George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, and say that I would have preferred Members to have had an opportunity to vote on H. Res. 405 by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the students, faculty, staff, alumni and families of Salesian High School of Richmond, California, who will be celebrating their 75th Anniversary on September 6, 2002. On September 8, 1927, the Salesians of Saint John Bosco, a religious society of the Catholic Church specializing in youth services and education, established a high school seminary program for boys. Then, in 1960, the seminary relocated to Watsonville, California, and became a college preparatory Catholic high school. In 1989, the school became coeducational and now, with 570 students, they reflect the ethnically diverse population of the area: 18% African-American, 7% Asian Pacific, 20% Euro-American, 23% Latino, 20% Filipino, and 12% from other ethnic and racial backgrounds. 65% of these students come from low-income families in the local neighborhood. Salesian High School has the lowest annual tuition among all the private schools in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, and it is their policy that no student will be left behind due to an inability to meet tuition costs. Therefore, they maintain a strong tuition assistance and scholarship program. Salesian High School graduates 98% of their seniors into colleges and universities throughout California and the United States. This attests to their combination of church, school, playground, home, and family in their educational system. The school is dedicated to developing well-rounded students through curriculum that encourages the students to develop their unique talents through education, Christian formation and service. I rise to congratulate Salesian High School for 75 successful years of educational service and wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to first applaud the achievement of Chairman Castle and Congressman Kildee and their staffs for their work on this bill. Both members have championed the need for quality education research and this legislation reflects their leadership on this issue. H.R. 3801 complements the bipartisan effort that started with the No Child Left Behind Act. In that landmark reform measure, states and schools district are now accountable for providing a quality education to all children. And, the availability of scientifically based research that demonstrates what works and what doesn't work will be critical in this effort. H.R. 3801 establishes the framework to make this happen. This legislation injects a much needed culture of science into education research through the newly established Academy of Education Sciences. The Academy will be responsible for ensuring that the research used by school districts in their reform efforts will be of the highest quality and meet the highest standards. The Academy will also conduct new research and be the arm through which this research is disseminated to the field. H.R. 3801 will bring research directly into the classroom where it is needed the most. Through a system of regional technical assistance, school districts will be able to receive support tailored to their needs. And, perhaps most important this legislation authorizes a new level of investment in education research to match the demand for quality science on what works to improve education. Again, I commend the work of my colleagues Congressmen Castle and Kildee and look forward to working with them as it continues through the legislative process. Again, I want to applaud the work of the chairman and ranking member.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentlewoman that I think she is quite correct in drawing the connection between the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, and prevention of abuse there, and recognizing that in fact it is abusive to send children throughout their daily activities without proper nutrition, without sufficient food to support them. We know then that those are, in many instances, the very same children who act out in school, and then they act out in school and then they get in trouble at home; and all of a sudden a family that is already under stress because of income, because of a lack of food, perhaps maybe the child is mistreated in an improper way, and now we are dealing with a child back into the child abuse system. Again, we have studies of how children behave when they have enough to eat in school and when they do not have enough to eat in school. Very often, those children, when we examine their backgrounds, they are the children that become the targets of disciplinary actions because of their acting out in schools. And we can start to see how this snowballs; and all of a sudden, the child is caught up in a situation where they are being characterized, where they are being labeled over something that they really have no control over and that is whether or not a family has sufficient nutritional resources to provide the child the food that they need.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill to reauthorize this relatively small, but very important, program, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. This bill will help States do a better job of preventing and treating child abuse and neglect. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for their commitment to writing a bipartisan bill and all of their effort to make sure that this legislation got to the floor and passed the House of Representatives. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for his expertise and commitment to the prevention of child abuse. Democrats were able to work with Republicans to make this a good bill for children. In 1999, there were more than 800,000 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect; and over 1,137 children died as a result of abuse and neglect. Children who are abused and neglected are more likely to commit suicide, suffer from depression, commit crimes, fail in school, and have problems holding jobs. The Federal approach to addressing child abuse and neglect does not go far enough to help States prevent child abuse from happening and providing treatment services for children and families once it has occurred. Only 12 percent of the Federal monies for child abuse and neglect go toward prevention and treatment. This bill we are reauthorizing today is extremely important because it is the only Federal program specifically aimed at the prevention and treatment of child abuse; and yet this program is only appropriated half of the money of its authorized level. The legislation also makes important changes by increasing collaboration between child protective services and health agencies. Children with disabilities are almost four times more likely to be the victims of abuse and neglect, and children in child welfare systems have a higher risk of health problems. Any serious attempt to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect must include procedures for linking abused children and children at risk for abuse to the appropriate health and mental health services. The bill requires States report on their efforts to improve case-work training, supervision, and retention so children and families can be better served. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a major step forward in a heart-wrenching, but critical, effort to stop child abuse and neglect and to better treat those children who have fallen victim to it. Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for their efforts in bringing the bill to the floor.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill that we are debating here today. It is important that it pass the House later this evening. But we will be voting on another important matter this evening, and that is the motion to instruct by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), to make sure that the agriculture bill in fact includes a provision to provide for food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants with a significant work history, and the children of those immigrants. This is a very, very important measure. Some 1 million children who are citizens of immigrant parents have left the food stamp program since we changed the law. Members of both parties now recognize that this was a tragic mistake, that these children, while their parents work and work very hard and work very long hours, are twice as likely as other children and families to be poor, and that their jobs pay less than citizens of this country. It is very important that we provide them the means by which they can provide the proper nutrition for these children so the children can take full advantage of the opportunities of education and learning and do not fall behind in school. The history of this country is replete with studies that tell us how very important it is that children have proper nutrition when they go to school. This was a mistake that the Congress made. This is a chance to rectify this situation. I believe the Bush administration supports this effort, and we will be voting on this later this evening. It is a matter that is very important to a number of Members and our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker, for the points that she made, because I think it is very important that people understand this. It has become very clear in the last few years, I think, to many Americans, even those who had doubts about immigration, of the important contribution that immigrants make to our economy. Certainly to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and myself, it is very clear that the California economy could not continue for 5 minutes if the immigrants decided that they were not going to contribute their share of what they do. It runs across entire segments of our economy, from Silicon Valley to the Central Valley of California, to the great areas of San Diego, Los Angeles, in so many industries, in so many areas of manufacturing, in so many areas of high tech, in movie production, in the accommodations industry, in the tourism industry, these people make our economy go. Yet the Congress made a tragic mistake and denied them access to food stamps. They pay taxes. They pay for these programs. They also denied it to their children. This is an opportunity, it is in the Senate provision, and it is something that we would hope that the House would join in, agree to the Senate, and send it to the President for his signature on the ag bill. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her points. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration's failure to promulgate rules to protect America's working men and women from the leading cause of workplace injury-- musculoskeletal disorders--is disgraceful. The Congress last year unwisely repealed the ergonomics safety standard developed by the Clinton Administration after years of study by the leading medical researchers in the country. At that time, Labor Secretary Chao pledged to develop a scientifically sound standard expeditiously. Now, more than a year later, with the findings of three major studies confirming the need for an ergonomics standard, the Bush Administration has proposed a replacement ergonomics policy that provides for no rule, but asks for voluntary compliance instead and, so far, targets only a single industry. As a result of the Administration's dilatory and simplistic approach, millions of workers will suffer preventable injuries and disabilities, and costly lawsuits will be used to resolve individual cases of injury. The Bush Administration's serious failure to protect our neighbors and friends who live with the pain of preventable ergonomic injuries has been the subject of extensive and justified criticism. I want to share the views of the Contra Costa Times (April 12, 2002) on the need for a sound ergonomics standard, and the failure of the Bush Administration to address the hazards that injure nearly 2 million Americans every year. (Excerpts from the editorial follow:) Safe Job Not a Lot To Ask The Bush Administration has let the working person down by allowing workplace rules, such as those regarding ergonomics, to become voluntary. It would be going too far for the government to mandate the brand of pens, the type of chairs, the make of computer a company must provide. That's not what safe-workplace laws are about. However, enforceable rules that protect employees and make the working environment safer are not too much to ask, and that should be law, not choice. And that's what the administration pulled back from last week. For 10 years the nation's been improving regulations to help prevent muscular and skeletal disorders brought on or intensified by working conditions. In fact, attention to such matters as ergonomics can actually prevent much more serious injuries and maladies that can cause substantial absenteeism. So why stop now? Why reverse a positive and still-necessary thing? The government estimates 1.8 million U.S. workers per year suffer ergonomic injuries; yet that's an improvement. The Labor Department will develop new guidelines for safe and healthy work environments. Companies will be able to use or ignore these and the present regulations at their discretion. It is, of course, in companies' best interests to make the job a place where the workers can work comfortably. It's expensive when employees have to draw on their health benefits, disability and workers' compensation. In the long run it is more costly to have employees suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome, repetitive strain injury, herniated discs and other work-related illnesses than to create a worker- friendly environment. But many companies, especially those in highly competitive industries, will choose to watch today's bottom line rather than worry about long-term expense. Those people running publicly traded companies may well feel additional pressure to cut ergonomic costs so as to offer short-term profits to the stockholders.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday we had a hearing in the Committee on Resources dealing with a parcel of land belonging to the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians in Riverside County, California. The Tribe is trying to protect the land because it contains several sites sacred to the tribe, including the largest living oak tree in the United States. This magnificent tree is over 1,500 years old and has been the site of tribal ceremonies for generations. Believe it or not, this tree is in danger of being felled by an order to construct transmission lines. We are often faced with the perception that Native American sacred sites are not worthy of protection somehow because they generally are a part of nature and not brick and mortar buildings with a large bell towers. One look at this tree, however, and the majesty of it comes across to even the most cynical. While I believe we will be able to preserve this particular Native American site through the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein, dozens of other similar areas are threatened with desecration. The Glamis Mine in California and the Valley of the Chiefs in Montana are in danger of being lost forever by the presence of gold mining and the sights and sounds of oil drilling. The time has come for us to stop running around trying to cherry-pick certain Native American sacred sites to save. We need to act and have one strong policy and procedure, backed up by the laws of this country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, all of us in the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce have listened to these workers who have had their retirement plans destroyed, workers who are 55, 59, 62 years old; their plans are destroyed, and they are now dependent on their children. The life they thought they were going to lead, they are not going to be able to. Yet Ken Lay, who looted this company and destroyed these people's retirement nest egg walks off stage with $475,000 a year in guaranteed income and a multimillion dollar house in Texas that is protected under bankruptcy law. Somehow there has to be parity and fairness. This is our chance to repair what is lacking in the Republican bill and provide fairness and protection for the employee, the same as the CEO and the chief operating officers of this corporation get, to make sure that employees are not left holding the bag. Mr. Speaker, I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the things we learn from the Enron tragedy and one of the things that we have learned from Global Crossing and so many other companies that have started to fail or turned on bad times is that the corporate elite, the CEO and others, have 401(k) plans that are absolutely protected. Their ability to collect on their pension plans has nothing to do with the financial health of the company, how well the company does or how poorly the company does. Yet we see the employees with their 401(k) plans; they are absolutely tied to how the company does. And in many instances, they are locked into the stock of the company. What we are seeing here is what the President said when he went to North Carolina, if it is good for the captain, it is good for the crew. We cannot have the executives ensuring their pension plans so that they walk off with millions and tens of millions of dollars, lifetime pensions, and the employees have got to go to bankruptcy court and hope that there is something left over for them. If we insure one, we insure others. If preference is given to one, preference is given to the other. Mr. Speaker, it is a very important principle. The theory of executive compensation is that we are rewarding an executive, one, for how well their company does. Yet we see time and again executive compensation has nothing to do with the performance of the company. Their pension plans are guaranteed; and yet the employee must be more productive, must do all that they can to make that company perform so that their stock is worth what it should be in their retirement plans. We think that they ought to be treated alike, and this is an opportunity to vote to make sure that there is parity among the elite executives of a corporation with respect to pension plans, and among the employees, that they not get left out. It is terribly important that as the executives walk off stage with tens of millions of dollars, that the employees not be left holding the bag; and that is the purpose of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), who offered this in the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just preceded me in the well might be interested to know that this year, the man of the year of the American trial lawyers is going to be Ken Lay. He has developed more business than any single American in the history of the country. A lot has been talked about about investment advice. We all agree that investors need to know more about planning for their security. But it is interesting that when Jane Bryant Quinn, the financial writer for Newsweek Magazine, looked at the investment advice bill in light of the Enron scandal, she yelled, ``Help, I am scared for my 401(k).'' Post- Enron, how could anyone even think of creating such a conflict of interest that is in the underlying bill? You might as well turn the system over to the ice skating judges, because that is the situation you have. We have the very same people who are making millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in Commissions and fees as investment bankers providing retail advice to people who are trying to plan for their retirement, the average worker. And they are being told on the level, this is a good investment. But, in fact, what we know is they are making that decision based upon the millions of dollars in fees, not the best interests of the investor. This is really about whether or not we are going to treat the corporate elite and the workers the same. It is a radical notion in the Republican Party that workers would have some say in their own retirement; that workers would be warned when the corporate elite are bailing out of the corporate towers; when the corporate elite are selling their stock. A radical notion that the workers at Enron and other corporations would be told of that. But we should expected that; we saw that in committee. The Wall Street Journal said it best: ``The Republican-led panel rejected a dozen Democratic amendments which would have offered workers greater protections and improved stricter rules on employer-sponsored 401(k)s and other defined contribution plans.'' Yes, they had a chance to help out workers, to give them notice when the big shots are selling their stock; to give them a say in the control of retirement funds that belong to them, it is 100 percent of their assets; to make sure that they had the same rights as the corporate elite. But the Republicans have not seen fit to do that. You can support the Democratic substitute, and you can make sure that the workers after Enron have more protections than they had before.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal today and over these past many months about the Enron scandal. I think there is general agreement throughout the halls of Congress and throughout this Nation that it was, in fact, a scandal; that we saw the very worst in human behavior with respect to corporate responsibility, and the responsibility of employers to employees, of the corporation to its shareholders, of the corporation to the general public. But this legislation is more than about Enron, because Enron is in bankruptcy. Enron may very well cease to exist as an ongoing financial entity. Its parts are being sold off. Its parts are being salvaged and people are trying to get hold of their lives again after the financial collapse. But Enron was also a beacon of warning to millions of American workers about what their particular situation might or might not be with respect to the security of their 401(k) plan; a 401(k) plan of which the workers are being told over and over again they are going to have to rely on more and more for their retirement because companies refuse to provide a defined benefit plan which would provide them much more security and much more future security with their retirement, something that they could count on. So what have we learned from Enron? We learned from Enron that many employees did not have control over that part of the stock that was contributed by the corporation. We also found out that many employees were prevented from having any control over that stock until age 50 or 55. But we also found out that that was not unique to Enron. That was true of many corporations, of the Fortune 500 and unnamed corporations that we do not know a lot about, but that was true of them and a holding period for the employees not to divest themselves of the stock. That was done for the convenience of the corporation. That was done because the corporation believed it made their employees more loyal. But when the plans went wrong with their financial future, the company went wrong, we found out that the employees were locked into a situation from which they could not extract themselves. So this legislation takes the Enron lesson and says we ought not let that happen to other employees in other corporations. So we say that after 3 years of employment, you ought to be able to diversify your 401(k), your 401(k), in a manner which you think is best for your retirement. The 3 years is a maximum period of time which you ought to be able to force the employee to hold onto the stock, because markets move fast, financial markets move fast, and the future of corporations changes all the time. The Republicans do not do that. They have a rolling 3 years. They have a 5-year phaseout. We do not think that that is fair to the worker. We think the worker ought to have that control. It is interesting now that as corporations review their plans, they are moving toward the Democratic bill. Chevron, in its merger with Texaco, decided that people could diversify immediately. Time Warner decided that people in AOL could diversify immediately. Walt Disney, Gillette, Quest Communications, Procter & Gamble, McDonald's, Coca- Cola, Pfizer, Abbot Laboratories. So this is not a radical approach. People realize this is what workers are entitled to now because the 401(k) is made up, 100 percent, of the assets that belong to the worker. We also said that if this is the employees' assets, if this is their money, this is their stock portfolio, this is their retirement, maybe they ought to have a say on the board. At Enron we saw that they had no say on the board, that the board was made up of executive vice presidents who did not want to deliver any bad news to the corporation, who when they found out bad news did not tell the employees, did not tell the pension board, went off and privately sold their own stock. But we have also seen that that has been true in other corporations beyond Enron. We have seen that family members have been selling stock when the corporations are in trouble. Obviously somebody whispered to their son or daughter, ``The company is not doing so well, sell the stock.'' Why should the employees not have that information? We believe there should be a rank-and-file member on the pension board since the pension represents 100 percent of the employees' money. Research has shown us that where we have rank-and-file members on the pension board, people tend to invest more in their retirement plans and they do a little better on the rate of return. We think that that is important. That is a lesson of Enron that is important for other corporations and for the employees. We also saw the situation where employers were dumping stock, where Ken Lay was telling people in e-mails that he was buying stock. But he was not really buying stock, he was trading stock and, in fact, he was selling the stock to liquidate the large loans, personal loans, that he had taken from the Enron Corporation. Again, as we have seen the fortunes of companies change over the last several months in a down economy, in a changed dot-com society, we have seen that many employers have been dumping stock. We think that maybe the employee ought to know that when the corporate heads of the company decide to dump the stock, that they ought to be told about that. Today you can hide that sale of stock for 6 months or a year. Six months or a year can be an economic disaster for the employees if you are caught behind that wave. So we say when you sell $100,000 of shares, inform the pension board, inform the employees. What is it that we cannot trust these employees to understand? They will make the decision if they want to also sell their stock, like the CEOs and the FAO of the corporations. We also decided and we learned from Enron that there was much corporate misconduct, where the employees who were devastated by that conduct had no right to proceed against those people who defrauded them, who had looted the companies. Again, tragically, not unique to Enron, but we have seen the same instances in a number of other corporations, so we said those people ought to be able to proceed to recover their retirement nest egg, to recover their financial future, to recover the plans that they have made for themselves and their families because somebody acted in an illegal fashion. Today those people can do that. And under ERISA there is no right of recovery, so this is beyond the Enron employees. This is about the millions of other employees who are out there in this same situation. What else did we learn from Enron? We learned that the employees had one plan, a 401(k) plan, and that the executives had another 401(k) plan. The executives' plan was insured. It was guaranteed. So as Enron goes on the rocks, as it becomes bankrupt, the executives leave with life preservers in the lifeboat. The employees leave with nothing. We think that if you are going to insure the executives' plan, insure the employees' plan. Both of them are contributing to making the wealth of the company. Both of them are creating the earnings of the company. It is not like the Enron employees were not working hard in this company. They just did not get a chance to be protected like the executives. So this is really about whether or not we are going to continue to accept a system where we have an elite group of executives that get insured pension plans, get incredible compensation, are able to buy multimillion-dollar homes in Florida or in Texas that are exempt from bankruptcy, that can have insurance plans that guarantee a payout, and then there are the employees who go to work every day, who build the financial future of the company, who do the job for which they were hired and can be left with nothing. This really is about equity. This is about fairness. This is about what we owe the workers in these companies. Mind you, these very same companies made a decision that this was really good for the executives, for the top corporate elite, that these were all good things to do. But now when you suggest that maybe you should do them for the employees, for the rank-and-file people who are on the line working every day, that somehow it is radical or it is un-American or it is against the free enterprise system. I think President Bush got it about right. In his first public statement after the Enron case down in North Carolina, I believe it was at a naval base, he said, ``What is good for the captain should be good for the sailor.'' That is what the Democratic substitute says. It says that we ought to recognize the dignity and the hard work of the employees and they should not be put in a position of disadvantage. They should not be put in a position where they could lose everything when the executives are in a position of losing nothing. That is a very important principle. It is a very important principle for this Nation. The President recognized it, but the Republican bill does not. The Republican bill concentrates on getting the employees better investment advice, and that is a good idea. Clearly, even the Enron employees did not understand the real value of diversification. So good investment advice makes sense as people are trying to plan for their retirement. We believe that that advice should not be conflicted. The Republican bill does not provide for that kind of protection. We recognize, as we have seen, where Arthur Andersen was deeply conflicted between the commissions it was making on consulting from Enron and auditing the books they were presenting to the public, to the shareholders, and to the employees about the health of the company. We have now seen all of the labyrinth of commissions and fees and financial arrangements that had distorted the financial marketplace, the most recent of which is Merrill Lynch, where Merrill Lynch was seeking to make millions, tens of millions of dollars as an investment bank, but it was doing business with the same people whose stock it was touting, so it did not want to say ``don't buy ABC stock'' when it was trying to negotiate a commission worth tens of millions of dollars, so it had its people keep saying ``buy ABC stock'' and even those people said, ``That is lousy stock. It's no good.'' They were conflicted. Yes, investment advice is good, but it ought to be independent. It ought to be independent of those commissions, of those holdings, of those conflicts. And they run throughout the financial markets. If America got any lesson from Enron, through Arthur Andersen, through Global Crossing, through so many others, they learned that there really are two systems; a system for the privileged, for the elite, for the executives, and another system for the employees who are investing in these companies. That is why we have introduced the substitute, because half of the Republican bill is missing. Yes, it deals with investment advice, but it does not deal with the lessons of Enron. It does not deal with the peril of millions of Americans who are leaning very hard on their 401(k) to help provide for their retirement. It does not deal with the unethical behavior of corporate executives who are not in Enron. It does not deal with the ability of corporate executives to hide their transactions from their employees and from the investors. And it does not deal with the fairness of the treatment of those two parts of the corporation. The Democratic substitute does it. It does it in a way that does not place a burden on the system. It is really about disclosure. It is really about fairness. And it is making sure that as we walk away from the Enron disaster, that we really in fact have changed the manner in which we are doing business to make sure that there is fairness in treatment and there is protection for the American worker. The bill as presented to us today is incomplete in that fashion. The Democratic substitute will complete that part of the story, to provide that kind of protection for the American worker. I will hope that our colleagues in this House on both sides of the aisle will embrace this substitute and discharge their obligation that we have to provide for the retirement future and protection of the American worker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).