George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the House of Representatives passed a welfare bill in which the Democratic Minority was not permitted to offer a single amendment. That legislation, H.R. 4737, fails to provide millions of families across the Nation with the help they need to get off welfare, stay off welfare, and move out of poverty. If this welfare bill were to become law in its current form, the results would be disastrous, not only for recipients and their families, but for states as well which would suddenly face billions of dollars in new mandates that the House has failed to help pay for. It is important that we authorize a welfare bill that allows States to develop programs, assess needs, and provide training, education and other appropriate work supports that provides the best opportunity for moving welfare families into sustainable work that will lead to long- term income self-sufficiency. In contrast, the House legislation imposes requirements that will prohibit States from assessing the individual needs of their families or providing the services that will give recipients the best chance to escape poverty. Restricting training, education, and job readiness, as H.R. 4737 does, is short-sighted and fails to build upon what we have learned since the welfare law was reformed in 1996. The Republican bill also increases the demand on families without sufficient resources for essential work supports like child care. Our concerns with the impacts of the House-passed bill are reflected in the following editorial. [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May, 22, 2002] Don't Penalize Children for Parents Going To Work When the U.S. Senate debates welfare reform this month, it will essentially be deciding whether the federal aid program exists to punish adults or protect children. Last week, House Representative sent a welfare package over to the Senate that calls for stricter work requirements on welfare recipients. However, the House only approved a modest increase in child care funding in its proposal. In defending the GOP plan, Representative J.C. Watts, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the goal was ``to replace welfare checks with paychecks, foster independence, boost personal incomes and improve well-being of children.'' Those are all admirable goals. Unfortunately, the least likely of them to be realized under the Republican plan is improving the well-being of children. An increased demand for time on the job without a companion increase in child care dollars places stresses on fragile families. Children suffer in unstable day care arrangements, and their mothers are more likely to land back on welfare. Research shows that day care is often the fence that keeps a woman from making the transition from welfare to work. Under the welfare reauthorization package approved by the House, 70 percent of a state's welfare recipients must be working or training 40 hours a week. The House gave only a nominal boost to child care funding, which is already so underfunded that it covers only one in seven qualified families. And many states, forced to meet the higher work requirements, will use their discretionary funding to create makeshift or simulated jobs rather than to enhance child care options. The Republican bill also stipulates more hours in paid employment and less in training, rehabilitation, vocational training and job readiness programs. The Senate ought to insist that more education and training count toward ``work.'' Since Congress overhauled welfare in 1996--replacing the old entitlement system with workfare--caseloads have fallen 50 percent. In a flourishing economy, states were able to move millions of people off the public dole and into jobs. But while welfare reform was effective in getting people off cash assistance, it was less successful in getting them out of poverty. Many recipients ended in low-skilled jobs without any possibility of career advancement The welfare recipients who failed to find work in the booming '90s were those with few skills or with substance abuse or mental health problems--hardly a subset likely to do well in a weakened economy. They represent the hardest-to- place cases for whom self-sufficiency will be impossible without drug treatment, training and education, the very things the Republican proposal undercuts. The Senate Republicans and Democrats are more cordial and more conciliatory than their colleagues in the House. They ought to forge a compromise that puts people to work without putting children at risk.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we are here at the eve of Memorial Day, and as we approach this weekend and we approach Memorial Day, we think about all of the symbols of the values of this country and all of the battles that have been waged on behalf of those values of democracy, of freedom; all of the sacrifice that has been given to this country on behalf of those values, on behalf of those freedoms. We all recognize our duty, as we have young men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan, in the Philippines, in Colombia, and so many troubled areas of the world where those values of democracy and freedom are not near and dear as they are here. We all understand our obligation to provide the resources to those individuals, to those troops, to those support organizations for those young men and women. That is what this supplemental is supposed to be about, to provide those resources so that there will be an unbroken chain of support on behalf of our troops. We are all prepared to meet that challenge, as we have so many times in the Congress of the United States. We have met that challenge, along with our citizens, from small towns, from urban centers, from rural areas, because Americans understood what we were supposed to be about, that we were about defending democracy, that we were about defending freedom. They understood it as we engaged in the war on terror to repel the attack that was made on our country. They understood that their sons and daughters would be placed in harm's way. They understood that their neighbors, their friends would be placed in harm's way. But we all also understood America's role in the world. Yet, we now find, we now find, as we will remember in speeches this weekend, in parades and ceremonies, the courage of these young men and women, the great symbols of the past, the Midways, the Pearl Harbors, the Antietams, the great symbols of this country, the pieces of history of this country, the sacrifice of this country, as we remember that and remember that courage, we will have to think back to today when the House of Representatives and the Republicans in the House decided they would not exhibit that courage. They would not exhibit the courage equal to that of the young men and women who are in harm's way, to those who sacrificed in the past. The simple courage would be to stand up and cast your vote, to cast your vote, yes or no, to add $750 billion to the debt limit, to cast your vote, yes or no, whether or not we want to invade the Social Security trust funds; to cast your vote, yes or no, whether or not you want to make it more difficult to take care of the baby boomers who are getting ready to retire; to cast your vote, yes or no, whether or not Medicare will be available for them to the extent that it is today. That is what we all said we would do when we ran for Congress. But today, today courage is failing the Congress, the House of Representatives, the Republican majority. Today, courage seeps out of their body as they try to disguise this vote, to camouflage this vote so that they will not be held accountable for the results. The results are a dramatic addition to the national debt of this country. The results are increasing liability of the Social Security trust fund, the vulnerability of the Social Security trust fund. It was said by Alexander Hamilton on the explanation of representative government when he answered the question, he said, ``Here, sir, the people govern.'' The people govern. And we govern through them and they govern through us. What the Democrats are asking for is the opportunity to cast a vote, yes or no, up or down, on the most important issue confronting our economy and our country, and that is the debt of this Nation. My colleagues are not denying George Miller a vote. My colleagues are not denying the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) a vote. They are denying the people of Tennessee and the people of California a vote who have strongly held views. That is why we have had great debates in this Congress in the past. That is why we had votes where a one-vote margin raised the taxes or lowered the taxes or got rid of the debt. Mr. Chairman, we need to have the courage of our convictions. The Republican Party has to have the courage of its convictions. If you believe the debt limit should be raised, if you believe Social Security should be invaded, then have the courage of your convictions to stand up and do it. Our men and women in harm's way have their courage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article by Ken Silverstein appearing in the May/June issue of Mother Jones magazine. The article reports that the Federal Government continues to let billions of dollars worth of contracts to dozens of companies that have been repeatedly cited for serious violations of workplace safety and environmental laws. Over a six months investigation, Mother Jones identified the 200 corporations that did the most business with government between 1995 and 2000. The magazine then matched that list against two other federal databases identifying companies prosecuted by the Justice Department for environmental violations and companies cited by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for conditions posing a serious risk of injury or death to workers. Among the article's findings: forty-six of the 200 largest government contractors were prosecuted by the Justice Department and ordered to pay cleanup costs for dumping hazardous waste and for other environmental violations; fifty-five of the 200 largest contractors were cited for 1,375 violations of workplace safety laws; and thirty- four contractors were penalized for violating both environmental and workplace safety laws. Those thirty-four firms faced total EPA penalties of $12.6 million and OSHA fines of $5.9 million, but received $229 billion in federal contracts over the same period. Mr. Silverstein documents the following cases in his compelling article: ``In 1997, TRW settles criminal charges growing out of violations of workplace safety laws. The same company is later found to have intentionally dumped chemical waste from the same plant in three states. As a consequence, the company pays a record $24 million in civil and criminal penalties. However, even that penalty is pittance compared to the more than $10 billion in taxpayer money that the company received between 1995 and 2000.'' ``In 2000, Northrup Grumman pays nearly $6.7 million to settle two separate cases involving allegations that the company cheated the government by inflating the costs of parts and materials for warplanes. In 1995, General Dynamics pays nearly $2 million to resolve allegations that it falsified employee time cards. Yet between 1995 and 2000 those two companies received a total $38 billion worth of federal contracts.'' ``Between 1990 and 1996, nine workers died at the Avondale shipyard, a death rate of three times that of other Navy shipyards. In 1999, OSHA documents hundreds of health and safety violations and fines the company $717,000. One month after the fines are levied, the government awards Avondale another $22 million contract to work on amphibious assault ships. The following year, three more workers are killed at Avondale, one of whom dies as a result of a repeat scaffolding violation.'' Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many of my colleagues would agree with me that federal procurement policy should not reward companies that flagrantly disregard tax law, environmental laws, labor laws, antitrust law, or civil rights laws. Federal procurement law already requires government contractors to have a ``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.'' Unfortunately, when President Bush revoked the contractor responsibility rule, he rendered that requirement virtually unenforceable. As this article shows, by repealing regulations intended to give meaning to the requirement that government contractors demonstrate integrity and business ethics, President Bush has implemented a policy that does not punish big corporations for disregarding the law, but effectively rewards them instead. I commend the article below to the attention of my colleagues. I also would like to point out that the magazine compiled an extensive database of the violations which can be found on its web site. The article printed below is the version that appears on the magazine's web site. There is a longer version of the story that appears in the actual May-June version of the magazine and I would be happy to provide copies of the complete article to any of my colleagues who may wish to see it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unjust Rewards (By Ken Silverstein) In 1994, an explosion claimed the life of a worker at an Arizona air bag factory run by TRW, the huge Ohio-based manufacturing conglomerate. The company, which had a record of violating federal workplace safety laws at the plant, paid a $1.7 million penalty in order to settle criminal charges brought against it. Later, federal environmental officials discovered that TRW, following a policy described as ``clearly approved by management,'' was illegally dumping chemical waste at landfills in three states. Last year, the company paid a record $24 million in civil and criminal penalties related to the dumping case. But even as TRW was repeatedly violating workplace and environmental laws, it was still earning billions under contracts awarded by the federal government. Between 1995 and 2000, the company received a total of $10.3 billion in federal business, placing TRW among the nation's 10 largest government contractors despite its record of jeopardizing the safety of its employees and polluting the nation's air and water. That's not supposed to happen. Federal contracting officers are charged with reviewing the legal records of companies that do business with Washington and barring those that fail to demonstrate ``a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.'' But officials are given no guidelines to follow in making such decisions, and there is no centralized system they can consult to inform them of corporate wrongdoing. As a result, a government report concluded in 2000, those responsible for awarding federal contracts are ``extremely reluctant'' to rule out potential contractors, even when they are aware of violations. And in the rare instances when the rule is enforced, it is almost always against small companies with little clout in Washington. Shortly before leaving office, President Clinton issued an executive order providing clear guidelines for deciding whether firms should be considered for a share of the roughly $200 billion in federal contracts awarded each year. Clinton's ``contractor responsibility rule'' specified that federal officials should weigh ``evidence of repeated, pervasive, or significant violations of the law.'' Officials were told to consider whether a company has cheated on prior contracts or violated laws involving the environment, workplace safety, labor rights, consumer protection, or antitrust activities. The order was never implemented. In one of his first acts as president, after only 11 days in office, George W. Bush put the rule on hold, saying the issue needed further study. With big business suing to block the new guidelines, Bush quietly revoked the rule 11 months later. Some 80,000 contractors do at least $25,000 in business with the federal government each year, and the great majority comply with the law. But a six-month investigation by Mother Jones of the nation's 200 largest government contractors found that Washington continues to award lucrative contracts to dozens of companies that have been repeatedly cited for serious violations of workplace and environmental laws. The government's own database of contractors was matched with lists of the worst violations documented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) between 1995 and 2000. Among the findings: Forty-six of the biggest contractors were prosecuted by the Justice Department and ordered to pay cleanup costs after they refused to take responsibility for environmental violations, including the illegal dumping of hazardous waste. General Electric--which received nearly $9.8 billion from the government, making it the nation's 10th-largest contractor-- topped the EPA list with 27 cases of pollution violations for which it was held solely or jointly liable. Fifty-five of the top 200 contractors were cited for a total of 1,375 violations of workplace safety laws that posed a risk of death or serious physical harm to workers. Ford Motor Company, which between 1995 and 2000 ranked 177th among contractors with $442 million in federal business, led the OSHA list with 292 violations deemed ``serious'' by federal officials. Thirty-four leading contractors were penalized for violating both environmental and workplace safety rules. The firms were hit with a total of $12.6 million in EPA penalties and $5.9 million in OSHA fines--costs more than covered by the $229 billion in federal contracts they were awarded during the same period. Even contractors that commit the most obvious violations are never suspended or debarred. One federal study found that the government continues to award business to defense contractors that have committed fraud on prior contracts. General Dynamics Corp., the nation's fifth-largest contractor, paid the government nearly $2 million in 1995 to resolve charges that it falsified employee time cards, billing the Pentagon for thousands of hours that were never worked on a contract for testing F-16 fighters. Northrop Grumman, the nation's fourth-largest contractor, paid nearly $6.7 million in 2000 to settle two separate cases in which it was charged with inflating the costs of parts and materials for warplanes. Yet the two defense giants continue to receive federal contracts, collecting a combined total of $38 billion between 1995 and 2000. ``It is clear that, in many cases, the government continues to do business with contractors who violate laws, sometimes repeatedly,'' concludes a 2000 report by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, the agency that oversees federal contractors. Others put it more bluntly. ``Government should not do business with crooks,'' says Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who has demanded that the Bush administration make public any meetings it had with corporate lobbyists during which the contractor responsibility rule was discussed. Bush's decision, Miller says, ``sends a message to contractors that the government doesn't care if you underpay your workers, or expose them to toxic hazards, or destroy the public lands--the government will do business with you anyway.'' The complete story on federal contractors is available in the May/June issue of Mother Jones magazine.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, evidence continues to mount that we suffered a major, major failure of intelligence prior to September 11. Our colleague, Senator John McCain, writes in this morning's Washington Post that asking and urging and demanding answers by various agencies, the Federal Government failing to understand the enormity of the danger facing the United States is an obligation shared by all elected officials. We were told in Newsweek earlier this week that even after the President asked, What is going on here, his intelligence advisors were unable to tease out the facts or decipher the information. Mr. Speaker, that is why we need an independent commission. We need an independent commission to determine the facts. Senator McCain goes on to say, ``It is hardly a surprise that in a lively democracy, the partisan and institutional loyalties will influence both sides of an honest debate challenging and confronting Federal Government.'' That is all the more reason to consider impounding an independent commission of trustworthy and experienced statesmen who are not entirely devoid of partisan loyalties. George Will, the columnist, then goes on to suggest such Americans as George Schultz, Sam Nunn, Bob Graham, Dick Lugar, Senator Danforth and others who can make up that commission. We owe it to this Nation. We owe it to the families of the victims of September 11. [From the Washington Post] The Way out (By George F. Will) ``The best way out is always through.''--Robert Frost. The Bush administration is in a quandary which is, as Washington quandaries so often are, partly self-inflicted. There is only one way out of the growing--tardily growing; by no means grown too large--controversy about investigating intelligence inadequacies prior to Sept. 11. The way out for the administration is to go through an investigation, and not one conducted by itself. Eleven days. That is how long it took President Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor to appoint a blue-ribbon commission, headed by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, to examine what was known, and what should have been, prior to Dec. 7, 1941. More than 250 days have passed since Sept. 11. Last week, one of the most dispirting in recent Washington history, the administration seemed surly and defensive regarding the inevitably rising tide of questions about governmental intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks. Understandably, the administration was provoked by some Democrats' crassness in casting their questions in Watergate- era cadences--what did the president know and when did he know it? Actually, a blue-ribbon commission, concerning itself with all three branches of government, almost certainly would vindicate President Bush, who, after all, initiated the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing on the threat of al Qaeda operations in the United States. The commission also would find that Congress has already begun correcting some problems--for example, belatedly funding modernization of FBI computers, more than 13,000 of which were too old to be compatible with crucial software last year. Given the rapid multiplication of new means of communication, from cell phones to the Internet, the commission should recommend revisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978. The commission should evaluate judicial standards of probable cause when law enforcement agencies seek wiretaps, access to computer hard drives and bank records, and other forms of surveillance covered by Fourth Amendment privacy protections. The commission should be balanced between Republicans and Democrats but should have an even number of members to underscore the assumption that its proceedings are not expected to be internally adversarial, producing party-line votes and requiring a tie-breaker. A commission of sufficient prestige can perhaps impart to its recommendations momentum that will overwhelm the institutional rivalries that can make national security a hostage to jurisdictional jealousies. So the co-chairman of the commission should be former secretary of state George Shultz and former senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat. Shultz, who also was secretary of labor and of Treasury and was the first head of the Office of Management and Budget, has had more highlevel government experience than perhaps any American in history. And his memoir of his 6\1/2\ years running President Reagan's State Department, ``Turmoil and Triumph,'' contains this laconic sentence: ``Our knowledge of the Kremlin was thin, and the CIA, I found, was usually wrong about it.'' Nunn has a long-standing interest in a matter of increasing urgency: Russia's surplus nuclear weapons. Sens. Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat, and Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican, with considerable experience on the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees respectively, can represent the legislative branch. Former senator Jack Danforth, the Missouri Republican, having conducted the investigation of the 1993 Waco disaster, understands investigating government misadventures. Former representative Lee Hamilton, the Indiana Democrat, served on the International Relations Committee for 34 years. Prof. Donald Kagan of Yale, author of ``On the Origins of War,'' would bring a historian's understanding to the challenge of making retrospective judgments about events viewed through the lens of present knowledge. The eight and final member of the commission could be former senator Pat Moynihan. He was vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee--and in 1984 he resigned from it until CIA Director William Casey apologized for not informing the committee of CIA involvement in mining Nicaraguan harbors. In his book ``Secrecy: The American Experience,'' Moynihan says it is an iron law of institutions that the ration of unnecessary to necessary secrecy increases--including secrecy maintained by one part of the government against other parts. President Truman could have used the proof contained in intercepted messages between the Soviet Union and its agents in America, of espionage by Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs-- but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept it from him. Secrecy renders societies susceptible to epidemics of suspicion. A blue-ribbon commission would be immunization against such an epidemic and preventive medicine against future failures. The administration and the nation need to go through it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the chickens come home to roost for the Republicans. After destroying a $5 trillion surplus and giving away $4 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country, tomorrow the Republicans must take the first step in authorizing an additional $750 billion in deficit spending, Mr. Speaker; $750 billion that this Nation does not have because of the Republican giveaways in the tax cut, and $750 billion that unfortunately now must come directly out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Remember all of those promises about a lock box, about a super lock box, how they would never use Social Security for any other purpose? All of those promises go by the wayside tomorrow, because tomorrow is the first step when the Republicans vote to increase by $750 billion of spending that is taken directly from Social Security. What does that mean to Social Security recipients? It means that Social Security is less secure. Eventually, it means that the age limit is going to have to be raised, and then the Republicans will have to work on their plan to privatize Social Security. The last time they privatized something, it was the energy markets; and the next thing we saw was the Enron Corporation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe most taxpayers will share my deep concern at the ongoing practice of American corporations reincorporating offshore to avoid their tax responsibilities to state and federal taxpayers. Several months ago, the New York Times broke the story that more and more American companies are avoiding U.S. corporate income taxes by reincorporating in tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. This means they can keep their headquarters and all of their operations in the United States, continue to benefit from the ``Made in the USA'' label, but also pay a small fee to maintain a mail drop in another country (like Bermuda) and dodge tens of millions of dollars in U.S. taxes. By dodging their tax responsibilities, these companies claim they are acting in the best interests of their shareholders. But now it turns out that even their investors--like taxpayers--are getting the short end of the stick. Now the New York Times reports today that ``the government's loss in taxes is the chief executives' gain.'' I am inserting for my colleagues a complete copy of today's article. Top executives at Connecticut-based Stanley Works, for example, win take home up to fifty-eight cents for every dollar the company avoids in taxes. These executives will reap millions of dollars through huge bonuses and stock option windfalls, leaving workers, shareholders, and the rest of taxpaying America to pay the bill. Today's article provides further justification for bringing to a vote in the House a bill by my colleagues Jim Maloney of Connecticut and Richard Neal of Massachusetts--the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act of 2002. There is no reason for Republican leaders to deny Congress--and the American people--the opportunity to correct this gross injustice. We don't need a temporary prohibition to this practice, as some are suggesting. We need to end it immediately. If Stanley Works and other companies are indeed proud to be American companies, they should stay American--in both practice and in name and pay their fair share for the benefits of being an American company. [From the New York Times, May 20, 2002] Officers May Gain More Than Investors In Move to Bermuda (By David Cay Johnston) The parade of companies that in recent months have proposed incorporating in Bermuda to reduce their American taxes usually provide the same rationale. They are doing it, they say, to increase their profits and, in turn, to benefit their shareholders. But left unsaid is another fact: the biggest beneficiaries could actually be the chief executives of these companies. At a minimum, these executives could pocket millions in additional pay. In some cases, they could well take home extra pay equal to half the company's tax savings or more. In effect, the government's loss in taxes is the chief executives' gain, in the form of higher pay, bonuses and profits on the sale of stock options. While each company's Bermuda strategy differs in details, chief executives always profit because their compensation is based partly on the profitability of the company or its stock price. If taxes fall, both would be expected to rise. But, in some cases, like that of Stanley Works, other shareholders may not fare nearly so well, because many would owe taxes that the chief executive does not. Eugene M. Isenberg, of Nabors Industries; John M. Trani, of Stanley Works, H. John Riley Jr., of Cooper Industries; Herbert L. Henkel, of Ingersoll-Rand, and Bernard J. Duroc- Danner of Weatherford International are among the chief executives who stand to benefit. At Nabors Industries of Houston, the world's largest operator of land-based oil drilling rigs, Mr. Isenberg could see his pay rise by tens of millions of dollars each year if shareholders approve on June 14 his plan to incorporate in Bermuda and establish the company's legal residency in Barbados, said Brian Foley, an executive compensation lawyer who analyzed Mr. Isenberg's employment contract. Mr. Isenberg is already well paid. Over the past two years, he made more than $126 million, including profits from the sale of stock options, from a company with $2 billion in annual revenues. That is partly because his contract pays him 6 percent of the company's cash flow--a measure of profits before certain charges are subtracted--once cash flow exceeds a certain amount. The company's No. 2 executive gets 2 percent of this cash flow. The company expects the Bermuda move to increase cash flow significantly. Mr. Foley and five other compensation lawyers said that beginning in the year after the Bermuda move, the related payments to Mr. Isenberg and his deputy also should begin rising. What is more, Mr. Foley said, details of the Nabors stock option plan indicate that Mr. Isenberg will make an additional $100 million on the exercise of his 10.3 million options of Nabors shares, currently at $42.99, rise by $9.72. The company has said that lower taxes and higher cash flow should increase share prices, but has not said by how much. Mr. Isenberg owns 1.1 million shares outright, but it is not known how many of these are in retirement and charitable accounts, which would shield his gains from taxes. Mr. Isenberg declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the company. At Stanley Works, the New Britain, Conn., tool maker, Mr. Trani stands to pocket an amount equal to 58 cents of each dollar the company would save in corporate income taxes in the first year after its proposed move to Bermuda. Mr. Trani has estimated that, as a result of the tax savings alone, the company's stock should rise 11.5 percent. Corporate income taxes would fall $30 million annually, while the value of his existing options would increase $17.5 million if the stock rises as much as he expects. In a presentation to Wall Street analysts, Mr. Trani estimated that 60 percent of Stanley shares are held in retirement and charitable accounts where no tax will be due. Investors holding Stanley shares in taxable accounts, however, would suffer losses during that first year. They would have to pay $150 million in capital gains taxes, he estimated, on holdings worth $1.6 billion, so the deal can go through. Even if their shares rise 11.5 percent, they will barely break even after taxes. At the time of the move, Mr. Trani, however, would owe less than $50,000, less than he earns each week in salary and bonuses, on his 16,688 shares where the gains are taxable. The rest of his holdings are in options and retirement accounts, neither of them taxable in the move. Mr. Trani has campaigned hard for the Bermuda vote, personally calling pension fund trustees and having executives call Stanley employees at home. Mr. Trani, in an interview, said that, to avoid any taxes, he might give his taxable holdings to charity. He would then be able to reduce his federal income taxes by about $300,000. Mr. Trani has said that building wealth for all shareholders is his only motive in proposing the move to Bermuda. The move is more likely to greatly benefit Stanley shareholders over the longer run, which is how Mr. Trani prefers to look at it. If the move to Bermuda doubles the company's stock price in eight years--a prospect that the company has no quarrel with--all shareholders will increase their wealth by about $3.3 billion. The government will lose $240 million of corporate income taxes. Such an increase would no doubt mean a bigger salary and bonus for Mr. Trani. In addition, if he receives all the additional options he is eligible for under the company's current plan, he could gain at least $385 million from exercising those options, or far more than the taxes the company would save. On May 9, Stanley shareholders approved the Bermuda move by the slimmest of margins. But after union officials accused the company of rigging the outcome, and the state of Connecticut sued to throw the election out, the company announced a new election to be held later this year. The company denied any wrongdoing. Spokesmen for Cooper Industries, Ingersoll-Rand and Weatherford International all said that increased pay for executives was the inevitable result of packages that reward executives for lowering costs, including taxes, and increasing share prices. John Breed, the Cooper spokesman, noted that none of the company's executives received bonuses last year. Simply by changing their corporate addresses to Bermuda, which has no income tax, a growing number of large American businesses are saving tens of millions each in United States taxes on profits made overseas. Also establishing a separate legal residence in another tax haven, like Barbados, allows companies to save on taxes on their United States profits as well. By reducing their tax bills, companies can increase their profits and better compete against rivals both in the United States and abroad. Many American companies assert that some profits are taxed twice, at home and abroad, putting them at an unfair disadvantage against rivals in countries abroad with lower or no taxes. But the corporate flight from taxes has raised concerns among some members of both parties in Congress. Bipartisan legislation to block such moves has been proposed, but House Republican leaders have refused to allow it to reach a vote. Congress permits companies to move their headquarters outside the United States, but it requires shareholders to pay taxes on capital gains earned until that time. These taxes can be paid by the company or by the shareholders. The Stanley board decided that shareholders should foot the bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this spring, the newspaper ``Roll Call'' ran a story on our former colleague Marty Russo. Marty was our colleague for 18 years. During that time, he was an outstanding Member of Congress, with his service on the Commerce and the Ways & Means Committees. He played a crucial role for the Democrats in Congress as a Deputy Whip where he was our most effective vote counter. Marty was a complete Member of Congress in meeting his responsibilities to his constituents, to his fellow members of the House and to his party. The House of Representatives is richer for his service to our country. The newspaper ``Roll Call'' also makes it clear that the personal and professional skills that Marty demonstrated as a Member of the House are serving him well in the private sector as he helps lead Cassidy & Associates in a top position among governmental representation firms in Washington, DC. The article also makes it clear that Marty is finding the time out of Congress to enjoy his beautiful family. Mr. Speaker, I want to share the ``Roll Call'' article with our colleagues and express my appreciation for my former colleague's important contributions to our country. Second-Greatest Job in the World (By Courtney Thompson) Upon entering former Illinois Rep. Marty Russo's (D) D.C. office, one immediately notices the myriad of photos covering the walls. There are shots of Russo in a golf foursome with former Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Gerald Ford; Russo smiling with Michael Jordan; Russo with his arm around Speaker Tip O'Neill; Russo and Arnold Palmer posing on the golf course; Russo stealing home plate at the Congressional baseball game; and Russo giving the elder George Bush putting tips on Air Force 2. And one of Russo's newborn granddaughter. No, Marty Russo doesn't take his famous friends or his family for granted. ``When I sit back and think about where I grew up, the neighborhood I cam from and what a tough struggle my parents had, I am overwhelmed,'' the 58-year-old said. ``I am a first-generation Italian American, and for me to have friends like the president of the United States is a pretty big deal.'' Russo was elected to Congress in 1974 as part of the post- Watergate, reform-oriented class. In a win that Russo himself describes as ``extremely lucky,'' the 6-foot-3 native of Chicago's Little Italy section embarked on what would become an 18-year stint in the House. But what Russo deemed the ``best years of my life'' came to a bitter end in the 1992 Illinois primary. Redistricting forced him to run against fellow Democratic incumbent and commuting friend Rep. William Lipinski. After losing the tightest race of his career, Russo finished out his term while contemplating the inevitable: What next? Following in the path paved by many before him, Russo entered the realm of lobbying by accepting a position with Cassidy & Associates, a government relations lobbying firm based in Washington. ``Two wonderful things happened to me in my life,'' Russo said recently. ``One was winning an election, one was losing an election. I had the greatest job in the world when I was a Member in Congress, and now I have the second-greatest job in the world.'' Prohibited by law from lobbying Members for a year, Russo advised clients on political strategy, while learning the ins and outs of business development and lobbying White House officials. About making the transition to lobbying, Russo said, ``The one thing you have to get good at is learning how to ask.'' Although Cassidy boasts clients such as VoiceStream Wireless, Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. and the Taiwan Studies Institute, it is the Chicago hospital where he was treated as a boy that he holds closes to his heart. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, located on Chicago's West Side, has been the beneficiary of many government dollars thanks to Russo's dedicated lobbying efforts. In a joint effort with Cook County Health Services of Chicago, the two hospitals created the Core Center, a four-story facility that provides outpatient care to individuals and families with HIV/AIDS. The center features a screening clinic, pharmacy, counseling services and children's playroom. ``I've seen [Cassidy & Associates] do a lot of good for a lot of people,'' Russo said. ``And it's been great working with Jerry Cassidy, he's like the Tip O'Neill of the lobbying business.'' In 2000, Russo was promoted to vice chairman, president and chief operating officer at Cassidy. The key to Russo's success? Drawing from the many lessons he learned during his days in the House. ``One of the critical things you learn when in Congress is that your word is very important,'' Russo said. ``It's all you have around here. So when I talk to Members I tell them the truth, because if you don't, the next time you come back, they aren't going to listen to you.'' Russo advocates bipartisanship, saying a Congressman's sole purpose is to make the government function better. ``One of the key things was that I had was friends on both sides of the aisle. We could argue and battle on the floor as much as we wanted, but then we got together afterwards--went to dinner, played gold, baseball, basketball. Because we were all personal friends, we were able to get a lot more accomplished.'' Stretching the idea of fraternizing with one's colleagues to the limits, Russo and three other Democrats lived together five days a week for 10 years. He was the first to move into his friend Rep. George Miller's (D-Calif.) two-bedroom house at 127 D St. S.E. in 1982, claiming the last bedroom. Shortly after, then Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) abandoned his basement quarters to inhabit Miller's living room. Believing that three Congressmen in one house just wasn't enough, Miller moved his piano out of the bay window to make room for then Rep. Leon Panetta (D-Calif.). ``It was the best 10 years ever spent; it was like a little fraternity house with the four of us. Now Chuck is a Senator, George is still in the House, and Leon became Clinton's chief of staff. So I guess the house did all right.'' Russo and his wife, Karen, moved to McLean, Va., in September 1997, capping off 24 years of weekly commutes. Russo never believed that he would permanently make the move from his beloved hometown of Chicago. When his eldest son, Tony, moved to Washington to begin working with Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and his youngest son, Danny, was attending Georgetown University, both Russo and his wife realized it was an easy decision to make. Now, less than a month after the birth of his first grandchild, the former lawmaker happily lives just six minutes from his son's family. An adoring grandfather, Russo finds himself stopping by every night on his way home from work. ``I am really enjoying my granddaughter,'' Russo said. ``I saw this bumper sticker a couple of years ago that said, `If I'd known grandkids would be this great, I would have had them first!' And now I feel the same way!'' five questions What are you most proud of from your tenure in Congress? One of my proudest moments was when I introduced the national health care bill in 1991, which then became a major issue in the 1992 presidential election. I think it . . . helped Democrats take back the White House. What do you miss the most? I miss the friendship on the Hill. Whether you were a Democrat or a Republican, we really got a lot of stuff done, and we did it together. And I miss doing the policy. It's an enormous responsibility, but what a deal. What do you miss the least? I don't miss the travel, being away from home. Was there a particular Member whom you admired the most? The Member I admired most in the House was [then] Speaker Tip O'Neill [D-Mass.]. And a close second was Rep. Danny Rostenkowski [D-Ill.] Do you have any advice for current Members? The best advice I can give is to understand that compromise is very important. As Danny Rostenkowski always said, ``You don't have to throw a touchdown pass every time you move legislation. You've just got to move it down the field and eventually get it in the end zone.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the subcommittee ranking member and a wonderful worker on this issue. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what this debate has come down to is a question of whether or not those individuals who seek to get off of welfare, whether or not those individuals who seek to stay off of welfare, who have been successful in escaping the welfare system, whether or not they will have the means to do so. What this debate comes down to is whether or not a single individual or a family makes a decision about going to work, about participating in the American economic system, whether or not they will have the child care and the training available so they can take the best advantage of what this system has to offer them. Over the last 5 years we have learned a great deal about welfare reform. There are two things we have learned that are absolutely crucial: First, that good job training and extensive job training in the beginning is better for the employee as they go out on that new job, it is better for their chance of advancing to a second and better job, and it is also better for the employer because it reduces the amount of turnover that the employer must suffer with the employment of individuals. That is very important. The second thing is that the biggest barrier of people going to work is the care of their children. We ask people on welfare, we mandate that they must go to work, and yet we tell middle class women we want them to stay home and we give them a tax credit to stay home and take care of their child. So the person who is on welfare is asking the question, will my child be safe? Will my child have a chance at child development while I am working? This is what every mother, every father, every brother, every sister thinks about their siblings and their children. The Republican bill simply does not provide the sufficient resources to the States to provide quality child care for those children and the needs that are now presented today to this Nation, not after you up the work requirement, but today. Hundreds of thousands of children are on a waiting list for child care, and the Republicans want to continue to tell us that all the care that is necessary is available. Child care lists are frozen. This debate is about whether or not we will enable these individuals to go to work with the security of mind that their child is in a quality placement and their child is receiving child development while they try to engage in the American economic system. Mr. Speaker, the debate about welfare should be a debate about how to move people--mostly women with young children--from dependency on government assistance to full-time, permanent employment that lifts, and keeps, the family out of poverty. That is our goal for welfare reform. Six years ago, Democrats and Republicans agreed that the welfare system of the prior half century was a failure. The new system emphasized moving people from dependence to jobs while providing them with education, training, child care and the other supports that most Americans recognize are essential to achieving the goal. There have been some successes: welfare rolls are down--dramatically in some states. But let us remember that cutting the rolls alone was not the goal. The evidence gathered in study after study documents that while we have moved many off welfare, we have not achieved the goals of promoting long-term economic independence, jobs that lift and keep families out of poverty, or improved living standards for millions of children. Since 1996, the welfare rolls have been cut by over 50 percent nationally. But millions of those who have left welfare remain desperately poor, dependent on food stamps, WIC and other public assistance, raising children in deep poverty with all of its harmful impacts, and without the education, training or child care that is necessary to move them to real independence. In one review of 900 former welfare families, researchers concluded that most still live below the poverty line and have been forced to cut back on food to save money. Another major review of seven Midwestern states also concluded that many of the former recipients remained in poverty while Indiana and Wisconsin's rolls grew by 13 percent last year. In Michigan, 71 percent of those who combined welfare and work, and nearly 50 percent of those former recipients who worked full time, remained poor with many unable to buy food, pay utilities or rent or losing their phone service. Those findings demonstrate clearly that more must be done to move people off welfare and into employment. We should finish the job begun in 1996, by directing the needed services to those who must leave dependency while still holding them accountable for achieving independence from government aid. Instead, the bill before us today--which we are denied the opportunity to improve--imposes costly new mandates on states without the federal support to pay even a fraction of the additional burden. It also imposes rigid welfare programs that are fundamentally different than the programs the Republicans have been heralding as great successes. We need to make welfare reform work, not punish the governors and the recipients alike because it hasn't moved fast enough yet. The Republican bill takes a very different approach: massive new work requirements without adequate training, as well as other unfunded mandates and punishing requirements for state administrators and for welfare recipients alike--with little financial assistance for either. And this Republican bill, unlike the Democratic substitute, fails to protect working men and women by fully applying our nation's civil rights, wage, and health and safety laws to welfare recipients who are working. Nor does the Republican bill protect those who currently have jobs from being displaced by subsidized welfare recipients. That is just wrong. This Republican bill tells the taxpayers of California: you better raise taxes by $2.5 billion, or cut your already deeply reduced spending, because you've got to pay billions to comply with this new bill, or face more punishment. And don't expect any additional help for the 280,000 families already waiting for child care, because the Republicans aren't going to give you more assistance. But it isn't California. The Republican bill tells Michigan to raise taxes or cut spending by $377 million, a state that has already cut more than half a billion in spending. The Republican bill tells Pennsylvania: your bill is $433 million; Ohio, it's $444 million; New Jersey, $233 million; Connecticut, $133 million; Texas, $688 million; Florida, $311 million; New York, $1.2 billion. State after state, billions upon billions in new mandates piled on by this Republican bill that fails to fund them. There is no evidence that the harsh and rigid revisions dictated by the Republican bill will increase the success of welfare reform; but they will severely restrict the flexibility the states have been able to use to meet the needs of their residents, as 39 out of 44 states agreed earlier this year. Some will try to paint those who raise concerns about education, training, workforce protections and child care as ``soft on welfare reform.'' The American people know better than that. We are all for moving people from welfare to work, from dependence to independence, from poverty to self-support. The American people also know we need to get people the flexible tools they need to give them a fair chance to succeed. This bill is grossly unfair, it imposes billions in new costs to the states, and we are not being given the opportunity to improve it, and that is why we will oppose its passage and support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the former Whip of the Democratic party.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a leader on this issue in our committee and in the House and the Nation. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a member of the committee.

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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis). (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we close this part of the debate, I simply want to say that it is rather interesting that the party who took over the Congress on the theory of a Contract on America, of no unfunded mandates is about to foist onto the States of this Nation billions of dollars of additional costs. Their answer is flexibility. Yes, those States can choose to cut job training. Those States can choose to cut educational benefits. Those States can choose to cut child care. They can choose to cut the quality of the child care. They can choose to cut the TANF grant to these families. That is not flexibility. That is a failure to meet the task at hand. While we increase the requirement of people that need to go to work, and I think we should, the fact of the matter is we do not provide the States the means to support those individuals while they go to work and get off of welfare. This is an unfunded mandate, it is that simple, because this bill, the Republican bill before us, fails to meet the demands that are going to be placed upon the States to provide the child care services. The notion that somehow everybody who left welfare is now out of poverty and that children are out of poverty, the average person leaving welfare left and earned $12,000 a year. $12,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. That does not sound like we lifted them out of poverty.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last night and this morning, Americans got some very, very disturbing news. America was informed that sometime last August, the President of the United States was informed of efforts by bin Laden and his followers to engage in a hijacking scheme against American citizens. That information, while disturbing, was not acted upon, with no information flowing to the American people. It is suggested that this was done because it was a hijacking in the normal sense of the word. The fact of the matter is, we know that a major plot was interrupted to crash a number of 747s in Southeast Asia into the Earth simultaneously, and we know that an effort was interrupted to crash a plane into the Eifel Tower. We know that we interrupted the millennium scheme. While it is disturbing that this effort was not taken as seriously as it should have been, it is also very disturbing that this information and the briefing of the President of this information has not been released to the American people or to the Congress of the United States for over 8 months.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opening statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The American people appreciate the importance of health care. Families struggle every day with whether or not coverage is accessible to them. There was no great glee in the land when they killed the Clinton health care plan. We had 38 million uninsured people, and we now have 42 million uninsured people. In spite of the recitation that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) cites, we still have 42 million people who are uninsured. Why? Because we have created a hodgepodge of programs where they have to be a detective to figure out whether or not they are eligible. They move and lose programs, their children move and lose programs, whether they are employed, not employed, whether in school, out of school, whether on or off of Medicaid, all of these programs. They spend all of their time worrying about eligibility, and they are covered for very little period of time. The gentlewoman has also suggested that this is part of a grander plan to bring a $350 billion prescription drug program to the floor. That is not it at all. $350 billion is for everything they say that they want to do in Medicare. The program is less than half that amount, which has been proven to be inadequate to provide a prescription drug benefit that is useful without the people on Medicare paying out thousands and thousands of dollars before they get any real advantage to the program. So the question here is not whether or not people think health care coverage is important or not. The question is, What is the Congress going to do about it? What is Congress going to do about these 42 million Americans? What is Congress going to do about the children who are growing up in families where at least one person is employed, and in many cases both are employed, and they do not have access to health care? The programs that we have put in place so far, while commendable, still leave millions of America's children and working people without insurance. Yes, we have made it more deductible for small businesses and individuals; but the fact is that even small businesses and individuals cannot afford to provide the insurance that Americans need so desperately.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, April 28th Workers Memorial Day, a day to remember the thousands of men and women who have been killed or injured on the job. A very important article which recently appeared in the San Francisco Examiner of April 25, 2002 reminds us of the enormous financial and personal costs of workplace deaths and injuries, while also detailing the failure of the Bush Administration to place a priority on improving workplace safety. It is important for every Member of this House to read this article and remember these tragic stories the next time the Administration tries to weaken policies to protect America's working men and women. [From the San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 25, 2002] Lax Workplace-Injury Policies Are Killing Us (By Dick Meister) Certainly we continue to mourn the Sept. 11 victims, most of whom were workers. But neither should we ever forget the millions of other workers who've been killed or seriously harmed while doing their jobs. They'll be honored in candlelight vigils, rallies and other public events across the country on Sunday--Workers Memorial Day, observed yearly by organized labor to mourn the men and women who've suffered and died because of workplace hazards and to demand action to lessen the hazards. The number of those victims is appalling. More than 6,000 are killed on the job every year. More than 5 million are injured, at least half seriously. Another 60,000 die from cancer, lung and heart ailments and other occupational diseases caused by exposure to toxic substances. The financial toll also is high--as much as $230 billion a year in healthcare costs and $88 billion in other costs to employers, as well as workers, such as lost wages and production. Trying to reduce workplace dangers, always a very difficult task, has become even more difficult since the Bush administration took office. Although President Bush claims to put a ``high priority'' on helping working families, he has waged what the United Auto Workers cites as ``a harsh, vindictive attack on health and safety standards.'' The surest evidence of that has come in Bush's approach to attempts to combat the repetitive stress injuries that hurt and cripple at least 5,000 workers in a wide variety of occupations each and every day. For many, it can mean long- term or permanent affliction--chronic pain in the neck, back, shoulders, arms or wrists and other suffering resulting from the endlessly repetitive movements required in many jobs today, such as bending, reaching and typing, and the heavy lifting required in others. It is by far the nation's No. 1 health and safety problem. Yet the president successfully urged Congress to repeal the regulations, developed by the Clinton administration with the guidance of safety experts, that had required employers to protect workers from repetitive stress injury. The rules were based on the science of ergonomics, which calls for fitting the job to the worker--redesigning it if necessary--to avoid as much harmful strain as possible. Now, fully 13 months after the rules were repealed, Bush has come up with an intentionally toothless substitute for the mandatory regulations. He's merely asking employers to voluntarily follow Labor Department guidelines, still to be drafted, that might protect workers. Employers with particularly high injury levels who fail to do anything about it might face fines, but even that is not certain. Bush and Congressional Republicans obviously are paying off the corporate management interests who oppose the very idea of job safety laws because of the compliance costs. They poured millions into the election campaigns of GOP candidates who were certain to do their bidding. Less than a month after the ergonomics regulations were repealed, the president revoked 19 previously approved grants that were to go to unions, universities and labor-management groups to finance safety and health training programs for immigrant workers, small business employers and employers and workers in such high-risk industries as construction. He's also cut millions of dollars from the Labor Department's overall budget and from that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, already so underfunded it is unable to effectively enforce the job safety laws. Also getting much less funding have been the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute of Safety and Health, the only federal research agency dealing with safety. The Bush administration is moving in a direction exactly the opposite to that which must be taken if we are to truly protect America's working families and truly honor the millions of workers who have needlessly suffered injury and death.