checks on any employee, using State criminal and child abuse registries and the FBI's fingerprint database. It would also prohibit school districts from hiring or retaining anyone who has been convicted of certain violent crimes, including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault, and child pornography. Mr. Speaker, keeping our children safe isn't a partisan issue; it's a moral obligation. This Congress must do more to protect our children. One way Congress can immediately help to ensure that students and schools have the support needed to address all aspects of violence is through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Through a bipartisan rewrite of the Nation's education law, we can ensure that schools and students have the necessary support to provide key nonacademic services essential for students to succeed in a safe and healthy learning environment. In the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Democrats will be fighting for these critical services, including other measures to promote safety, such as school services for violence prevention activities, bullying and harassment prevention, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, and programs to prepare for and respond to natural disasters and emergencies in our schools. Mr. Speaker, on my last point, my thoughts continue to be with the victims and families of all those who have suffered and continue to suffer from the terrible tragedy that took place in Oklahoma earlier this week. We are just amazed and honor all of the efforts of school staff, teachers, and parents trying to get children out of harm's way, and our heart goes out to those who were unsuccessful. I hope that Congress can support these communities in healing in every possible way. As always, keeping kids safe requires the coordinated efforts of children, principals, superintendents, community partners, and parents. And protecting children from violence and freeing students to learn and better their lives means ensuring that states, districts, schools and communities have the resources and supports needed to implement evidence-based approaches that are tailored to the unique needs of children in that area. My bills are only part of the solution, but an important step forward. We owe it to parents and to the children and to the school officials who follow the rules to consider these bills. We also owe it to them to send a strong message that people who abuse children or do not do their jobs to keep children safe will face serious consequences. I hope that this Congress will be able to take an even more comprehensive approach to protect children in our schools and residential programs, and I urge all of my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll No. 149. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, we meet today for the 37th attempt to take away the basic health care rights from millions of Americans. Yet, despite all of these votes, the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. And it will remain the law of the land even after today's vote. That's a fact. So why are we here for the 37th time? Are Republicans afraid that Americans are now able to get basic preventive health care screening with no copay? Are they afraid that Americans will now no longer be gouged or denied coverage because of preexisting conditions? Are Republicans fearful that the insurance companies can't cut off lifesaving care just because somebody got sick? Because they can't do that now with the Affordable Care Act. Why on Earth would anyone fear American families being put back in charge of their health care? But we're here, yet again, to satisfy the majority's needs to have another meaningless vote. This obsession with repeal by the majority is bordering on the absurd. It's time to move on, for goodness' sake. Open season is set to begin in 5 months. Americans without affordable insurance will be able to shop for plans in an open and transparent marketplace with the help of tax credits for those who qualify. Employers of small businesses will be able to shop for appropriate health care for their employees and for their businesses with the help of tax credits. It's our duty as public servants to help our constituents navigate this new law, not spend our time obstructing it. That's how California has approached the reform. We've worked in a collaborative way with all of the stakeholders. And that's how the government should work, because they know that it will help families struggling to afford health insurance. Take, for instance, a family of four making $60,000 in California who buys their own insurance. Today, they pay some $12,500 on average for insurance. That's more than $1,000 a month. But starting in January, this family will save almost $5,000 a year because of the Affordable Care Act. Think about what this family can do with that extra $400 a month. It means paying your bills, it means saving money for your kids' education, it means repairing your car. This is what the Affordable Care Act can do. This is what ObamaCare does. This is what the Republicans are trying to hide from the American people. Our country has been debating health care for more than a century. They keep saying there's other alternative solutions. It's funny that none of them came forward. None of them came forward during this debate with those alternative solutions, and health premiums were skyrocketing in double-digits year after year after year. For decades, we debated how to make sure all Americans have access to health care that won't bankrupt them if they get sick. For decades, we debated control of the national health spending by ensuring that everyone is covered. For decades, we debated how to control uncompensated care that cost families dearly. And it took the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and President Obama to bring positive change for families and businesses struggling under the weight of health care costs. The fact of the matter is this plan currently today is working for millions of Americans, for millions of seniors, for millions of young Americans and for millions of young people born with preexisting conditions. That's what this legislation is about, lowering the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens and making sure that people can get preventive care without copays. The Republicans want to yank that all away, and they don't have a plan to provide that health care security. Interestingly enough, the other day in The Wall Street Journal was a full discussion about how this health care package is entrepreneurial because people who feel that they're job-locked will now be able to go out and start businesses because they know they'll have health care insurance for themselves or for their spouses or for the kids, and they'll be able to become the entrepreneurs they want to be. There's a discussion among large employers because people will leave and take their ideas and start their own businesses. That's what this health care enables Americans to do for the first time, not be locked into a job because of the fear of the insecurity of not having health care for your family and what that means. This is an entrepreneurial act. This is liberating people. This is freeing people from the financial fear of the loss of health care. Never again, with the passage of this legislation, will an American lose health care because they lost their job, because somebody died in their family or because a child was born with a preexisting condition. Never again. The Republicans don't have an alternative. They only have obstruction and repeal as part of their program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.) (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is available on both sides.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 2 minutes. The previous speaker just said that we should listen to the American people. When the American people listen to the Congress of the United States, they assume that all of the Republicans in the country are against this health care bill and that all of the Democrats are for this health care bill. Yet, if you look at the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent poll on this, you'll find out that 96 percent of the Democrats and 83 percent of the Republicans support the tax credits for small business, which are now the law of the land, and 360,000 small businesses are getting those tax credits. Ninety percent of the Democrats and 74 percent of the Republicans support closing the doughnut hole, and the doughnut hole is in the process of being closed. Democrats and Republicans agree in the country that this is a good deal. Eighty-seven percent of the Democrats and 72 percent of the Republicans are excited about the creation of health care exchanges where they can go and shop for health care just as the Members of this Congress do in open season when they can pick and choose from different plans. In California, there will be 33 plans offered by private health insurance companies that they can pick and choose from. They think that's a good idea. They think it's a great idea. Eighty-four percent of the Democrats and 68 percent of the Republicans think it's a great idea that children will not be thrown off their parents' policy, as is the law today. That's why you've only voted to repeal. On the first day you took the majority in this Congress, you voted to repeal and you instructed the committees to come up with an alternative. You've had 37 votes on repeal, and you've had no action by the committees on the alternative. So you have a plan that is meeting the needs of American families, millions of Americans of all walks of life, small businesses, big businesses, employees at both, children, seniors, people with preexisting conditions, and your answer is to repeal, like that's progress. No, that's not progress. That's the failure to have an alternative and creative thinking about how to deal with the health care problems of the American people. ObamaCare does that, the Affordable Care Act does that, and that's what this Congress did. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the minority leader.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the balance of my time, 1\1/ 2\ minutes, to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to close. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, little more than 100 years ago, a New York State assemblyman was an eyewitness to one of our Nation's worst industrial tragedies--the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. He recounted how he saw girl after girl appear in the reddened windows, pause for a terrified moment, and then leap to the pavement below, to land as a mangled, bloody pulp. He said it went on for what seemed like a ghastly eternity, and described how the firemen's life nets were torn by the impact of falling bodies. This inferno at a sweatshop garment factory in New York City employed mostly poor, immigrant women. One hundred forty-six workers died that day because it lacked proper stairways, fire escapes, and managers had locked all of the exits. This tragedy shook our Nation and led to lifesaving workplace safety reforms. A century later, I recently met a young Bangladeshi garment worker named Sumi. She, too, jumped from a window of the Tazreen garment factory. She survived, but 12 of her coworkers who jumped with her did not. More than 100 others who never had the opportunity to jump were found inside of the factory dead. This haunting tragedy has many parallels to the Triangle fire: exit doors were locked; fire extinguishers were not working; fire codes went unenforced. We don't tolerate those workplace conditions in the United States anymore, but those are deadly conditions that are tolerated in other countries that make the clothing that we wear. These tragedies have moved from New York to Bangladesh, driven by the business models and global supply chains of the world's leading retailers and clothing brands. But now Bangladesh has had what might be its own Triangle Shirtwaist fire. On April 24, more than 1,100 people died as Rana Plaza and its garment factories collapsed. Some 2,000 more were injured, and rescuers are still pulling bodies out 3 weeks later. There have been an additional 40 fires, explosions, and other incidents between the Tazreen fire and the Rana Plaza tragedies. It's simply a matter of time before there is another one. These incidents shocked people around the globe and laid bare the need for bold action. The lives of 4 million workers in these factories are counting on bold action. But not everyone has been shocked. Major American retailers and clothing brands have refused to change the way they conduct business in Bangladesh, the second largest garment producer in the world after China. They are hoping instead that the heightened attention will pass without having to change their business model. That business model pits sweatshop against sweatshop, country against country, in a race to the bottom to rake in billions of dollars in profits while paying as little as 22 cents per shirt. In Bangladesh, American and international companies flourish in this system, companies we all know like Walmart, the Gap, JCPenney, and The Children's Place, just to name a few. They refuse to accept responsibility. So what can be done to improve the Bangladeshi factory safety? Certainly there are things local government can do: address corruption that allows unsafe, dangerous structures; enforce safety codes; defend the right of workers to form unions and to have workers be able to refuse unsafe work. The Bangladeshi Government is scrambling to implement limited reforms, hoping to keep the industry that is critical to its economy, but only the retailers and brands can put a floor under this race to the bottom. The economic power rests with them. That is why the announcement this week by major European companies and one American company that they have signed a binding and enforceable fire and building safety agreement for Bangladesh factories is so significant. H&M, Zara, Primark, and C&A are to be applauded for their unprecedented and bold steps. They have been joined by only one American company, Phillips-Van Heusen, which has Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger among its brands, and one major German retailer. But now El Corte Ingles, Marks & Spencer, Mango, and Benetton have also agreed to sign this enforceable agreement. The agreement provides for independent safety inspections with public reports, mandatory repairs and renovations, money to fund the necessary safety upgrades, the right of workers to refuse unsafe work, and the vital role of workers and unions. This agreement is truly unprecedented. But where are the other American companies? Where are the American retailers? Where are the American clothing brands? Where is Walmart? Where is JCPenney? Where is the Gap? Where is The Children's Place? Their silence in the face of this tragedy is inexcusable. They should sign the binding safety agreement to protect Bangladeshi workers. They should sign it now. Experts estimate safety improvements under this plan would cost about a dime a garment. A dime for the life of these women. I urge all Americans to join in demanding that the American retailers and fashion brands stop selling their bloodstained labels and sign the enforceable agreement to protect these Bangladeshi women.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today I'm reintroducing the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act. This legislation will protect teenagers attending residential treatment programs from abuse by staff personnel. These programs range from boot camps to behavior modification facilities. They are often a last resort for parents trying to help a child deal with behavioral or other issues. But investigations by our committee found that these programs are not always run in a safe manner. Just last year, the Tampa Bay Times confirmed that problems continue, with stories of children being bruised, bloodied, and choked to unconsciousness at these programs, all in the name of discipline. My bill would make it illegal for a residential facility to deny a child essential water, food, clothing, shelter, or medical care, whether under the guise of discipline or therapy. It would also ensure that parents have the information needed to make safe choices for their children about these programs. When a parent turns to these programs for help, they should trust that their child will not suffer neglect, injury, or even death while undergoing therapy. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to protect schoolchildren from abusive seclusion and restraint practices. These practices are at best cruel and at worst deadly, and they continue to be used in schools on children across the country. In Indiana, an 8-year-old girl with Down syndrome had her shoes duct- taped painfully to her ankles because she refused to put her shoes on. In North Carolina, a 14-year-old boy with a traumatic brain injury was confined inside a cardboard box as a form of time-out. In Minnesota, a 10-year-old boy with autism was pinned face down on the floor for 57 minutes by three staff members at his school after a tantrum he had while working on a puzzle. And in Virginia, a 13-year- old boy was placed in solitary confinement for 3 hours after he threw his lunch. In some cases, children have even died with these improper restraints. My bill would stop these abusive practices. Congress needs to act. There's no room for torture in America's schools.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a shell game. It's a trick. It's a Trojan horse. If an employer wants to give you time off, as the gentleman from Connecticut said, the employer can give you time off. He can give you comp time to go to your parent- teacher conferences, to take care of an ill member of your family, take care of yourself. But they don't do that. So they're going to dangle overtime here. If you're willing to work overtime, sometime in the future they might give you that comp time. But it's not your comp time; it's the comp time that the employer will choose when and where you can take it. So if you work overtime this week and your child is very sick next week and you ask for the time and he says, no, we're busy, I can't give you the time off, you lose. Your employer can bank up to 160 hours of your comp time before there's any obligation. That's almost 4 weeks of overtime. For many people, that overtime is really important. But this bill says your employer can go to you and say you can have the overtime--which may be very important to your family budget. It was when I was young and married and had children. I worked every hour of overtime I could get when I was in the Merchant Marines working on oil tankers. I worked every hour I could get in the canneries. I worked every hour I could get in the refineries because I needed that for my family budget. I didn't need comp time, I needed income. But now the employer says you can have overtime, but I'm going to pay you back in comp time. If you say no, you have no protections. Your employer might say, okay, I'll find somebody else. Or your employer may offer it to you again and you say I can't do it, I need the overtime, and then you could be fired. They want to keep saying you're protected and you have the same rights as people in the Federal employment system. You don't. There's nothing in the law that prevents your employer from firing you because you can't work the schedules your employer wants. They can say it all day along, but it's not in this legislation. If your employer goes broke before the time that they have to give you your comp time, you're out. And if you don't like the way your employer treated you and fires you because you couldn't possibly do the comp time or you couldn't do the overtime, you can go sue in court. How many middle class families can go sue their employer in court, have that kind of money? This is what it has always been since 1997, when this bill was introduced--1997. Yes, the workplace has changed. States and cities and employers are giving people paid time off so they can take care of their families when they need to take care of their families. But that's not what this bill is. It's an assault on the 40-hour workweek. It's an assault on overtime. An employer can get the work and never really have to pay the overtime. If you're in seasonal employment, if you're in an up-and-down business, you work like crazy and he says okay, things are slower in this part of the season, take that time off. You don't get to say, well, I don't really need that time off; I wanted to save that time for a parent-teacher conference. I'm sorry, we're going to be busy when that parent-teacher conference is. You get what's going on here? This isn't women friendly. This isn't mom friendly. This isn't family friendly. This is friendly to people who want to get rid of overtime and break down the 40-hour week that protects families so they're not working overtime.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Brother Ronald Gallagher, Fratres Scholarum Christianarum (F.S.C.), Ph.D., as he prepares to retire as President of St. Mary's College of California in Moraga and to commend him for his outstanding service to the St Mary's students, faculty and to our community as a whole. A Native Californian, Brother Ronald Gallagher spent his formative years in Santa Cruz and Bakersfield, and then joined the Christian Brothers after graduating from Mont La Salle High School in Napa. After graduating from Saint Mary's College in 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts in English, Brother Ronald received an Master of Arts in comparative literature from San Francisco State University and earned his doctorate in comparative literature from the University of Washington. Prior to assuming the college presidency, Brother Ronald was a member of the English Department. His teaching specialties include 19th and 20th Century Anglo-Irish Literature, the modern novel, and the history and culture of Ireland. His passion for Irish literature began when he read James Joyce's ``Ulysses'' during his senior year at Saint Mary's. In recent years, he has led several groups of students on tours of the historical and cultural sites of Ireland. From 1993 to 1997, Brother Ronald was Vice Chancellor of Bethlehem University, where he oversaw administration, development, finance and academics. As the leader of a Catholic university in the deeply divided Middle East, he responded to formidable challenges by forging strong regional and global support for the school. Enlisting the help of many countries, individuals, groups, international aid agencies and the Vatican, Brother Ronald was able to raise the funds necessary for Bethlehem University to fulfill its educational mission among the economically disadvantaged Palestinian community. In his role as Secretary General of the Brothers of the Christian Schools in Rome from 1997 to 2001, Brother Ronald organized the 43rd General Chapter, an international assembly that produced a seven-year global strategic plan for Lasallian educators. Brother Ronald Gallagher, F.S.C., Ph.D., became the 28th President of Saint Mary's College of California on Jan. 2, 2005. A seasoned educator, he is deeply devoted to the College's Catholic, Las allian and liberal arts traditions and is committed to promoting the values of those traditions among students, faculty, staff and friends of Saint Mary's. In addition to leading St Mary's College, Brother Ronald has served as President of the International Association of Lasallian Universities, as a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Independent Catholic Colleges and Universities (AICCU), a member of the Board of Directors for the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), on the Executive Board of Directors of the International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU), and he is the Chair of the West Coast Conference (WCC) President's Council. Throughout his career, Brother Ronald has also been a strong supporter of intercollegiate and recreational athletics at Saint Mary's College. Mr. Speaker, I invite this chamber to join me in recognizing Brother Ronald for his devoted service to Saint Mary's College of California and thank him for his unparalleled contribution to higher education. I am pleased to join Brother Ronald's family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him on his outstanding accomplishments during his long and highly successful career. I wish him a healthy and happy retirement and the very best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, during the week of April 23rd, I missed roll Nos. 118 through 128 due to cataract surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, and 126. I would have voted ``yea'' on roll Nos. 118, 119, 123, 127, and 128.