George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, after months and months of watching the Bush administration do nothing to help the California consumers and the California business community with the price gouging that is going on in energy, after months of having the White House act as the puppet of the oil industry, after months of watching an administration that is full of ex-oil industry executives give private meetings to the oil industry on their energy plan, and seeing the very people who are making the decisions about our energy future hold stock in the energy companies, after months of this kind of activity and insensitivity to the Western energy users in this country, the Republicans and the White House now understand that the American people are no longer going to continue to accept this administration doing nothing about the price gouging that is going on in the western United States with respect to energy while at the same time those very energy executives of the companies that are punishing the California consumer, punishing California businesses, punishing the workers and punishing our economy are cashing stock options worth $300 million as they gouge the people in the western United States.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce the introduction of the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined by 32 original cosponsors who share my strong desire to improve the treatment of children with mental health needs who enter the juvenile justice system. The rate of mental disorders is significantly higher among youth in the juvenile justice system than among youth in the general population. Federal studies suggest that as many as 60% of incarcerated youth have some mental health disorder and 20% have a severe disorder. In my home state of California, a recent study by the California Youth Authority found that 35% of boys in its custody and 73% of girls need mental health or substance abuse treatment. We also know that many youngsters in the juvenile justice system have committed minor, non-violent offenses or status offenses. While they may be better served through the mental health system, often times these youngsters are incarcerated in juvenile facilities because of a lack of access to or the availability of mental health programs in the community. These youngsters, their families, and society, could be better served if we made available appropriate local mental health, substance abuse, and educational services as an alternative to incarceration, particularly for first offenders and non-violent offenses. Our nation's juvenile justice system cannot adequately serve the needs of children with mental health disorders. Juvenile facilities are overcrowded and lack the necessary programming required to accommodate the needs of these youthful offenders. Staff working in these facilities are not trained to work with children in need of mental Mental health treatment and services have been proven more effective than incarceration in preventing troubled young people from reoffending and are less expensive than prison. In the long run, they are even more cost-effective to us as a society, because they increase the odds that a young person will become a responsible, productive, taxpaying citizen rather than a permanent ward of the state. The bill we are introducing today, the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act, would help create alternatives to incarceration, particularly for first time non-violent offenders, and improve conditions in youth correctional institutions by: Providing funds to train juvenile justice personnel on the identification and need for appropriate treatment of mental disorders and substance abuse, and on the use of community- based alternatives to placement in juvenile correctional facilities. Providing block grant funds and competitive grants to states and localities to develop local mental health diversion programs for children who come into contact with the justice system and broaden access to mental health and substance abuse treatment programs for incarcerated children with emotional disorders. Establishing a Federal Council to report to Congress on recommendations to improve the treatment of youth with serious emotional and behavioral disorders who come into contact with the justice system. Strengthening federal courts' ability to remedy abusive conditions in state facilities under which juvenile offenders and prisoners with mental illness are being held. We need to reform our juvenile justice system to ensure that it preserves the basic rights and human dignity of the children and youth housed in its facilities. And, while alternatives to incarceration may not work for all youth, for those who must serve time in a juvenile correctional facility we have an obligation to ensure that they have access to appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment and qualified staff. The Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act offers these reforms and includes the appropriate safeguards for youth who would be better served in mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in enacting this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who organized some of us to come to the floor and discuss the importance of protecting and promoting the rights of workers to organize. Every year our government spends tens of millions of dollars of our tax money to support efforts around the globe to promote democracy. One of the ways that we measure society's success in establishing a democratic system of government and an open society is how well its laws protect the rights of the poor, the rights of workers, and the rights of its citizens to speak, to organize, and to act collectively on their own behalf. This is a message that we send every day from the floor of this Congress. We condemn, as we did today, those governments that oppress workers, that shield unscrupulous employers and empower the elites of society. Democracy is not measured by how well you guard the affluent and the powerful, but by how well you protect the rights of the weakest and the most vulnerable. Thirty-six years ago, in 1935, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act to address the inequality of bargaining power between the employees who do not possess the freedoms of association or liberty of contract and the employers. In the depth of the Great Depression, our government understood that working men and women could not challenge employers who, through their wealth and power and associations, could exploit labor if workers themselves were not protected in their efforts to organize. That was a decision born of decades of brutal, bloody, and crippling warfare in the mines, the factories, the wharves, and the workshops of America. But today, as the men and women born, along with the NLRA retire, 65 years later that promise to America's working people remains unfulfilled despite many achievements by organized labor on behalf of America's working families. Unions have made tremendous improvements in the quality of life and standard of living of their members and their families. Union workers earn 28 percent more than nonunion workers, and union women earn 31 percent more than nonunion women workers. Unions have made dramatic improvements in the economic status of minority Americans: African American union members earn 37 percent more than nonunionists, and Hispanic workers increase their earnings about 55 percent through union membership. Ninety percent of union workers have pension benefits compared to only 76 percent of nonunion workers, and 86 percent have health care benefits compared to 74 percent of nonunion workers. Only 50 percent of the nonunion have short-term disability benefits, compared to 73 percent of union workers. And the union workers, on an average, enjoy twice the job stability of their nonunion counterparts. American workers and their families, whether union or not, enjoy a higher quality of life, greater freedoms, greater opportunities, greater political influence and greater health because of the union movement in the United States. Because of the many hard-fought battles over the last century and a quarter, most Americans can take a weekend off. Most Americans only work 8 hours a day rather than 10 or 12. In their later years, most Americans have pension plans, health insurance, as well as Social Security and Medicare that union support made possible and protects today. Given this great heritage, many question why the number of workers who are members of unions has decreased. Perhaps unions are victims of their own success at times. They have raised the quality of life for millions who never carried a union card. But there is another explanation and the Congress needs to pay it closer attention and address the shortcomings of current labor law. Congress sends millions of dollars to build democratic institutions in other countries, and one of the measurements of success is the creation of a free trade movement with the right to strike and engage in collective bargaining and political activity. That is a measure of political health. But it is often not the case in the United States. Unions and the men and women who would form and join them are the victims of grossly unfair bias under the current labor laws. The decks are stacked against those seeking to create a union. The law grants numerous advantages to employers that facilitate their efforts to prevent fair elections and successful collective bargaining. Let me give you a few examples. The Wagner Act says a laborer may not be fired for trying to form or join a union. However, the only remedy for an unlawful discharge is to grant the worker back pay and reinstatement. As anyone familiar with labor law knows, it can easily take a year or more to litigate the unlawful discharge case. While that may be fine for an employers' association, few workers can afford to go several years without a job. Nor does the back pay of money that should have been earned to compensate a worker for the damages suffered as a result of having no income for 6 months. The worker receives no compensation to account for the new clothes that the worker could not provide for his child. The worker receives no compensation for the car or home that was repossessed. These are just the beginning of some of the unfair labor practices that exist in current law in this country. We will continue this discussion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is not bad enough that the energy wholesalers selling energy into California have been able to continue to gouge the California consumer, California families and small businesses, but now we see that the energy companies have joined with the White House, joined with the Republicans in Congress to launch a campaign that, according to CNN, may spend upwards to $50 million by the energy companies to convince Californians that price caps on wholesale energy costs would be bad for them. The suggestion is that somehow the price gouging that is going on now in California and in the western United States is good for consumers. Yet, we see that, in California, more and more households are unable to pay their energy bills. More and more small businesses are at risk or have already gone out of business because of energy costs. We are starting to see individuals make decisions about locating businesses in California. The White House and its buddies in the energy business ought to stay out of this. What they ought to do is stop gouging the people in California.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, those of us living in California have reached a critical point in determining how Congress and the President will address the West Coast Energy Crisis. Earlier today, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce canceled its consideration of a bill that would have prevented price-gouging and blackouts in California and other Western States. The President and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have said ``no'' time after time to Californians. Now it looks like the Republicans in Congress are saying ``no'' to California; also, ``we will not help you.'' This is very disturbing. The West Coast energy crisis threatens not only the health of our economy, but the health of our citizens, because the blackouts roll out through hospitals, through disabled individuals living in their own homes, in nursing homes and other facilities across our State. The President has said no. The Federal Energy Commission has said no, because they believe that price caps will not help the situation. The President recently said in his visit to California that price caps would not help California, they would not increase supply or reduce demand. Yet we see that 10 of this Nation's leading economists wrote the President to politely disagree with him. They, in fact, made a very strong case. The cost-based price caps temporarily, until the energy supply can be reached in California, would, in fact, help stabilize, stabilize the supply of energy to California. A majority of Americans recently expressed their opinions in the Washington Post, where 58 percent said they favored temporary price caps. Much of the energy crisis in California is beyond our own control, and certainly in the rest of the West. Because we are in the second driest year on record, we do not have the water behind the dams because of the drought to create hydroelectric power. The American people understand this, but the Republicans in Congress do not, the President of the United States does not, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not. What is very disturbing is we watched the President develop an energy policy as we started to see the closeness between the administration, the White House and America's mainline energy companies. This past weekend we saw disclosed the strong personal financial ties of top members of the Bush administration's energy team to those very same energy generators. Many of us have been concerned about this for some time, but we now saw evidence of it. Chief political strategist Karl Rove had a $100,000 to $250,000 investment in Enron, one of the major marketers of energy on the West Coast. Lawrence Lindsay gained $50,000 as a consulting fee from Enron. Condoleeza Rice, the National Security Advisor, $250,000 to $500,000 in Chevron and earned $60,000 as the director on the Chevron Board of Directors. Clay Johnson, director of the President's personnel, held stock valued between $100,000 and $250,000 in El Paso Energy Partners, a Houston oil and natural gas company, involved in the West Coast energy problems. The Washington Post also says that Mr. Johnson has been involved in selecting the people who will serve on the Federal Energy Commission, the very same people who will be regulating the companies in which he has a financial interest. Many of us were concerned that they were creating an office of special interest in the White House, and I think that concern is starting to come forward. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is kind of interesting is when we look at the President's energy policy and we look at the annual report of Exxon-Mobil, we find that many of the same consistencies are there. We see in the President's energy policy that he shows us that, in fact, they have energy for a new century, and here we have offshore oil drilling that is familiar to us; we have been doing it for many, many years. When we pick up the Exxon-Mobil annual report, we see the same dedication. This is not about energy for a new century, this is about an old fossil fuel-dependent economy from which America must move on. Exxon wants to highlight its drilling techniques. We see the drilling techniques that show us that from one rig one can drill a number of different pockets of oil, one can do directional drilling, and one can reduce the supply. We go back to the President's energy policy, and we see that, in fact, we have essentially the same graphs, the same pictures, telling us that this is the way that we can get into the ANWR Wildlife Refuge, that if we drill it just the way that Exxon told us we could in their report, all things would be fine and there would be no environmental damage. Again, we see the closeness of the two. It goes on until we see the same points being made about refinery capacity, the same pictures, the same discussion. The time has come for the administration to separate itself from a very old and tired energy policy, and to move on and engage the full ingenuity and the talent of the American economy and its creative energies and to move on to renewables, to move on to replaceable energy supplies so that America, in fact, can move on with its economy and its families will not have to continue to be gouged because of the greed of the same energy generators who are doing it on the West Coast of the United States.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, Americans of all political stripes place a very high value on the protection of our environment and public lands. President Bush recently visited the Everglades National Park in Florida, and previous to that he visited Sequoia National Park in California. These photo opportunities are intended to portray an image of a President who cares about the environment. But these Presidential visits are inadequate; and they are also inaccurate because, while the President visits two of our most treasured parks, he and his administration are planning to throw open the door of the public lands of this Nation to increased drilling, mining, logging, road building and contamination of these very public lands. Madam Speaker, these public lands are every bit as important as the national parks that the President has visited. His administration continues to threaten the very stewardship of those public lands and opportunities for American citizens to enjoy them not only throughout the summer months but year around. His administration continues to threaten the Sierra Nevada Conservation Plan, which is about the integrity and the survival of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the forest in those mountains in California. Madam Speaker, the President refuses to move forward on the Giant Sequoia National Monument proposal. Mr. President, what we need is your vision for the environment, not just another visit.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the following names of Members as original cosponsors of H.R. 1990. These names were inadvertently included as cosponsors of H.R. 1990. I also ask that the first printing of the bill reflect these changes: Sanford Bishop, Georgia; Luis Gutierrez, Illinois; Dennis Kucinich, Ohio; Patsy Mink, Hawaii; Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia; Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois; David Bonior, Michigan; Elijah Cummings, Maryland; Benjamin Gilman, New York; Ruben Hinojosa, Texas; Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas; Steve LaTourette, Ohio; Constance Morella, Maryland; Major Owens, New York; and Robert C. Scott, Virginia. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit to my colleagues in the House the Act to Leave No Child Behind. Today I am joined by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, and the Gentleman from California, Mr. Stark, in announcing its introduction. An Act to Leave No Child Behind has ambitious but achievable goals: to eliminate child poverty, end child hunger, prepare children to enter school ready to learn, and provide children with health insurance and other vital services necessary for the successful development of America's children. Our bill is a road map for the safe and healthy development of America's children. America must make a choice when it comes to the future of our neediest children. We must choose whether we will invest in the healthy development of our children or in the richest one percent of taxpayers in this country. We cannot do both. This bill represents a vision and a commitment toward a future where all children have a chance to succeed. An Act to Leave No Child Behind, combines several pieces of legislation that could be acted upon separately at the appropriate time. Taken together, however, this bill moves us forward on the path where all children have quality health care, educational opportunity, quality child care and safe communities. This legislation provides every child and their parents with health insurance, lifts every child from poverty through tax credits, work supports, and a new minimum wage, and ends child hunger through the expansion of food programs. This bill makes sure every child is ready for school by fully funding quality early learning programs, and offers significant reforms for our system of public education that increases accountability, reduces classroom size, and guarantees that all children will be taught by qualified teachers in modem and safe classrooms. This legislation also addresses the issue of affordable housing and safe communities through sensible environmental protections, gun safety laws, and programs to reduce children's exposure to neglect, abuse, and violence. I am so proud to have working with me on this legislation, my friend Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and the Children's Defense Fund. Despite President Bush's use of the term, it was in fact the Children's Defense Fund that trademarked the phrase ``Leave No Child Behind'' in 1994. And it has been justified in using it ever since as it has waged a relentless battle to knock America's political establishment to its senses on behalf of our neediest children. This bill is the real deal-- it is the real Act to Leave No Child Behind. It addresses the most important issue facing our country--the children who have been and continue to be left behind. We understand that our bill is asking for a significant commitment in federal resources to help children. But we think that is the right direction for us to take. We also strongly believe that we have the resources for this effort. And, perhaps most important, we understand that the continued neglect of the real needs of children has come at a great price and will continue to cost our society--and these children--dearly. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Act to Leave No Child Behind.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that response.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no opposition to this amendment with the gentleman's explanation that he just gave that there is no intent here to prohibit essay or short responses on test questions, and we support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that we have no opposition to this, but I would like just for a second to follow up on what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, because I think as we try to determine the role, the proper role, if you will, for testing, I think that the gentleman from Indiana made some very good points. We ought not to be, and I think that the concern of people who voted against testing in many instances, in talking to them, was that we were trying to use tests for things that they were not properly designed for. The States are controlling this, but I think they clearly have to start thinking about, does this test accurately give us a picture that allows us to make some assessments, or is that an improper use of that exam, and what vehicles could we use to do the diagnostic work that the gentleman talked about so that we could then concentrate the resources on a child that is struggling with math or with reading and get that child up to speed. The test does not necessarily tell us that, so we would hope that in this consideration of the proper role of testing that the States would think that through, because obviously, as we see around the country, there are many communities, many parents, many educators who are very, very concerned about the valid use of testing. I certainly believe that is a key component of the accountability provisions of this law, and I think this amendment helps us in that regard.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment. We have no opposition to it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, America does something that no other country in the world does: It makes a commitment to a child born in this Nation that we will provide them a public education. A free education. We have been doing it throughout most of the history of this country, and we have done a remarkable job. Not a perfect job, not a job that is acceptable to all of us, but we have done a remarkable job. No other country in history has attempted to do what we do here, to take children from any background, to take children of any status and say we commit to them that we are going to provide them an education. What has been the result of that basic foundation of American society? The basic foundation of American society. The result is the greatest economy in the history of the world; more patents, more inventions than any country in the world, the freest country in the world, the greatest democracy in the world, a public discourse, and more tolerance than any other country in the world. That is not to suggest the landscape in America is perfect; that it does not have its problems; that we do not have our pockets of trouble. We do. We do. But to come along now and to suggest that we are going to start draining the resources from the public school education system in this country so that we can hold out to somebody the idea that they are going to go and take that $500, and they are going to get a private school education is simply to mislead those individuals. It is simply to mislead those individuals. The harm it does is in draining the resources that are necessary. We recognize in this legislation, the President of the United States recognizes in this legislation, Democrats recognize in this legislation, and Republicans recognize in this legislation that there are schools that are failing. We make a commitment to fix the failing schools; not run away from them, not leave children behind in those schools, but to fix those schools. That is our obligation. That is the bedrock of this Nation. That is what distinguishes us in so many ways. We should not give up on that now and turn tail and run. In this bill we provide the resources so that we can fix those schools. That is what this President has said he wanted to do. This Congress took him at his word. Those resources were put into this legislation. And now we are going to find out, because governors are on notice and school boards are on notice and parents are on notice. We should not give up on a system that has done something that no other country in the world has done, and has given us what America enjoys and benefits from today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time for the purposes of closing to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on this side of the aisle have already laid out the situation that we find ourselves in. Passage of this amendment, in fact, breaks the arrangement and the deal that we have with respect to this legislation. Let us look at why we have added the increases that we have in this legislation. We have added the increases in this legislation because we think they are important to bringing about the reforms that many in this Congress have said, many on both sides of the aisle, but also what clearly this President of the United States has said that he wants to achieve in terms of the results. Yes, that chart that was just held up by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), and earlier held up a number of times by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), tells us a story that we are not particularly proud of. But that is because in the past, generally, when we have authorized this legislation, we have not put in the accountability provisions that are in this bill. So these school districts that have among the highest percentages of poor children of any school districts in the Nation, very often they are also the poorest school districts because they do not have very high assessed evaluations, so certainly they are not receiving the resources that are necessary that they receive, or we would not have this program, because the States have already made the determination to not provide them the equalized funding. But among these, the poorest school districts with the poorest children, as the President will point out, and the poorest performing children, under this legislation, within 4 years they are going to have to have a qualified teacher in every classroom. Today they have teachers on emergency credentials. Today they have teachers on provisional credentials. They are going to have to get those teachers trained, certified and qualified to teach in the subject matter in which they are teaching. That does not come free. They are going to be held accountable, not just for the average, how the average child is doing in the school district, but they are going to be held accountable for every poor child, for every minority child, for every limited English-speaking child in that school district. They are going to have to have the results that suggest that they are making the yearly progress. They are going to be held to yearly standards on making that progress according to the standards selected by the States. That is why we need new resources. That is why it is not a question of whether it is 11 percent or not, it is a question of whether or not we are adequately prepared to fund and to provide these kids an opportunity and a first class education. Because even with this effort, almost all of these children will not have the financial resources available to them that many of our children have had available to them in the schools where they have gone. That is why they are among some of the least performing schools in our system. So let us understand that this is a very different arrangement than what the Congress has done in the past. There is a huge lobby in this town that is against this bill, because they are for the status quo. They are not for testing. They are not for accountability. They are just for Federal dollars. And what we have said in this legislation is we are not going there again. We are not going to have this, the first education bill of the millennium. We are not going to have this, when we just put the money on the table. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) says, they just come by and take it. No, if you want to sign up for this, you are going to be held accountable and you have to have first class programs for all of the children, all of the children, and they deserve them.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say this about this amendment to cut these education monies for the poorest children in our society and the poorest school districts in our society. Mr. Chairman, we have to put it in context. We have to put it in context. We are going to finish this bill in the next hour. Then we are going to have a motion to go to conference on a tax bill, a $1.3 trillion tax bill that is going to spend 13 times as much on the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country than we are going to spend in all of this legislation. Some on that side of the aisle would think that the rich do not have enough money and the poor have too much. This money is absolutely essential in this bill if in fact we are going to bring about the reforms that almost every Member in this body has said that he or she wants for their school districts, for the children who reside in those school districts, and if we are in fact going to have those reforms result in the results that we all say we want in terms of the performance of our students. They can chop the money, but they should not come telling me they want the same results. They cannot bring about these reforms on the cheap. They cannot do that. So if we put it in the context of what else this Congress is doing, we tried to explain, it would be difficult to do a first class job on education and also to have a $1 trillion tax cut, but they have made those choices. However, we ought not now, in the same night we are going to do the $1 trillion tax cut, take away from the poorest children in this country their one chance at education, opportunity, and accountability that they have been denied for so very long. That is what we have to understand. That is why we have got to reject the Cox amendment and stay with the bill that was reported from the committee, that was reported out with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.

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