George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules refused to allow an amendment that I made a request on which would require the certification by the President that Colombia is actively engaged in the investigation of the murder of labor activists in its country. The country, Colombia, has exported many products to the United States; but that is not what it will be remembered for. It will be remembered for the killings that are taking place. During the 1990s, more trade union activists were killed in Colombia than any other country. No other country is even close. The numbers are truly astonishing. Over 1,000 labor activists have been murdered since this trade agreement was enacted. It is not because of this trade agreement; but the fact is, during this 10-year relationship, that is what has happened. In this year alone, 131 labor activists have been killed. This cannot just be a coincidence of these people being killed in the firefight that is taking place. I do not diminish the complexity of the problems of violence in Colombia on both the right and the left, but the fact of the matter is that, according to the ILO, these murders have continued. They have not been investigated. People have not been identified. The core ILO agreements have not been dealt with. In fact, the ILO report of last year says that the cases where the instigators and perpetrators of the murders of trade union leader are identified are practically nonexistent, as is handing down guilty verdicts. The point is this, the government is doing little or nothing to try to investigate and identify the people who are killing the labor activists across the country. When labor activists are asking for protection from the government the protection is not forthcoming and the assassinations continue. These people are assassinated at work. They are assassinated in the streets. They are assassinated in their own homes in front of their families. And they are all labor activists. That is what they have in common. The time has come to stop that. We talk about the benefits of the trade agreements. One of the benefits, theoretically, is the labor will prosper, the people have the ability to organize. They will improve their working conditions. They will improve their pay, and they will be able to provide for their families. But that does not happen in and of itself. It happens because labor organizers talk to the workers. They talk to them about the benefits of joining a union. Colombia has a history of union involvement but it is now being eradicated. According to the ILO, it is being eradicated by the para- military organizations on the right for the most part. And I think it is time to come where not only we will be investing in Plan Colombia, but we are extending trade agreements to Colombia that we understand the need to stop the assassination in this country of these labor activists, because it just takes away any ability to try and organize the working place so, in fact, people can have the benefits that supposedly free trade is supposed to bring to those countries in terms of the economic opportunity. Thirty members of the Congress joined me in sending a letter to the president of Colombia asking for these investigations, asking for an effort to bring these people to justice. And we have received no response from the president. And I was hoping that this amendment would have been accepted and we could have sent that message to the president requiring those actions to take place in the certification by the President of United States that those investigations were ongoing. Unfortunately, this trade agreement will probably pass. Those investigations will not take place. We are talking about a reign of terrorism in Colombia right under our noses in a country where we are financing a war supposedly to end that; and yet we cannot get the government to participate in the effort to investigate these assassinations and these crimes against labor activists. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing at the request of the Democratic Caucus to listen to those individuals who have been impacted by the downturn in the economy, workers, Mr. John Sweeney, the president of the AFL/CIO, who represents many, many workers who have been caught in this downturn in the economy. As we listened to two of the witnesses, Mr. Michael Hannah, who is a member of the Steel Workers in Birmingham, Alabama, who has worked for 29 years in that industry and recently, working for Butler Manufacturing, has just been told that he will be laid off indefinitely as of November 30. Mr. Hannah had been laid off earlier this year for 4 months. And, of course, what Mr. Hannah is now confronting is, his unemployment benefits of $190 a week are running out. We also heard from Linda Woods. Linda Woods has been employed in the commercial printing and advertising industry for the last 18 years and for one company the last 8 years, making $19.11 an hour, but she too has been laid off and she is down to her last unemployment check. Her son, who is also working and helping her obviously while he is holding down two jobs for a hotel and an auto parts factory, has lost both of those jobs. First went the hotel job and then the auto parts factory job. So that income has been lost to her household. Mr. Hannah told us also of the problems of his wife who just suffered a back injury and is unable to work and needs a lot of expensive medicines, as he said. He has also told us he would not be able to continue his health insurance under the COBRA program which allows unemployed people to continue to have their health insurance they had when they were working, but they must pay for, would cost him $529 a month. And, of course, his unemployment provides him $760 a month, and he is unable to pay for that. So it is not a luxury, but it is something he must let go if he is going to try to meet his mortgage payment and the rest of the obligations to his family. Ms. Woods was in the same situation. On her unemployment, she would have had to pay $200 a month for her COBRA and she can not afford to do that, nor can her son. These are two individuals that, between them, have worked almost 50 years, 50 years; and now they find themselves having to need unemployment for 26 weeks and that has run out. And yet this Congress has failed to respond to provide for an extension of unemployment benefits. We provided a bailout for the airline industry for $15 billion, $5 billion in cash. We provided $38 billion to the energy industries in tax provisions. We have provided a repeal of the alternative minimum tax so that some of the richest and largest corporations in the world would get their taxes forgiven back to 1986. We have provided tax reductions for the wealthiest people in this country. And most recently now the President has suggested we speed up those tax reductions to that same group of very, very wealthy individuals. But what the Congress has not found time to do is to take care of the hundreds of thousands of people, the millions of people in this country that are in the same situation as Linda Woods and Michael Hannah. What we have not found time to do is extend the unemployment benefits for another 26 weeks or another 13 weeks or whatever we can do to help these people. Many of these people were unemployed before September 11. But because of the September 11 terrorist attack in New York City and the Pentagon, the economy has gotten worse. So their situation in trying to find work has become more difficult, and many people who are unemployed because of September 11 in the hotel industry, the travel industry, they now find themselves trying to replace their income in a worsening job market. If they look for work for 30 hours a week, they cannot get unemployment because that is not full-time, and while 97 percent of the businesses in this country pay into unemployment insurance, less than 40 percent of the people are covered. Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is running out. I just want to say this. As Congress heads home for Thanksgiving dinner with their family, the holidays with their children and grandchildren, we had better remember these families and pass the unemployment extension bill so that they can do it. It is the most efficient economic stimulus we can provide. These people will spend the money to create the demand so the economy can recover. We ought to do it and we ought to do it now.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, nine Nobel laureates in economics as well as other leading economists have issued an appeal to the leaders of the Senate to reject the cynical and ineffective stimulus approach taken by the House of Representatives and instead pass a bill that will generate greater spending now through expanded unemployment benefits and other initiatives. The need for expanded benefits for jobless Americans and their families is apparent to all but the leaders of the House of Representatives. The October increase in unemployment was the largest in over two decades, adding more than a half million jobless to the 1.1 million jobs already lost this year prior to the terrible events of September 11th. The so-called stimulus bill passed recently by the House of Representatives lavished billions of dollars on the wealthiest of Americans--the same fortunate few who enjoyed most of the tax cut passed earlier this year. But the House offered only crumbs to the hundreds of thousands who have lost their jobs and whose families are on the brink of economic catastrophe. The criticism of that House stimulus bill was by no means partisan in nature. This is a bill that, in the words of the Wall Street Journal's November 1 editorial, ``mainly padded corporate bottom lines.'' No less a conservative stalwart than Kevin Phillips compared the House-passed bill to ``war profiteering'' passed ``in the phony name of economic stimulus . . . Over three-quarters of the hundred billion [dollars cost] goes for business and upper income objectives . . . The only real solution is a public outcry, tens of millions of pointing finger and voices saying, `Shame!' '' And that's just the conservative critique of the bill this Republican House of Representatives voted that provides $2.3 billion to Ford Motor Company, $1.4 billion to IBM, $830 million to General Motors, and $671 million for General Electric. But under the Republican bill, Larry Johnson won't get a dime. Larry Johnson doesn't work in the corporate boardroom. He cleaned the bar and polished the floors at the World Trade Center, and now he's out of a job and denied unemployment benefits by New York. There are hundreds of thousands of Larry Johnsons, and something is very wrong here. While 97 percent of employers pay into the unemployment funds, less than 40 percent of workers nationally receive unemployment assistance, a substantial drop over the past 25 years. And in some states, the percent that qualify is much lower than that. Workers in the new economy--younger, immigrant, part time, lower- income, short-term--are especially hurt by inadequate UI coverage. And economists are predicting another 1.5 million could lose their jobs in the next 9 months. Even for those who do qualify, benefit levels are often below the poverty line, leaving millions of suddenly unemployed Americans facing poverty, joblessness and homelessness. The Republican response to this crisis has been the misguided antidote of Herbert Hoover: help the rich and the poor will benefit from the improving economy. Prosperity is right around the corner. But we were not elected to ignore the suffering of our constituents. When will the Congress hear the voices of our desperate countrymen and women and demonstrate its concern for the real victims of this recession? First, the House passed a $1.4 trillion tax cut, mainly for the wealthy. Then a $38 billion bail-out for the oil, gas, electric and nuclear power companies that earned more than $1.6 trillion last year. Now, a ``stimulus'' bill that showers tens of billions more on the wealthiest and most powerful in our nation, and only a fraction for genuine ``stimulus.'' The views of these Nobel laureates and others should guide us in crafting a genuine stimulus bill that helps hurting Americans instead of adding billions in additional tax breaks for the richest taxpayers and for corporations. I submit for the Record these views. Economists' Statement--An Open Letter to Senators Tom Daschle and Trent Lott The current state of the U.S. economy justifies further fiscal stimulus by the federal government. But the stimulus package passed by the House of Representatives will do little to assist a near term recovery and is likely to undermine growth in the long term. The basic principles in designing an economic stimulus are: (1) that it be targeted to increase spending immediately; and (2) that it be temporary, phasing out when the economy recovers. The bill passed by the House fails on both counts. First, it mainly provides permanent tax cuts rather than the temporary measures required by prudent fiscal policy. Second, most of the benefits go to the wealthy and to large corporations. In addition to being inequitable, tax cuts for the wealthy are less likely to be spent quickly than are benefits to low- income families and the recently unemployed. The tax cuts for large corporations are particularly inappropriate. Large retroactive rebates to a few giant companies will do little to stimulate an economy suffering from insufficient demand. Moreover, the permanent nature of these tax cuts is likely to worsen the long-term budget outlook and may keep long-term interest rates high. The package passed by the House should be rejected by the Senate and replaced with temporary measures, such as further expanded unemployment benefits, that will increase spending now. George A. Akerlof, University of California, Berkeley; Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University; Martin N. Baily, Institute for International Economics; Alan Blinder, Princeton University; Jeff Faux, Economic Policy Institute; Lawrence R. Klein, University of Pennsylvania; Franco Modigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Douglass C. North, Washington University; William F. Sharpe, Stanford University; Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Joseph E. Stiglitz, Columbia University; James Tobin, Yale University; Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California, Berkeley; Janet Yellen, University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding time and I rise in opposition to this legislation. It has been said time and again, and we all agree, that pension plan participants need to get additional advice on the investment of their moneys. We have made the point that for the new generation of workers, these pension plans, the 401(k) plans, are going to become an ever more important part of their future retirement and that we must take care with the investment of those funds by these employees to make sure that in fact that will be there when they decide to retire. We also know that these funds, unlike their Social Security retirement, are subject to the ups and downs of the market. It will be important how they make these investment decisions because the timing of when they retire may not necessarily coincide with the good cycle in the market, as many people have found out over the last 2 years. We now hear more and more of our constituents telling us because of the loss of the markets, because of the placement of their investments, they are going to have to work a couple of more years, they are not going to be able to retire like they thought, or one of the wage earners in the family is going to have to continue to work. So these funds are subject to the volatility of the market, but that is understood. And it is also understood that we believe that over the long run people will be better off with the investment of these funds in their 401(k)s. The question then comes, the question of the type of advice that they can be given by their employer. We know that there were many, many employers over the last many years that basically made a decision that the 401(k) funds if they were a publicly held corporation would be invested in the stock of that corporation. Obviously in many, many instances the workers in that corporation lost much of their investment, some of them did very well; but the concentration of the money in those funds, the failure to diversify that investment in many instances harmed the employees; and now we require that they be given other alternatives, that they be given other options so that they too can diversify their portfolio and they are not locked into a single stock. But the question now that arises in this legislation when we give them the option of that advice, do we give them the right to have an independent review of their account, an independent advisor who is in the business of advising, not necessarily in the business of advising and also managing stocks and portfolios for this client and for other clients? I think it is just basic and fundamental about treating workers with a set of rights about the dominion over their funds. The notion that somehow this changes the expense of it and is not worthwhile, this advice given to a group of participants is not that expensive but it may be terribly, terribly expensive to the employee if they do not get advice that is not conflicted. We have great brand names. We have Lehman Brothers, we have Merrill Lynch, we have Charles Schwab. We have houses that now are not just any longer investment banks, they are not just any longer stock brokerages. They run the gamut. They are wholly owned subsidiaries of Citicorp, or in fact they own other subsidiaries; and what we have are very complicated financial arrangements. In many instances, we have seen over the last couple of years, and especially in the downturn in the market, that a number of these companies hold on to advice long beyond the time when the prudent ordinary person would decide to sell that stock. It has become a standing joke now. I think they even have theme music on CNBC in the morning for those advisors who will not give up their recommendation to buy stocks even though the stock now has been down for 7 or 8 months in a row; it has lost 70 to 90 percent of its value, and they are still telling them to be in there. Lo and behold, when you start to look at some of this, as the stock exchanges have, you find out that they hold a position or they are managing the money for the executives of the company, not necessarily do they hold a position in that company, but they hold another position with the executives in managing their portfolios. They do not want to upset them, so they are telling the old American public, ``Buy this stock. We're on our way back.'' The fact of the matter is people have been torched. That is subject to disciplinary actions again. But in this legislation, that conflicted advice necessarily is not out of order here because they have a system of disclosure, and that disclosure is given once a year and then you are on your way. What you find out is the way the bill is written, under the law, that the fiduciary relationship that we keep talking about does not really exist because the law is set up that the person whose funds it is, the employee, has to make a decision, buy this stock, make this investment, put it in this fund. Once they do that act, they relieve the advisor under the law of all responsibility. Obviously, they should be making the decisions; but the way this legislation is written, once they do that, they have cleared the decks in terms of liability under any sense of fiduciary relationships under the law, because as we see under section 404 of the ERISA law: ``No person who is otherwise a fiduciary shall be liable under this part for any loss, or by reason of any breach, which results from such participant's, or beneficiary's exercise of control.'' Then you go to the law, and the law says the beneficiary must exercise control. At that point we are home free. I just think that we have to understand now that the change in the marketplace, the interlocking relationship between a whole range of financial services, a whole range of financial entities requires that in fact we have the means by which the employee can get independent advice to make their decision on. I do not believe that this legislation as it is currently configured does that. That is why I would hope that Members would support the Andrews-Rangel substitute, which I think is a very reasonable compromise. It provides for minimum advisor qualifications. Imagine that, having somebody who is in fact qualified to make this determination advising the individual. How about having meaningful disclosure? We just passed here legislation where we told the banks that they had to disclose what they are going to do with your financial data. What we found out is people got in the mail, sometimes they got two or three pages, sometimes they got one page, they got little tiny print; and the Congress is running around saying to the banks, Gee, that's not the disclosure we intended. It was the disclosure the banks intended. That is why they sent it out. Most people did not recognize it when they got it. But it satisfied disclosure. So we thought you ought to have meaningful disclosure in this case since you are playing with people's future retirements. We also think you ought to have meaningful recourse when you get bad advice, when you get the wrong advice. Of course, this legislation as it is currently written does not really provide for that. But most importantly, what we believe you ought to have is an employee who is trying to make these decisions, decisions that they must make today that can impact their livelihood 20 and 30, 40 years down the road, that they ought to have some access to independent advice through their employer so that they can in fact make that decision. So I would hope that we would support the substitute by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); and then I think we would have a workable piece of legislation that would do what we all recognize must be done in terms of giving employees greater options about the investment and more information about how to invest their money, but to make sure that that is offered in a fair and open manner to the employees.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for holding this special order so we can pay tribute to Eddie Boland. I want to mention a small episode. There was a time when many of us were involved in trying to end the violence in Latin America, in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and elsewhere. It was a struggle that was consuming those individuals and those countries. It was an uphill struggle. Finally, justice came, and in the case of El Salvador, a democratic government has been established and a series of elections have been held; but that was not the history of the region and that country at the time when I served in this Congress with Mr. Boland. I always thought that the reason that justice came to Central America in large part was because the generals in El Salvador made a huge mistake and the intelligence community in this country made a huge mistake. The generals in El Salvador made a huge mistake in lying to Joe Moakley about their involvement in the killing of the Jesuits at the university. From that day forward, because he recognized the lie when it was uttered, and I was with him on the trip to Latin America to investigate that, Mr. Moakley recognized that lie the minute it was presented on that military base by those generals. He pursued it along with our now-colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for many, many months until that lie unraveled and we realized the incredible role that the Government of El Salvador played in the murder of those Jesuits and its military. Eddie Boland, while he did not agree with us necessarily on the policy in Latin America or what some of us were trying to achieve, believed that the laws of the land were the laws of the land. When he later found out the involvement of the intelligence agency in Latin America and when it became clear that they were fudging the laws, we passed the Boland amendment that made it very clear that having Eddie Boland stand before this Congress and support the Boland amendment and having this Congress pass the Boland amendment as he did in his role as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee changed the dynamics and changed people's attitude to what was taking place in Central America and the deep involvement of this country in really horrific events and abuses of human rights in those countries. Mr. Speaker, I think we owe him a great debt of gratitude because he insisted that people not play fast and loose with the laws of this country, that this country not be involved in the abuse of human rights of the people in El Salvador; and we all should thank him very much and remember him for that important role that he played on behalf of humanity who, without Eddie Boland, would not have had a champion of that stature to bring about that kind of change. I thank Eddie Boland for his service to this country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute today to a great mayor, a dedicated public servant, and a wonderful person as she ends a truly remarkable and successful 8-year career as Mayor of the City of Richmond, California. Rosemary Corbin has made a tremendous difference for the people of Richmond and the entire Bay Area of San Francisco. She is a leader and a fighter and she gets things done. I am proud to have been able to work closely with her over the years to coordinate federal and local efforts to protect our environment, create jobs, clean up blighted neighborhoods, reduce crime, improve affordable housing, attract business investment, and protect the rights of working men and women. She was an important local voice in our successful efforts to secure critically needed funds for California and local communities for coastal protection, open space preservation, and urban recreation opportunities. She was part of the dedicated team that I was privileged to work with to establish the Rosie the Riveter Memorial and National Historic Park dedicated to preserving the history of the contribution of Richmond and tens of thousands of women and minorities to the World War II homefront effort. She fully utilized federal funds provided for the highly successful community policing effort. She has been vigilant in her efforts to turn Richmond's ``brownfields'' into ``greenfields.'' And Mayor Corbin should be very proud of one of her last acts in office, winning a federal court ruling against the Bush Administration on labor policy. Mayor Corbin also played a key role in developing the Federal Regional Task Force and focusing its efforts on the community of North Richmond. The task force consists of all of the major federal agencies in Region IX and is intended to identify and coordinate essential services to help rebuild this troubled community. Rosemary Corbin has been a tireless public servant. She served as mayor from 1993 through this year, and served on the Richmond City Council from 1985-1993. She serves on countless boards and committees, supporting the work of local, state and national organizations. And recently, she has become a spokesperson on behalf of cities to ensure they receive adequate resources to do their part to respond to the threat of terrorism. The people of Richmond could not have asked for more from their mayor over the past eight years. She has been a tireless defender of their interests. She is creative, energetic, and compassionate. She has kept her attention focused on the needs of her city and its surrounding community. She should be proud of her service. I am proud to have served with her. And I am confident that she will continue in her own way to contribute to the betterment of our community. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House of Representatives join with me in congratulating Rosemary Corbin on her eight years of exemplary service as Mayor of the great city of Richmond, California.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I grew up as a Catholic believing that God was all- knowing and ever-present; and it was not until I came to Congress and listened to these debates that I thought anybody would ever believe that a superintendent of schools or a teacher or a congressman could separate me from my God. My God was always present. I could reach out and converse with God, rely on God, pray to God. Then I came to the Congress, and there were Members saying people could drive God out of school, drive God out of Congress, drive God out of here, drive God out of there. Maybe, I do not know; but it was never the God I understood that would travel with me throughout my life, that would always be there for me. I find it interesting that somehow people believe children's faith is so weak that it can be dismissed like that by some school official, despite the teachings of their families, church and peers. I find it interesting that somehow God just disappears. It is an incredible statement that I do not understand regarding the underestimation of the American people's faith in their God.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me just say these two points. One, I have supported for a long time a moment of silence, and I think it is quite proper and quite helpful to young children. Two, this Nation was founded on Christian- Judeo principles. It was also founded on constitutional principles; and we live under the Constitution, and there is a clash from time to time. What my colleagues do not get to do is to have the State organize the prayer. A moment of silence could not be more important than at this time, and more and more schools can do it; and as my colleague pointed out, the court clearly has said that that is, in fact, allowable. But what the schools do not get to do is they do not get to organize the times and conditions of that prayer as called for, and this may be nonbinding, but the Congress on a binding or nonbinding, they ought not to be calling for unconstitutional acts. That is not meeting our charge under our responsibilities in this office. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while no one can quarrel with what the supporters of this resolution suggest they want, and that is for reflection and time for children to consider what is going on in this country, once we suggest that the school is going to set aside time for the children to pray or reflect quietly, it does not say that they shall pray quietly, it does not say they shall pray silently, I believe we are now treading into the question of the school setting the content of that prayer. There is nothing today that prevents schoolchildren from praying voluntarily at their own time on behalf of this Nation or people in harm or the victims of terrorism; but what we should not do is, we should not have the school dictating that should take place at an appointed time and place. If the schools want to have a moment of silence, the child may then pick that moment of silence to reflect in any manner or pray in any manner that they want, but this resolution goes beyond that. I am afraid that this resolution is really about, once again, trying to introduce some form of content or prayer into the schools under the guise of the tragedies of September 11 and the events that have occurred since then. We should really not do that. We should really understand that we are very clear about the rights of children to pray in school. If the student groups meet on student property, then religious groups have an equal right to meet on school property and to pray; and the courts have protected students' individual rights to pray in a nondisruptive manner and have approved attempts by school districts to accommodate students in this resolution. But this resolution is different than that, because while it is voluntary from the Congress and it is voluntary for the school to do it, but once the school sets aside time to pray for the country in that manner, then I believe they have crossed the line. I wish that we would understand that we have every right to call for people to reflect and to pray in the interest in this country; and they will or they will not. Hopefully they have, and millions and millions of Americans and their children and their families have made that decision to pray in their places of worship, to pray around the dinner table, to pray in their homes before they go to sleep at night or when they first wake up in the morning or whatever suits them. I hope that that would continue. But I think that this resolution is mistaken. And I think that this resolution is ill-considered and I would hope that the Congress would not pass it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for upholding the rights of workers and preventing the President from arbitrarily unilaterally, and unfairly restricting those rights. On February 17, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13202 prohibiting Federal agencies or recipients of federal funds from entering project labor agreements, pre-hire agreements that typically establish wages and working conditions for the employees of contractors and subcontractors on a construction project. Bush's Executive Order was permanently enjoined today in a decision issued today by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The lawsuit overturning the Executive Order, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, et al., v. Joe M. Allbaugh, Director Federal Emergency Management Agency, et al., was brought by the Building and Construction Trades Department, the City of Richmond, California and the Contra Costa County Building and Construction Trades Council. My congressional district includes Richmond and Contra Costa County. Today's decision is a clear victory for working Americans. The court found that project labor agreements are expressly protected by the National Labor Relations Act and that the President's Executive Order harms workers by altering the bargaining power between employers and unions. In effect, by trying to impose new limits on the right of the workers to bargain collectively, the President was undermining the ability of workers to protect and improve their wages and working conditions. In our system of government, however, a President may not unilaterally undermine the laws that Congress has enacted. The District Court's decision is a victory for due process and the rule of law as well as the rights of workers. I strongly commend the Mayor and City Council of Richmond and the Contra Costa County Building and Construction Trades Council and its president, Greg Feere, all of whom I am proud to represent in Congress, as well as the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL- CIO, for their role in standing up for the rights and well being of workers.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the East Bay Center for the Performing Arts on the occasion of its 33rd Anniversary. Each year, East Bay Center programs benefit more than 25,000 members of the ethnically diverse, low-income, inner-city communities in and around Richmond, California. Since its founding in 1968, East Bay Center has directly touched the lives of over 700,000 people. Its Art and Public Education Outreach Program reaches an average of 2,500 students per week in 24 schools in two school districts. Center faculty, staff and board members reflect the community they serve in terms of ethnicity, economic background and family structure. Together, the staff and faculty speak more than 15 languages. The Center nurtures a critical range of minority and mainstream arts, including over 12 culturally distinct repertoire forms, and sustains nine culturally distinct Resident Companies providing 30-40 low or no- cost performances each year. Those resident companies are: Iron Triangle Theater, Richmond BLOCO, Son de la Tierra, Mien Legends, My View Film Crew, Richmond Jazz Collective, Youth West African Music And Dance Ensemble, Richmond Chamber Ensemble, and Richmond Ballet Theater. The Center's Living the Mission programs involve the Center in ongoing partnerships with social service providers such as group homes, domestic violence agencies, homeless shelters, and juvenile hall. The East Bay Center for the Performing Arts has been the recipient of many awards and honors over the years. Among those recently received by the Center are: a ``2001 Youth to Youth Award'' from the San Francisco Foundation's Youth Initiative Leadership Program; ``2001 Community Impact Award'' from the Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council and Community Collaborative; ``1999 Coming Up Taller Award'' supported by the President's Commission on the Arts and the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, ``1999 Cyril Magnin Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Arts'' presented by the Business Arts Council, a project of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce; ``Governors Award for Community Service for 1999'' from the Board of Governors of the San Francisco Chapter of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS); and ``1998 Honor Roll Winner'' in the category of ``Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life'', awarded by the Contra Costa Children and Families Policy Forum. Mr. Speaker, I commend the East Bay Center for the Performing Arts for its commitment to excellence and its efforts to ensure that the opportunities for a quality education in the arts should be available to all persons, regardless of background, age, physical disabiilty, previous experience or ability to pay standard fees. I applaud the Center for its efforts to engage the arts, which speak to our common humanity, as a vehicle for social reconciliation and social change.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today we will be called upon to vote on the economic stimulus package presented from the other side of the aisle. Should that package pass, we will create the greatest inequality in the treatment of American taxpayers in decades in this country. We will return to the days of yesteryear where in 1986, 1987, and 1988 corporations were making millions of dollars and paid no taxes. They paid nothing for the privilege of the defense system of this country. They paid nothing for the research capabilities of this country. They paid nothing for the privileges of being an American corporation. Today, we are going to go back and we are going to repeal the alternative minimum tax so those corporations will be back in the position of paying no taxes and at the same time, at a time when this country is at war, when we are asking for shared contribution, shared sacrifice, we are going to dump the burden of this war, the cost of this war, the cost of this deficit, the cost of bailing out Social Security on the backs of working people and the payroll tax. That is what the Republican Party believes is fair, is equitable. It is wrong, it drips with greed, it drips with special interests and it ought to be rejected.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we have dealt, and again, we do not know the nature of a terrorist attack, how it is carried out on a target, but we have dealt with an individual refinery explosion or release of toxic materials, we just had one this last week in my hometown. But if multiple refineries were the subject of the attack, there was talk in Texas of where the concentration of petrochemical industries there, in California and in my area and elsewhere, that would immediately outstrip the current resources. Because the current resources are designed for an isolated, although maybe harmful event, or lethal event, but yet isolated compared to perhaps what we might experience. So I just want to commend the gentleman, if I might, for bringing this legislation to the Congress and securing the coauthors that he has, and also making this a point of discussion in our Homeland Security Task Force in the caucus where I know he and others have raised this. I have been on the other task force, but on this one, Members have told me. Also, I think the gentleman ought to be very proud of the fact that when we go home and we talk to the people on the front lines, they look at this and they say, this is what we need to do our job if we are, in fact, going to be called upon to provide the kind of protection that we think the citizens that we represent will want. So the legislation is clearly in tune with the needs of the first responders; and clearly it is in tune with their understanding of the kind of threat and the match of resources that would be necessary in a terrorist environment. So I want to commend the gentleman very much for devising this legislation; and hopefully, the House will get an opportunity in short order to deal with this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my last point, we have had a lot of debates, and I am in the middle of one now that has gone on for several years on the education bill. The desire on both sides of the aisle has been to drive the dollars to the classroom, recognizing that very often education dollars get siphoned off and they do not quite carry out the intent, which is to provide an education to America's children. They are used bureaucratically, a lot of other ways on the State and Federal level. I think in this, it is the same idea with the gentleman's legislation, that we have to drive these dollars down to the people who in fact are going to be put into the position of responding on behalf of our communities. Driving those dollars for planning, driving those dollars for coordination, for cooperation among various departments and agencies within a region is really about the frontline and the first line of defense for American citizens. So I think this is also very consistent with what we have talked about in this Congress on a number of other subjects about giving local communities that flexibility, but giving them the resources so that they can respond in a first-class fashion. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, $300 million goes outside the beltway, and yet these are the people who are going to respond. As somebody pointed out earlier, the reason that we have to provide these resources is that these are events that are not of the local community's making. These are events that are going to occur for a whole host of reasons, none of which can justify them happening; but this Nation has come under attack and, in all likelihood, from the information we receive from our intelligence agencies, will very likely come under attack again. That response is not, that event is not of the local community's making; but the community will be called upon to do that. We need to make sure that our citizens have the assurance that there will be a plan in place that will try to minimize the harm and the casualties that could occur in the community.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, a number of our colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) had a meeting in her local community; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) had a meeting in her local community; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had a meeting last week in her community, and some of those meetings were attended by Special Agent John Lightfoot from the FBI. And he also was making assessments of some of the plans around bioterrorism, about the HAZMAT, hazardous materials resources available in the community to deal with these. The fact of the matter is that it is a very checkered situation. Some communities like my own, because of the nature of the industry, we have a very sophisticated HAZMAT program with highly trained chemists and people on board to deal with toxic materials, and yet next door they might not have anything. So immediately, the conversation was, how would we respond? And in many cases they said, when we have a refinery explosion, we know people are going to be coming to the hospital, because there has been an explosion, there has been a release of perhaps harmful material; and in this case people will just start walking into the hospital and that is when we will first discover that an event has taken place. The people from the hospital said, we can decontaminate a couple of people; the HAZMAT people said we can decontaminate a few dozen people, but if we have hundreds or thousands of people coming in, we have no plan to deal with that, and we would have to call on the resources of the entire San Francisco Bay region, but those resources are not completely coordinated yet. There are many communities that have absolutely no ability. So the gentleman raises a good point.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding, and I thank him very much for being the prime mover in this effort to make sure that our local community first- responders are fully engaged as this Nation prepares to deal with the threat of terrorism at the local level, and for coming up with legislation that recognizes the difficulty of doing this, but also provides the resources so that it can be done properly; so that, in fact, assessments can be made at the local level of exactly what those kinds of threats might be to our communities; so that there can be regional cooperation; so that the HAZMAT teams can work together, they can learn to share their resources and their knowledge and their training of their personnel and of their response plans; so that there can be a working together, both up and down the infrastructure of our local communities between police and fire, HAZMAT, public health, private health hospitals, people who are going to be called upon to respond to possibly decontaminate a significant number of citizens, or to help a local agency next to them respond with an attack that could take place there. This is not about getting overly dramatic, but it is recognizing that this is something the local communities have done for many years. In California we have earthquake plans; we have flood plans; we have fire plans in some of our rural communities, trying to determine what the threat would be to these communities, how we can respond and whether or not the resources and the training and the personnel will be there. When we now overlay the threat of terrorism on many of these plans, we recognize that we have to go back to the drawing board. I represent an area that has many, many petrochemical facilities in my congressional district, and we have many plans to deal with the communities for the releases or the explosions or the accidents that take place at these facilities from time to time to try and warn a community, to have a shelter in place, or to go to the hospitals or to have a warning system so that they can get immediate information. As many times as we have been through it, it does not always work the way it should. In my meeting yesterday with the county sheriff, with the members of the board of supervisors, with the chiefs of police from the city of Richmond, the city of Martinez, from the Consolidated Fire District, from the HAZMAT personnel, from the people from Kaiser Permanente, the largest health care deliverer in my area, what became very clear was that they need additional resources to do the planning so that the resources will be in place if our communities need these kinds of responses. So the gentleman has put together legislation to provide this money to the local community. I was startled when a number of weeks ago the gentleman told me the percentage of the money, if the gentleman would repeat it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we appropriated in the Congress $8.9 billion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and want to thank him and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for rising also on this. It is just unbelievable to our constituents when we go home and they ask about airport safety to tell them that we have done nothing; that the committee has completed its work, legislation is prepared to go, the Senate has passed the bill, and on the House floor we have done nothing. It is even more unbelievable to them when they read one of the reasons the House has not taken action is that you have the leadership in the Republican Party now telling lobbyists that if they do not come and lobby against this legislation, they will not help them out in other pieces of legislation, they will not help them out on things that matter to them. So what we have now is we have this lobbying game, or fund-raising game, or favors game being played in this Chamber, in this House, against the safety of the American people. It is an outrage to the American people, because the gentleman is so right. Today I walked all over San Francisco airport. I saw the entire airport. I was in the line so I could get through the machines to clear your carry-on luggage. All that was was the appearance of safety. It was not safety, as the gentleman points out, because we still have not gotten to the point where we have the kinds of technology, the machines, the security, the training, the people in place. So the gentleman is absolutely right. The leadership of this House on the Republican-side of the aisle absolutely ought to be ashamed. They are breaking faith with the American people on getting this legislation to the floor so that we can get on with it. And it is harming our communities, because the American people are not flying unless they absolutely have to. That is hurting the economies in Florida, Texas, Arizona, California, and the State of Washington and New York and all points in between, because the American people are still nervous. And they ought to be nervous, because this Congress has not addressed this issue.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for reserving his reservation and also for yielding the time. I just want to comment on one aspect of the conference committee report, and I want to thank the conference committee for its attention. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a provision affecting the tribal interests in my district, the Lytton Rancheria in California and in the City of San Pablo. Last year the appropriate authorizing committees in both the House and the Senate developed authorizing language to address a land into trust provision unique to the Lytton Rancheria. This conference committee revisited this issue in the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations due to the exceptionally unique circumstances which necessitated the enactment of Section 819 of Public Law 106-568, taking lands into trust for the purposes of gaming. I want to clarify that our action here did not diminish requirements that the tribe fully comply with provisions of Public Law 100-497 and in particular, with respect to Class III gaming, the compact provision of Section 2710(d) or any relevant Class III gaming procedures. I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this issue and the determination that the tribe must proceed according to current law. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a provision affecting tribal interests in my district--the Lytton Rancheria of California and the City of San Pablo. Last year the appropriate authorizing committees in both the House and the Senate developed authorizing language to address a land into trust provision unique to the Lytton Rancheria. This conference committee revisited this issue in the Interior Appropriations bill due to the exceptional and unique circumstances which necessitated the enactment of Section 819 of P.L. 106-568, taking lands into trust for the purposes of gaming. I want to clarify that our action here did not diminish the requirement that the tribe fully comply with the provisions of P.L. 100-497 and in particular, with respect to Class III gaming, the compact provision of Section 2710(d) or any relevant Class III gaming procedures. I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this issue and determination that the tribe proceed according to current law.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, since the terrible events of September 11th, we have all read account of the bravery and heroism displayed by Americans in the face of horrific terror in New York, Washington, and on board hijacked airliners. These men and women--fire fighters, police, rescue workers and airline passengers-- thought not about their personal safety and security, but about their responsibilities to others. They did their jobs, but they often did much more. By their bravery, they displayed the very best qualities and earned our gratitude forever. A recent column by Sue Shellenbarger in the Wall Street Journal draws our attention to another group of people who confronted the dangers of September 11 with great courage: child care workers. We have heard little about their determination to protect the children in their charge despite serious dangers. Ms. Shellenbarger recounts harrowing examples of children trapped and in danger whose lives were likely saved by dedicated child care workers. It is worth noting that child care workers are among the very lowest paid workers. Yet millions of Americans daily entrust their children to the care of these women and men in order to earn a living for their families. The poor pays of child care workers contributes to massive turnover that undercuts the quality of services for our children. We must make a greater commitment to improving the quality of child care for the sake of our children, and to properly honor those whose dedication and courage for their young charges is undiminished by dangers of themselves. The article follows: Teachers Safely Evacuated Children Caught in Attacks (By Sue Shellenbarger) Is worksite child care safe? Amid few fears for children, many parents wonder whether bringing kids to high-profile, visible workplaces is unwise. Among all the tales of Sept. 11 heroism are two stories that should reassure parents: How teachers at the World Trade Center and Pentagon child-care centers safely evacuated the children in their charge. The 14 teachers at Children's Discovery Center in 5 World Trade Center, a building that later party collapsed had taken in only 42 early arrivalsby the time the first plane hit that morning. As the ground shook, teachers grabbed each child's emergency records, took babies in their arms and, following a drill they practiced every month, led the children outside, leaving behind their own purses and, in some cases, their own shoes, says Kristin Thomas, head of northeast operations for Knowledge Learning, the San Rafael, Calif., operator of the center. Some parents raced in to pick up children, too, leaving staffers with just 28 kids. Once outside, the ragtag band was barred by police from the preset evacuation destination, 7 World Trade. Then, the second plane hit. Split into two groups by flying debris and hordes of fleeing people, teachers began walking north. One group picked up several shopping carts from a grocery store and helped toddlers inside, telling them, ``We're going for a little ride,'' Ms. Thomas says. Some passing businessmen tore off their white shirts to cover the children. Some teachers, with babies propped on their hips, were soon barefoot; the paper booties they'd donned in the center's infant room had shredded from all the walking. Armed with the emergency records, staffers borrowed phones to get messages to parents. Both groups trekked more than a mile before coming to rest, one in a hospital and the second in a preschool. All the kids were returned safe to parents; in the preschool, many were napping on cots as parents arrived. At the Pentagon, Shirley Allen, director of the Children's World Learning Center, had plenty to worry about after Flight 77 plowed into the building. Her husband, a naval officer, worked in an office directly in the path. But Ms. Allen, a 12-year child-care veteran, thought only of evacuating the 148 children in her center, located about 30 yards from the Pentagon. In a process also honed by monthly drills, she and her 36 staffers rounded up youngsters, put babies in mobile cribs and set out across a park. Hundreds of panicky workers ran past the children. Rescue workers relocated Ms. Allen's group five times. Again and again, she had to demand loudly that security officers accompany the kids as they moved. Heart pounding, she fought fears that a child would be lost. But with the children, she and the teachers, many of them equally experienced, kept calm. ``The children were relaxed, because they looked into their teachers' faces and saw they were relaxed,'' Ms. Allen says. To distract them, teachers played pat-a-cake and sang ``Eensy Weensy Spider.'' Not until three hours later, with the children safe and most of them back in parents' care, did Ms. Allen allow herself to think of her husband. She burst into tears. Two hours later, she finally learned he was safe. Three children at the center, Ms. Allen says, her voice breaking, lost a parent. The center re-opened Monday. Child-care teachers generally aren't paid enough to reflect the awesome responsibilities they bear. Both the Pentagon and the World Trade child-care centers were high-quality facilities subsidized by employers. That support helped produce the policies, training and employee-retention programs that prepared these staffers so well. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, a high-quality child-care concern, won't even open a worksite facility without employer support, in subsidies or facilities. Operations chiefs at several big child-care chains say they'll study government or military locations more carefully before opening new centers, but none said they plan to pull back. Joseph Silverman, president of Day Care Insurance Services, an Encino, Calif., brokerage, says exits should be safe and accessible, and centers probably shouldn't be above the second floor. That said, worksite child care is still one of the safest places to leave a child. ``Do I keep a day-care facility out of the Pentagon? Probably not,'' Mr. Silverman says. ``You start thinking that way: Do I keep a day-care facility off an earthquake fault line? Do I keep a day-care facility off a flight path? And where do you stop?'' Roughly three million children attend child-care centers safely every day. In dangerous times, parents want their kids near them. Child-care center enrollments haven't fallen in Oklahoma City since the 1995 attack on the federal building there, a blast that killed 19 kids in a center. Centers in U.S. government buildings have since grown about 10%. Perhaps parents' biggest job is banishing fear--putting on a calm face, as these teachers did, so children can stay calm. ``Children, of course, always have giants and monsters in their minds, but now the adults do, too,'' says Bright Horizons' Jim Greenman. ``At some level, we have to remember: We know how to cope with this.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, this legislation would repeal the 50 percent cap. It would eliminate the 12-hour rule. And it would clarify the restrictions on commissions paid for student recruiters. The concerns that many of my colleagues have raised, I think, are valid. I think we are all aware of them. We have tried to address them in this legislation and also with expressing our concerns to the Department. It was not that long ago, and obviously many of my colleagues will remember this, the fraud that plagued the student aid programs, where we saw people organizing themselves in a manner to get young people to apply for student aid and had no intention of delivering them an education. We spent a long time changing that program and the gentlewoman from Hawaii was one of the leaders in that effort to do that. But I think this is a different kettle of fish in the sense that I believe that what we are trying to do is recognize the reality of what has taken place in the area of distance learning and recognizing that, in fact, the rules that we are waiving here really have very little to do with increasing the risk to the aid programs. We have also made it very clear that those programs, if the Secretary thinks they need to, can require the 50 percent rule if he finds there is a significant risk of fraud or abuse. Schools have to notify us if they are going to not meet the 12-hour rule. We have also accepted in the committee the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) to provide for the assessment of this program as we go forward. But I think, in fact, what this will allow us to do is to go forward in real time to allow the maximum amount of flexibility and utilization of this program that really offers great promise to students in so many different settings, whether they are working full time or part time or whether they are just beginning their education, or even, in a number of instances, young people in high school who want to try to get some of their lower division units out of the way can do it by distance learning and have no opportunity to go to that university because they live in rural areas or isolated areas. I think we ought to make sure that we give them that opportunity. Colleges still must be certified as nonprofit accrediting associations recognized by the Secretary and still have to be State approved and licensed. The default rates have been addressed. So I think we have put together a pretty good bill. I think, also, it is pretty clear that the current rules and regulations really did not contemplate the vast use and opportunity of the Internet as we now know it. I think the members of this committee have also understood and we have made it clear to the Department of Education, to schools and to States and others that we are taking some risk here. We are going to be paying attention and we are going to be watching to see what happens here. Many Members have spoken about the reauthorization coming up in 2003. I think this legislation will give us an opportunity to see exactly what is taking place on the ground. If there are abuses, we will have the opportunity in a timely fashion to address those abuses; but we cannot deny the importance that distance learning is playing every day in all of our universities. From the great private universities, to the public universities, to community colleges, to trade schools and to others, this is an opportunity for so many people to have access to an education, where before they simply would not be able to get there or they would have to give up income to their families to participate in it. I would hope that we would pass this legislation. I would say, however, that I think the concerns that are being raised by Members on my side of the aisle are valid concerns, and we have got to pay attention to them. If people are going to take advantage of this, we ought to make sure that that not be allowed to continue and that we correct those, if that should happen.