George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), a strong supporter of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 1762, that reduces interest rates on student loans. I would like to begin by thanking four Members who worked particularly hard on this bill in a bipartisan spirit: the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I appreciate the leadership of Senator Johnson in the other body. Members of our committee worked very hard to bring this legislation about and to put it in a manner in which all Members of Congress could support it. As we know, this legislation came up late last year, on December 20; and I opposed the bill at that time. I did so because of the Republican leadership's refusal to schedule a bipartisan bill authored by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), despite the support of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the New York delegation. That bill, H.R. 3163 would forgive the education loans to surviving spouses of police officers, firefighters, and other fire and rescue personnel of the September 11 terrorist attack. I remain disappointed in the Republicans' failure to schedule this bill. However, my concern is with the Republicans' use of the suspension calendar and not this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill today. Today's legislation will ensure continued availability of student loans. The bank subsidies on student loans will sunset in 2003, jeopardizing the loans' profitability and therefore the availability. S. 1762 ensures the stability of this program by making the lender subsidies permanent. S. 1762 cuts the interest rates for students, and this was the major part of the debate last year. Last year some proposed raising the interest rates on the students to ensure these bank profits. All the Members on the Democratic side of the Committee on Education and the Workforce signed a letter advocating a stable loan program without higher rates to the students. Through the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and others, that is what this legislation does. In addition to extending lender subsidies, it cuts interest rates to students, fixing the rates at 6.8 percent beginning in 2006, and will save the average student about $400. Too often in the Congress, the needs of the average people come last in line. My colleagues should be commended for assuring that this legislation meets the needs of students and their families. There is broad support in the student loan industry. It has been endorsed by the U.S. Students Association, the American Council on Education, and student loan industry groups, including Sallie Mae, the Consumer Bankers Association. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there are some very disturbing similarities between the Enron Corporation's activities and the Republican tax cut. Last year a young reporter told the Enron Corporation and the investment community that the Enron books had been cooked, it was not on the level, the revenues were not what they said they were. Ken Lay, the CEO, said not so, not so. In the meanwhile, he was selling his stock, leaving the shareholders holding the bag. Last year we said that if you had the tax cut and you did what the President wanted to do, what the Republicans wanted to do, it was the end of surpluses. They said no, no, it is not so; it is not so. Well, today we are told in the papers it is the end of surpluses. We have red ink, according to CBO, as far as the eye can see. What did the Republicans do? The first thing they did was get a tax cut for the wealthy. The first thing they did was take care of their friends. And now the unemployed, those in need of prescription drugs, those on Social Security, are left holding the bag. Why? Because we are now into the Social Security Trust Fund $700 billion. $700 billion. The surpluses have disappeared; $4 trillion this year. There is a disturbing parallel of values here about taking care of the wealthy and letting everybody else hold the bag.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to first and foremost thank my colleague from Nebraska, Tom Osborne, for bringing this resolution to the floor. He is the author of the mentoring program recently signed into law by the President as part of the No Child Left Behind Act and he is also a cosponsor of my bill, the Younger Americans Act, which would make youth development programs such as mentoring, a national priority. Mr. Speaker, consider the following: Twenty-Two percent of violent crime victims in the United States are juveniles and children under age 12 make up approximately one fourth of all juvenile victims known to police. My State of California ranks 48th among the 50 States and the District of Columbia for the percentage of youth detained in the California Youth Authority (CYA), county camps, juvenile halls, and private institutions. Nationally, we know that alcohol and drug use among youth remains a serious public health concern. In California, we are finding that while self-reported teen drug use declined in the mid-eighties through the early nineties, we are now experiencing a strong rebound. And, children are using more dangerous drugs such as heroin and methamphetamines. We also know that the need for adult-supervised environments in the after school hours is significant. About half of all California children ages 5 to 14 have both parents or a single parent working at least 30 hours per week. These numbers describe just some of the problems our children face. For too long however, we have focused on providing remedies to these problems that only address the negative behaviors instead of looking at ways that promote the positive and healthy development of our youth. This resolution takes us in this new direction where the focus is placed squarely on what children need to grow into healthy, safe, and well-educated adults. Making sure that all children have access to a caring and responsible adult relationship through quality mentoring programs is critical to this effort. There is an overwhelming body of research to demonstrate the benefits of programs that guide youth development in a positive manner. According to a report released by Public/Private Ventures, a child's involvement in a mentoring relationship with a caring and responsible adult can reduce their participation in alcohol and drugs and increase attendance in school. We also know that students with adult supervision during after-school hours have better work habits, better relationships with their peers and better emotional adjustment. California has long recognized the need for mentoring programs and since 1995 over 340,000 children have benefited from programs that match youth with caring and responsible adult mentors through the California Mentoring Initiative. Volunteers in Probation and Families First Inc., represent just two examples of outstanding programs in the Initiative that offer quality mentoring relationships to youth in my district. I want to applaud Mr. Osborne for bringing this resolution to the floor and I look forward to working with him to expand the number of mentoring programs across the country. I also invite him and the 72 cosponsors of the Younger Americans Act to work with me on getting that bill passed. Only then will we have a national youth development policy that assures all children and youth have access to the educational, health, and economic resources they need to realize their full potential.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Congress and the public have been struggling with the issues surrounding the Enron debacle, the meltdown of this company and its impact on employees and on pension plans of people who were locked into their plans and could not escape at the time that insiders within the company were selling stock. A whole range of reasons have been given as to why this was the rule; but in point of fact, a corporation simply made a decision that workers were going to be treated differently than management; that while the management could sell stock at any time, somehow the employee who chose to sell his or her stock would disrupt the market. The fact is probably that management sold much more stock than the employees hold, and it never disrupted the market. The reason for the disruption of the market around Enron is different than the sale of those stocks. Today, we learned that Kmart employees suffer from the same handicap. While Kmart has been heading toward Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the last month or so, we find out that Kmart again has a provision very much like Enron, and that is that employees cannot sell their stock. In Enron, you could not sell the stock until you were 50. At Kmart, you could not sell it until you were 55. But if you chose to sell it, you would have to pay a very substantial, a very substantial penalty for the withdrawal of the employee contributions. This is even for vested individuals. In spite of that, thousands of individuals are cashing in. They are paying a penalty when they sell their stock. Management is not paying a penalty when they sell their stock. It is clear that we need for vested employees in a pension plan to have complete control over their assets. The idea of management contributing corporate stock is not a bad idea. The idea of corporations matching is not a bad idea. But for the vested employees, the bad idea is that they cannot control their holdings. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation that will provide employee control over their assets of their pension plans once they are vested. It is important that this happen. As we see again today with the Kmart employees, had they had control over their plans, if they were not required to pay a penalty, they could have exercised the independent judgment that so many people say retirees must be able to exercise. One of the reasons we say we want Americans to have 401(k) plans, the supporters do, as opposed to Social Security, is they can exercise their judgment. But if these plans are prohibited, if pension plans are out of the control of workers, and they have no way of knowing what is happening within the corporation, then they really do not have the exercise of power over the assets that have been put away for them. In the situation of Enron, not only do we have a corporation engaging in fraud and inside dealing, but the entity that was supposed to certify it to employees and other investors was engaging in the same fraud, the deceptions and the criminal behavior, I believe. So where does the employee go? Yet those employees were trapped in that pension system. The same is true in Kmart. Kmart looks more like a classic bankruptcy case. They made a series of bad business judgments, lost market share, their competitors outfoxed them, and now they are having trouble and seeking protection of the bankruptcy courts. Yet they locked their employees in, or at least locked them in where the employee would have to consider, because once the employee in Kmart exercised their judgment to sell the stock that was contributed by the employer, they would pay a very hefty penalty, and then they would be prohibited from having any further contributions by the employer. That is not a system which puts value on the ability of the employee in a vested plan to make these decisions. Mr. Speaker, it is also reported today that Sears requires their employees to hold on to their stock, although apparently not 100 percent of the stock, but to hold on to the stock. We see now that they are impacted in the same way in terms of their ability. What we are talking about here is the ability of individuals to rescue their retirement. As we saw in Enron, we have seen families and individuals and couples who have had their retirement destroyed by the criminal behavior of Enron and Arthur Andersen. They should not have that retirement destroyed by the bad business decisions of Kmart when they are in a vested plan. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of our legislation to make sure that Americans have control over their pension plans and they cannot be locked down by their employer.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues Mr. Andrews, Mr. Owens, Mr. Moran, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Lee, Mr. Frank, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Green, Mr. Kildee, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. McGovern, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. Nadler in introducing the Child Development and Family Employment Act. This legislation reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant to better meet the child care and after-school care needs of low-income children and families. Science conclusively demonstrates that children's experiences in their first 5 years of life have major and lasting effects on learning and academic success. Parents undoubtedly are the most significant and important influence on a child's growth. But with 65% of mothers in the labor force raising children under age 6, child care often provides important secondary influences that also greatly affect a child's development. Child care simply is not just babysitting. Early care is an important early learning period and if parents cannot afford to provide their children with high quality care, it is a missed opportunity to help develop a child's school-readiness. Kindergarten teachers report many of their students begin kindergarten cognitively and behaviorally unprepared to learn. For all our youth to achieve in school, we must ensure that they arrive at kindergarten with the skills needed to succeed in school. To do that, parents need to be able to choose quality child care that meets the needs of their children. Child care assistance must allow eligible families to meet those needs. Since welfare reform passed in 1996, CCDBG has been a critical work support for many low-income families moving off welfare and many other working poor struggling to remain self-sufficient. Reliable, accessible, and affordable child care is important for families to continue their employment and remain off welfare and for sustaining the economic strength of this country. Poor families who are unable to secure child care assistance pay up to one-third of their income for child care, creating an incredible burden for families struggling to make ends meet and marginalizing the value of going to work or remaining employed. Indeed, families often cite problems with child care as a major reason for leaving employment. Yet today, CCDBG does not do enough to meet children's developmental needs or parents' employment-related needs. CCDBG only requires states use 4% of its dollars to promote improved quality in child care, an insufficient amount since evaluations indicate that the quality of most care ranges from mediocre to poor. CCDBG also leads to subsidy rates that frequently prohibit parents from choosing or affording child care that meets their children's needs and their own employment needs. Care for infants and toddlers, care for children with special needs, accredited care, non-standard hour care, and quality care in low-income and rural communities can be particularly difficult for parents to choose and afford. Moreover, CCDBG funding only served 12% of eligible children in 1999. Many states have waiting lists of thousands of families. And though States have use some TANF block grants on child care, budgetary shortfalls and rising welfare caseloads are leading many states to cut their child care and early education budgets at the very time that many parents--who are leaving welfare or struggling to hold Jobs in the recession--desperately need child care services. My bill will improve CCDBG by strengthening child care quality and resources and providing parents greater freedom to choose the type of care they want and need for their child and their family. This bill increases the quality set-aside from 4% to 16%, creates a competitive grant program for States to improve payment rates to providers, and requires child care providers to have pre-service training in child development. This bill also provides money for states to provide stipends to qualified child care providers to boost training, reduce staff turnover, and attract and retain staff--all key goals in improving child care quality. And this bill allocates additional resources so that CCDBG can be expanded to reach one-third of the families for which it was intended. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, until we have a quality and affordable child care program, we will continue to miss the opportunity to maximize the early development of young children and get them ready for learning in school. Child care assistance can make the difference in a child's reaching school age ready to learn, and it can make the difference in a family remaining employed and off welfare. The reauthorization of CCDBG provides Congress with a timely opportunity to achieve this urgent goal and meet our commitment to help meet the needs of low-income children and families. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Child Development and Family Employment Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the results of two recent studies on the value of project labor agreements (PLAS) to the attention of my colleagues. The California Research Bureau, a nonpartisan confidential research arm of the Governor's office and the state legislature concluded that project labor agreements are ``valued by owners and construction firms alike [because of] the role PLAs play in resolving disputes over roles contractors and subcontractors play in large and complex projects.'' The CRB report also credited PLAs for promoting local economic development, workforce training, and employment goals for women and minorities. The UCLA Institute for Labor and Employment has also recently released a study that found that PLAs do not increase labor costs, do not exclude non-union workers, encourage competition, promote stability, cooperation and productivity, and reduce the likelihood of work stoppages or delays. Mr. Speaker, these studies merely confirm what has long been understood by those involved in private and public sector construction who are not otherwise driven by ideology: Project labor agreements promote the timely completion of construction projects and increase productivity. They are good for business. They also promote apprenticeship training and help secure better working conditions. They are good for workers. Unfortunately, among those who are most driven by ideology is the Bush Administration. According to the December 13, 2001 issue of The Washington Post, Maryland has been forced by the Bush Administration to proceed with the enormous Wilson Bridge construction project without the ability to use a project labor agreement. I am sure that my colleagues recall that last February, shortly after taking office, President Bush tried to ban project labor agreements for any construction project receiving federal money. In a decision that specifically involved the Wilson Bridge project, a federal judge ruled in November that the ban issued by President Bush violated federal law and the Constitution. Following the decision, the Maryland State Highway Administration again sought permission from the Federal Highway Administration to implement a project labor agreement. But according to the Post, the Federal Highway Administration rejected Maryland's request saying the state had not proved the need for a PLA. By effectively prohibiting the use of a project labor agreement on the Wilson Bridge project, the Bush Administration continues to thwart good business practice and good labor policy to the detriment of taxpayers and continues to deny working Americans the protections they are entitled to under law. I commend to my colleagues' and the administration's attention the reports concerning project labor agreements by the California Research Bureau and the UCLA Institute for Labor and Employment, and I sincerely hope that the Administration reconsiders its unwise hostility for these proven agreements that benefit business, taxpayers, workers and the public in general.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I join in this tribute to a career of remarkable service as a Member of this Congress, as our chief deputy whip, and as our whip for the last 10 years to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who will be stepping down from that position of whip and will be going on to run a successful race for Michigan. I have supported him in everything he has ever run for, and I plan to continue to support him. I have never been more proud of a public servant. I have to say to the Members of this House and to the public that may be listening, this is an individual that all of us can be proud that his district sent him to Washington because he never, never once veered from the track of taking care of the needs of his district. And as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has pointed out, on behalf of working families, he made it part of our agenda, he made it part of our lexicon, he made it part of our principles and part of our morality. He has done it in almost every meeting that I have been in. He has done it on our motions to recommit. We are not always given the best forum here to pursue these issues, but he has made sure that every opportunity we had, we did do it. Why? Because of his strong convictions about a notion of economic and social justice in this country, that those individuals who get up and go to work every day and work hard, that they ought to have the rewards to be able to support their families. If they fall on economic hard times, there ought to be an income supplement program so they do not have to lose their car or house or take their children out of school. Mr. Speaker, many people we are seeing in this recession have worked 15, 20, 30 years, and now they find themselves unemployed. He has been a champion. I had the pleasure of traveling with David to Central America in pursuit of social and economic justice in Central America at a time when the violence was unbelievable. Many people forget what was taking place in Central America, the murder of American citizens, of religious individuals, of the archbishop, of so many people who were simply trying to get along, trying to live a life in Central America. He spent an incredible amount of his energy trying to bring the peace process around. We were eventually successful in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, and Guatemala trying to stop the violence. The gentlewoman has been deeply involved in those issues with us. Mr. Speaker, we should all aspire to be such a champion of economic and social justice. David, I am very, very proud to have served in this Congress with you. I am very proud to be your friend, and I know that you are going to do great things for the people of Michigan and for the people of this Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to congratulate the committee on the legislation that they have approved today. As many of my colleagues are all aware, we just finished the education reauthorization bill of the ESEA, and we are getting a lot of nice comments from around the country and from our Members in Congress about the bipartisan efforts to pass that legislation and to work out the differences that we have. I want to say to all of the Members of Congress, that was facilitated by the fact that this committee and the Appropriations subcommittee was working in a bipartisan effort to support those efforts. They made it very clear they were willing to support the resources, the money necessary to bring about the reforms, but if the reforms were not there, they were not prepared to put the resources into the bill. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Much of what was in our bill dealing with the targeting of our resources, with teacher quality, came out of a number of conversations he and I had and his wife, Mary, about the importance of high quality teachers and teaching in poor schools, and I want to thank him for supporting that effort. The same goes to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for all of his support he has provided in this legislation that allowed us to bring about and agree, and I think bring about the most far-reaching reforms in the Elementary Education Act in 30 years. We did that by targeting the resources to the children most in need, to the schools most in need. And we were able to do that because this committee agreed to fund the more targeted of the formulas. We did it by making sure that schools would have the resources necessary to improve their teacher quality, for professional development, for training, for retention of teachers. And, again, this committee provided the money so schools will have the flexibility to do that within their individual schools; and for the first time, to take those who have limited English proficiency and provide a formula base program so the money will go to where those students are as opposed to a haphazard grant program and this committee funded that. I think that all of us who are terribly concerned about the balance between reform and resources, if you look at this bill as reported by the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, you will see that the commitment has been kept. The resources have been developed, the reform is out and the resources have been developed in this bill and I want to thank the member of the committee for that.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object. I would also like to ask unanimous consent to add H.R. 3163 to the Suspension Calendar to provide student loan relief to surviving spouses of victims to the September 11 tragedies. I do not believe anybody would oppose this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the International Student Responsibility Act, which I am introducing today. Each year, over 500,000 international students enter the United States to study at our colleges, universities, and trade schools. The vast majority of these students contributes to the intellectual achievements of our universities, promotes understanding across cultures, and acquires an appreciation for the American values of freedom and democracy. I am troubled, however, that the poor administration of the student visa program has become a threat to national security. At least one of the September 11th hijackers entered the country on a student visas, as did one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. Last year, a congressional commission on terrorism concluded that national security requires tighter monitoring of the status of foreign students. On October 31, 2001, two subcommittees of the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on the student visa program. We discovered some gaping loopholes. For example, all the information in student visa applications is reported by the international student. There is no due diligence requirement from home countries to ensure that this information is accurate and that the student is trustworthy. Second, the State Department does not notify the college when a visa is granted, nor does the Immigration and Naturalization Service promptly notify the college when the student enters the country. The last contact the college had with the student may have been granting admission. If the student enters the country but doesn't show up on campus, neither the college nor the INS may know anything went wrong for a year or longer. Third, the INS is lagging behind schedule implementing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which requires data collection on international students' enrollment status and current address. Without that database, the INS does not know when an international student graduates or drops out. Nor has the INS established a database to track foreign visitors' entry and exit from the country, so the INS does not know how many students stay in the country after completing their studies. I would like to include for the record a recent editorial from the Contra Costa Times, which draws sound, sensible conclusions on this issue. As the editorial notes, ``One of the easiest, albeit illegal, ways to get into the United States and stay here indefinitely is through student visas. . . With America's heightened awareness of the need for secure borders and internal security, we no longer can afford to ignore student visa requirements.'' Like many Americans, I value the attendance of international students at our colleges and universities, but we should make sure they follow the rules. The databases mandated by the 1996 law, but not yet implemented, are a good place to start. The International Student Responsibility Act gives the INS additional resources to implement them as quickly as possible. It also authorizes to funding to ensure that the databases are not a paper exercise, but are used aggressively as the basis for investigations and, if appropriate, deportations. The Act also adds new procedures to address current law's shortcomings. It requires the INS to notify colleges with 10 days when their students enter the country, and requires colleges to promptly notify the INS is any of their students fail to enroll. It creates an incentive for international students to comply with the law by withholding their transcripts and diplomas until they return home or extend their stay in the U.S. legally. Finally, the best protection against potential terrorists is to prevent them from entering the U.S. at all. The Act requires the Department of State to ask international students' home countries whether the students are known criminals or terrorists before granting the visas. It also requires heightened scrutiny of students from countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. We must strive to keep America as open as possible to foreign students, but also to ensure that we have closed the gaping loopholes in the student visa program that make our country more vulnerable to terrorism. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. [From the Contra Costa Times, Nov. 23, 2001] Control Student Visas One of the easiest ways, albeit illegal, to get into the United States and stay here in definitely is through student visas. The visas are issued for full-time students for a specified time. Yet students often stay in the country well past the visas' expiration dates with impunity. This situation must not continue for students or anyone else who received a visa to come to the United States. That does not mean this country has to close its doors to foreign students or other wishing to work in or visit the United States. It certainly does not mean the United States should place a six-month moratorium on all student visas, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed. It does mean the Immigration and Naturalization Service is going to have to do a far better job of controlling visas and keeping track of everyone with a visa who enters this country. Those who are here past the expiration dates on their visas should be deported. However, it also should not be such an onerous burden for visa holders, particularly students, to get their visas properly renewed before they expire as long as the person continues full-time studies in this country and is law-abiding. With America's heightened awareness of the need for secure borders and internal security, we no longer can afford to ignore student visa requirements. Nor can we grant visas to anyone without closer scrutiny of his or her background. Of particular concern are students from countries with a record of harboring terrorists who are seeking visas. The list of such countries is short, but includes several nations in the Middle East, where much of the world's international terrorism is bred. It is critical that those seeking visas from such nations receive extensive background checks before they enter the United States. Some may see this as racial profiling. It is actually nation profiling, and it is necessary for public security. Thorough background checks need not prevent the United States from accepting large numbers of foreign students, even from countries where terrorism is a problem. It simply means that the United States must enforce its visa laws to reduce the chance of terrorism and to get a better grip on controlling its borders. To accomplish this goal in a humane manner, the INS is going to have to increase its work force so that those wishing to spend extended periods of time in the United States are carefully screened, are easily able to renew visas for legitimate purposes and are deported when they violate the terms of their visas.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for an explanation of his request.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio has properly explained this bill and what it would do for both the lenders and the student loan program and for the students, and he quite correctly reports to us that this is a work product of a lot of work on a bipartisan basis to approve this legislation to extend the loan rates for the lenders to make sure they can continue to make a profit and to insure student loan availability to the students. Let me talk about a bill that we will not be able to bring up tonight, and one of the reasons that I believe S. 1762 will not pass tomorrow. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) have introduced legislation which would have provided loan forgiveness to those individuals who lost their spouses on September 11 to make sure that they in fact have this ability to get their lives back in order after this tragic loss of their spouses, in many cases of the major bread winner for the family. It also provided loans to the parents who had a child that might die in that tragedy. Currently they cannot forgive those loans. It also provided for those loans that have been consolidated, because they would not be forgiven under the current law if they had been consolidated by the spouse that died. This is an effort to try to help these families. We have paid a great deal of attention to this since September 11, recognizing the hardship, recognizing the tragedy that has befallen these families. We have tried to do everything we can to help them get their economic life in order. To have these student loans hanging out there when they have been beset by this tragedy, the victims of terrorism, is just unconscionable. The bill we are discussing here, the interest rate fix for 2003, need not be done until 2003. The urgency of these families we cannot deny. Already these cases have started to be brought to the attention of the department, and I think it is time for Congress to recognize it. This is legislation that is not partisan. I think it has every Member of the New York delegation supporting it from both parties, recognizing the needs of these families from the New York metropolitan area and the surrounding states, and we ask that this legislation be passed. But, for whatever reason, we will not be able to consider that. So I think unless we can try and provide the kind of urgency that these families need as they struggle, and we read day-to-day as they try to work their way through all of the bureaucracy that is now springing up over the various funds that have been put in place for them, trying to qualify for funds that have been created with public dollars, with private dollars, with charitable dollars, and at the same time deal with their families, with their children, with the holidays and the rest of it, it is not a big burden. This has been scored to be essentially de minimis in terms of the cost to the government by CBO. It is one of the things we can do to lighten that burden of these families who have lost individuals in those vicious attacks of September 11. So, with that, I will say that while this other bill is ready to be passed. I would hope that my colleagues would not support that legislation until such time as we can get consideration of H.R. 3163, offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) from the other side. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I had suggested that the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) was coauthor of the McCarthy bill. He is not. But he has been very, very helpful with her in the drafting of that legislation, and the chairman has been very cooperative in this. But we have now been trying to get this bill scheduled for a month or more and just have not received any assurances that it will be scheduled. The practical effect of holding back on S. 1762 is that we have 18 months in which this solution can be put into effect, and status of the current law will continue to exist. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I want to make it very clear to the Members of the House that we have tried with all due diligence to get this legislation scheduled. We were informed at one point today that it would be scheduled, and then that changed in the last couple of hours, that it would not be. I do not know what the objection would be, and it is not clear to us what the objection would be to help out these families to provide this student loan forgiveness to those spouses that may have loans that have lost their spouse in the tragedy of September 11; but that has been articulated to us. As has been pointed out by the author of the bill and Members of the minority, extensive negotiations have gone on with respect to this legislation to try and make it workable, to try and make it deliver the benefit that is intended. That has all been worked out. Simply, what we now have is a determination about the scheduling of this. One could argue, one could argue that we could put this off until next year, but I think as we see these families trying to come to closure, both emotionally and economically, we would do this Congress proud to extend this benefit. We have made several provisions for the forgiveness of student loans. In this instance we simply have overlooked the spouses of those who were killed in the terrorist attack. That can be remedied by the quick passage of this legislation. We really do not know the opposition to it, since we are simply told that it will not be allowed to come to the floor; but we have not had those people come forward and express opposition. So for that reason, we will be asking Members to withhold their support from the bill under current consideration, S. 1762, for the loan rate fix on student loans. As I said before, there is 18 months before this has to be dealt with. We would like to deal with it now. A lot of work has gone into it. But clearly, we do not have the ability to set the agenda here and we have to use those leverages that are available to us. I would ask my colleagues to reject this bill so that we can get on with helping these families who are the victims of the terrorist attack on September 11. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to the gentleman, that is today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.