George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today reflects the culmination of a lot of work and effort by all of the members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I particularly want to thank the members of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who are part of the working group. But I want to extend that thanks to every member of the committee, all of whom had to stretch to try to bring this legislation together to try to create sound educational reform and improvement along the lines that so many Members of Congress have spoken about in our various debates, in our campaigns, talking to children and parents to try to make the American education system a better place for all of our students so they can acquire the skills necessary to participate to the fullest extent in American society. I believe that this legislation does that. It does that because of the kind of cooperation that we received. However, I must say that I am very disappointed in the rule because I am very concerned that very crucial items for debate within the discussion of the American education system, those amendments were not allowed in order: Amendments offered by Members on this side of the aisle to deal with the issues of smaller class size, to make sure that in fact we have an environment in which teachers can teach and children can learn; to have modern and safe schools; to renovate the unsafe schools and improve schools through school construction grants; to make sure that we have adequate counselors in schools so if we see violence break out in some of our campuses, even to the extent of killings through gun violence and other forms of violence, that we have people in place who can deal with these student populations, in many cases in very difficult situations; and clearly the need for full funding for IDEA. Mr. Speaker, this is important to all of us on both sides of the aisle to make sure that funding is there. For that reason, I would ask Members to vote against this rule so that perhaps those amendments could be made in order.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is a fast-moving train or a slow-moving train, but I get the sense this is like that train yesterday with no driver. It is very toxic and it is going real fast down the tracks, and there is nobody in the engine. What this tax cut is going to do is in fact it is going to be toxic to the rest of the priorities in this Nation. Tomorrow we are going to start the debate on the elementary-secondary school act, and we are going to bring a bill out here that not only will provide major reforms within our school systems, but it will provide the resources to bring about those reforms that the President has said he has wanted, that the Congress has said they wanted, Republicans and Democrats alike. But this vote today will cause us to pass a tax bill that will strip all of the money away that is in that bill for the next 5 years for elementary and secondary education. Because when you take the budget as it was passed, as it was impacted by this tax bill, the President's budget went from some money to education to no money in the future for education. The reforms will not come about, the school improvement will not come about, because that is the real price of this tax cut; it infringes on every American school child's education.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the majority leader a question about the committee during the deliberations on H.R. 1, the education bill. During the consideration of H.R. 1, the education bill, in the committee a number of Members on both sides of the aisle withheld amendments during that consideration on the assumption that they would then be able to have an opportunity to offer those amendments on the floor. I have been having Members ask me all day about potential amendments. Has the gentleman given any consideration with the Committee on Rules on the kind of rule, the time that might be allotted to this legislation?

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, by May 4, 2001, the Bush administration must publicly reveal its plans to either protect forests or continue to allow the construction of roads into our nation's remaining pristine forest areas. For the past thirty years, Congress has been part of the debate over protecting national forests from activities that put economic interests above ecological concerns. We have had debate after debate on the merits of a 380,000 mile road network, the role of taxpayer dollars in expanding the existing network, and the appropriate balance between preservation and multiple-use. News reports indicate that the Bush Administration plans to dilute or overturn the historic roadless conservation plan proposed under the Clinton Administration. Over 1 million Americans submitted comments to the Forest Service during the lengthy public comment period in which over 600 public hearings were held, including at least one hearing for each national forest that might be affected by the policy. More Americans spoke out in favor of this historic conservation plan than on any other federal rule-making in history. The public is clear-- it wants to protect America's remaining pristine forests. The problem that the Bush Administration faces on this issue is that some very powerful--if narrow--special interests do not want what the public wants. They want new roads built in the remaining 31 percent of our national forests where today there are no roads for the purposes of logging, mining, and oil and gas drilling. Mr. Speaker, these special interests are not concerned about the tradeoff between the long-term ecological damage caused by those activities and the very limited amount of natural resources available for extraction if new roads are to be built. They are not concerned about the fact that more communities depend on fresh water from national forests than from extractive industries. They are not concerned that the recreational value of our national forests is of critical importance to the majority of Americans and that roadbuilding often conflicts with recreational opportunities. Congress has learned, after many pitched battles, that the public does not want to pay for constructing new roads into the remaining portions of our national forests that are undisturbed. My fear is that the Administration has not learned this. With all due respect to the President, his administration should spend more time protecting America's environment and public lands and less time protecting the special interest corporations who clearly have captured his attention. But I am pleased to say that over 130 of my Democratic Colleagues have joined me in urging President Bush to immediately implement the forest conservation policy that was finalized on January 12--without loopholes and without delays. In March, 22 Republican colleagues wrote their own letter to the President with the same message. The American public should know that some of us in Congress have heard their appeal on protecting the remaining forests in which there are no roads. But they need to be equally aware that the Administration has already shown its willingness to ignore public sentiment in its zeal to please its special interest allies. President Bush abandoned his pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, for example, and he appears to be close to abandoning his pledge not to drill for oil off of Florida's protected coastline. We must assume then that he will be willing to ignore public sentiment again and open our remaining pristine forests to road- building despite the public's opposition to such a move. We are sending a clear message to the President to protect our remaining forests. We hope that he will heed our call and the call of the American people. I submit for the Record a copy of the letter that I and over 130 of my colleagues sent to President Bush on Wednesday, May 2, 2001. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 1, 2001. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: By May 4, 2001, your Administration must publicly articulate its policy on the protection of roadless areas in our national forests. There are few public land issues of greater import to the majority of Americans. Many of us in Congress care deeply about carefully managing America's critical natural resources and protecting the remaining pristine areas in our national forests. The Roadless Area Conservation Policy finalized by the Forest Service on January 12, 2001 represents a balanced, scientifically based, publicly supported policy. We strongly urge you to immediately implement the policy as finalized, without exceptions or loopholes. As you know, the Roadless Area Conservation Policy will protect 58.5 million acres of pristine national forest land. This balanced policy protects the remaining pristine regions of our national forests from logging, mining, and energy exploration, while allowing those activities to proceed on the majority of national forest lands. Currently, our national forests contain over 383,000 miles of roads. The forest conservation policy does not limit public access on the current road infrastructure or regulate off-road vehicle use. Nor does the policy limit recreation opportunities. The policy does allow the Forest Service to concentrate its efforts on addressing the tremendous maintenance backlog instead of constructing expensive and controversial new roads which will add to the maintenance burden in the future. America's leading scientists have repeatedly informed us that the roadless portions of our national forests are not only the most significant habitat for fish and wildlife, but are critical sources of clean drinking water for over 60 million Americans. As our population grows and open space succumbs to development, watersheds on public lands are increasingly important. The forest conservation policy is the result of an unprecedented public input process and has overwhelming public support. Claims by opponents of this policy that it is just an 11th hour regulation by the previous Administration are unfounded. The debate over roadless area management has been fought in the courts and the Congress for over 30 years. The path towards an affirmative policy on roadless area management began in January 1998 with the Forest Service's announcement of a proposed road-building moratorium. The final policy released on January 12, 2001 received more public comment than any other federal rulemaking process in our nation's history. It is a product of over 600 public meetings, including several in every single The Roadless Area Conservation Policy is not a partisan issue. It is about the future of our national forests and our ability as a nation to manage them in a sustainable manner and to the benefit of all the diverse interests who seek their use. We implore you not to cash in on the short-term and short-sighted opportunity to extract resources from our pristine forests in a manner that will permanently diminish them. Instead, we urge you to take the opportunity now before you to preserve these forests for future generations. We appreciate your consideration of our views and we look forward to working with you to ensure that America's great forest legacy will be preserved. Sincerely, George Miller, Nick Rahall, Jay Inslee, Maurice Hinchey, Frank Pallone, James Moran, Richard Gephardt, David Bonior, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Ellen Tauscher, Mark Udall. Original cosponsors continued: J. Maloney, Blagojevich, Doggett, Kilpatrick, Capuano, Levin, Clement, Baldwin, Roybal-Allard, Clay, McKinney, Kennedy, Delahunt, T. Udall, Allen, Rangel, Hoyer, Honda, Harman, Eshoo, Schiff, Neal, Olver, Holt, Lee, Millender-McDonald, W. Jefferson, John Lewis, D. Price, S. Brown, Borski, E.B. Johnson, A. Smith, Tierney, Filner, Frank, McGovern, DeGette, Kildee, Markey, DeLauro, Ford, Farr. Clayton, Solis, Evans, McCollum, Napolitano, Wexler, Crowley, Hastings, Blumenauer, McDermott, Nadler, Gordon, Matsui, Waters, Boucher, D. Davis, Towns, Woolsey, Rivers, Baldacci, Pascrell, Larsen, Hoeffel, Rush, Serrano, Kaptur, Stark, Conyers, Moore, Capps, Lantos, Sanders, Ackerman, S. Davis, Wu, McNulty, LaFalce, Berkley, Larson, Cummings, Hooley, Menendez, Rothman, Velazquez, B. Thompson. Abercrombie, Watt, Berman, Becerra, Matheson, Lowey, Kucinich, Deutsch, Schakowsky, Mink, Sanchez, C. Brown, Meehan, Scott, DeFazio, Gonzalez, Wynn, Bentsen, Langevin, Green, Gutierrez, Payne, Jones, Meek, Jackson, Jr., Hinojosa, Reyes, C. Maloney, C. McCarthy, Fattah, Sabo, Norton, K. McCarthy, Weiner, Andrews, Slaughter.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of efforts of the International Labor Organization (ILO) to ensure that the core labor standards are applied and enforced in every workplace around the world. The international community has defined these four core labor standards: (1) freedom of association and collective bargaining; (2) prohibition of forced labor; (3) prohibition of child labor; and (4) prohibition of workplace discrimination. These labor standards are the most basic and fundamental rights of workers everywhere, and almost every government in the world has pledged to uphold them. Yet many governments, including our own, too often turn a blind eye when these fundamental rights are violated. Too many workers around the world face illegal firings, death threats and even assassination when they try to utilize their freedom of association by joining a union. Last year alone, more than 100 union leaders in Colombia were murdered, and the Colombian government has granted the perpetrators of these assassinations virtual impunity. Closer to home, every year an estimated 10,000 American workers are fired just for exercising their right to join a union. Long after the abolition of slavery, forced labor has now resurfaced in the global economy. Too many women and men are tricked into debt schemes and then forced into indentured servitude, as we continue to see happening under the American Flag in places like the Northern Marina Islands and most recently in American Samoa. And let us be clear: these kinds of abuses, deceptive labor practices, often involving foreign nationals seeking to improve their lives by migrating to the United States, are not uncommon on the U.S. mainland, either. Too many children still spend their days in front of a sewing machine instead of in front of a desk in a school. And too many completely qualified individuals are still fired simply because of their race, sex, age, religion or sexual orientation. Our challenge is to actually enforce the fundamental, rights that have been agreed to by all of the member nations of the ILO. And the first step in enforcement is ensuring that workers, employers and communities across the globe are aware of the fundamental labor rights. That is why I rise today in favor of the ILO's global campaign to hang this poster, which simply lists the four core labor standards, in every workplace in every country of the world. This poster alone is not a substitute for trade agreements that enforce the core labor standards, but it is an important start. Those multinational corporations that subject their employees to poverty wages and dangerous working conditions are only going to change those practices when all of their employees know about these rights and have the ability to demand them within the legal process.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating John M. Powers on the occasion of his retirement as the City Attorney for thirty years for the city of Vallejo, California. John was born July 7, 1938, in Oakland, California. He attended grammar school in Oakland, and graduated from St. Mary's High School in Berkeley in 1956. Four years later he graduated from St. Mary's College in Moraga, California, majoring in economics, with a minor in political science. He obtained his Bachelor of Law degree from the University of California School of Law, Boalt Hall, in Berkeley, California, in June 1963. He passed the State Bar Examination in San Francisco in August 1963. Prior to engaging in the practice of law full-time, John served with the Army on active duty from December 1963 to June 1964. He then became a reservist with the California Army National Guard. In July 1964, John came to Solano County as a Deputy County Counsel under County Counsel Jim Shumway and remained in that position until April 1967, when he was named assistant to County Counsel Milton G. Goldinger. Among other duties, John attended meetings of the Board of Supervisors, represented the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District and various school districts, along with the Sheriff, Assessor, Tax Collector, and Judges. He also once represented the Solano County Community College District. John Powers was appointed Vallejo's first full-time, in-house City Attorney in March, 1971. Some of his accomplishments include actively participating in the numerous transactions relative to the conversion and reuse of the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard; representing the City of Vallejo in litigation challenging the relocation of Marine World/Africa USA (now Six Flags Marine World) from Redwood City to Vallejo that resulted in a stipulated settlement after the Court denied petitioners' application for injunctive relief, and preparing the contract between the City of Vallejo and the Vallejo City Unified School District providing for the financing arrangements for the renovation of Corbus Field at Vallejo Senior High School. He also provided legal services including review of articles of incorporation and by-laws, and assistance with organization of the board of directors for the formation of VALCORE (Vallejo Community Organizations Recycling) in 1981, and the Mare Island Historic Park Foundation. John has represented the City of Vallejo and its various officers and employees in personal injury and civil rights litigation and lawsuits involving the assistance or denial of land use, zoning and other planning approvals and entitlements. He has also drafted or reviewed and approved many ordinances, resolutions, legal opinions, contracts and other documents essential to the operation of the City of Vallejo municipal government. Over the years, several of John's deputies have gone on to become well-established attorneys for other cities, including William Galstan to Antioch, Chuck Lamoree to Vacaville (via a stint as Solano County Counsel), and Michael Rousch to Pleasanton. John has performed many forms of volunteer work during his tenure as City Attorney. One of the most notable was the many hours he worked with the committee that renovated Corbus Field at Vallejo Senior High School. His efforts with the fundraising project to replace the field lighting led to a fund with his name, ``The Powers Lighting Fund''. John spent many active years as a volunteer with the Silverado Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America, serving as Council President for two terms as a member of the Executive Board. John currently is a member of the California State Bar and the Solano County Bar Association. He is also a member of the Native Sons of the Golden West, the Executive Lions of Vallejo (where he was a charter member and past president), and the Order of the Sons of Italy in America. John has been, and continues to be, very well respected in the City of Vallejo and Solano County, both in his role as a government official and as a member of the community. John's expertise, knowledge and sense of dedication will be deeply missed. John lives in Vallejo with his wife of 37 years, Sharon. They have three adult children: Rhonda, Lisa, and Michael; and two grandchildren, Jack and Joe. I know I speak for all the members when I wish John M. Powers a very happy and health retirement, and when I thank him for the many contributions he has made to our community.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing legislation to reauthorize and amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA)--the keystone federal law that directs the delivery of health services to American Indian and Alaska Native people. This bill is based largely upon recommendations made by the Indian health community--including tribal leaders, tribal health directors, health care experts, Native patients themselves, and the Indian Health Service. Its primary objective is to improve access to quality medical care for this population. The basic framework of the IHCIA is retained, including its provisions that target diseases for which Indian Country shows an astonishingly high rate--such as diabetes, tuberculosis, infant mortality, and substance abuse. The major revisions come in the following areas: Greater role for tribes in health care delivery, including local priority-setting. Authorization for a national certified Community Health Aide Program to supply medical care in under-served, remote areas. Innovative options for funding of Indian health facilities. Strengthening health programs that serve Indian people in urban areas. Consolidation of substance abuse, mental health and social service programs into a holistic system for behavioral health services. While there have certainly been improvements in the health status of Indian and Alaska Native people in the past two decades, Native people still suffer death rates from some diseases at rates many times higher than the national population. The Indian health care network is the primary source of medical care for over 1.3 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Indian Health Service administers this comprehensive health care network largely in partnership with Indian tribes themselves who have assumed an increasingly greater role in operating health programs vital to the well-being of their members. The IHCIA was first enacted in 1976 to present a more organized and comprehensive approach to the delivery of medical care to Indian people, most of whom live in isolated, sparsely-populated and under- served areas of our country. Subsequent reauthorization, has amended the Act to reflect advancements in health care delivery, respond to the desire of tribes for greater responsibility of programs, and to target the high incidence of certain diseases that have plagued this segment of the American population. I plan to work with my Republican colleagues to ensure that this bill is a high priority for the House Committee on Resources, which should expedite consideration of this measure. It is my hope that Congress will have wisdom and courage to enact this important legislation this year.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues Mr. Gilman, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Scott, and Mrs. Davis in introducing the FOCUS Act. This legislation would be an important step in increasing child care quality for all children. As we all know, high quality child care can play an important role in healthy child development and school-readiness. One of the most critical components of quality child care is a stable and qualified teaching staff. Yet, child care staff--who have the responsibility of helping guide children's development--are among the lowest paid workers in America. In 1999, the average hourly wage for a child care provider was $7.42, which is approximately $15,430 annually. Moreover, most providers do not receive health insurance or paid leave. Academic and government studies conclude that low pay is one of the leading causes of poor quality child care. The annual turnover rate is about 30 percent. Low wages keeps qualified providers from remaining in the field and deters new providers from entering the field. A report released April 29th by the Center for Child Care Workforce and the University of California Berkeley found that centers are losing qualified staff because of low wages and are forced to hire less qualified replacements. The six-year study also found that not only are wages extremely low, but they are not keeping pace with cost of living increases. States report centers are closing or turning away children because they cannot properly staff their programs. FOCUS directly addresses the problems low pay creates by providing stipends to qualified child care staff based on the level of education. This legislation would be a mechanism to assist states increase the pay of child care workers and to improve the overall quality of child care. The bill would supplement wages by a minimum of $1000 per year for providers with child development associate credentials and a minimum of $3000 per year for providers with B.A.'s in the area of child development. These stipends will help attract new qualified workers to the field and increase the retention and skill level of current workers. FOCUS also would provide funds for scholarships so that we can continue to increase the qualifications of the child care workforce. Research on early childhood and brain development clearly demonstrates that the experiences children have early in life have a decisive, long-lasting impact on their later development and learning. We cannot expect children to transition to kindergarten and succeed in school if we do not take the necessary steps to provide quality care in the years prior to school entry. The average quality of child care is far poorer that what it should be in a country as wealthy and committed to our children's future as is ours. It is time we work to make quality child care for all children a national priority. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Focus Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Affordable Student Loan Act, which I am introducing today. Student loans--like Pell grants and work-study jobs--are essential to providing all Americans with the opportunity to earn a college degree. Now more than ever, a college education is one of the best investments of a lifetime. In the workplace, a college degree is worth 75 percent more than a high school diploma, or $600,000 over a career. Our children should pursue their academic dreams, but the loan burdens we ask them to shoulder are increasingly troubling. Student loan volume has more than doubled over the last seven years to $35 billion a year. The average student loan debt at four-year public colleges is $12,000. At four-year private colleges, it is $14,300. College graduates with high loan debts may think twice about entering public service, be more likely to default, and delay the purchase of their first home. To make matters worse, the Federal Government needlessly raises the cost of student loans by charging a fee of up to 4 percent of the loan principal. Students borrowing $1,000 actually receive as little as $960. However, they will still be expected to repay the full $1,000, plus interest. Nearly all of these fees--up to 3 percent on guaranteed student loans and up to 4 percent on direct student loans-- are origination fees, enacted in 1981 to reduce the deficit. Because their only purpose is to raise revenue, the fees are often called ``the student loan tax.'' They do not pay for administrative costs or serve any program purpose. Nor are the fees necessary to limit the federal cost of student loans. For example, on direct student loans, the Federal Government will ``earn'' more than $5 for every $100 in loans made this year, even after paying for all administrative and default costs. If Congress eliminated on all fees, students would still pay a surcharge--rather than receive a subsidy--on loans through the Direct Student Loan program this year. Students who borrow guaranteed loans also pay up to I percent insurance fee into reserve funds to pay future default costs. Because these reserve funds are larger than necessary to pay for defaulted loans, the large majority of guaranty agencies waive this fee. Finally, eliminating the fees will benefit all students. Over the last two years, the Department of Education reduced interest rates and fees on its direct student loans to match terms available from banks on federally guaranteed student loans. The lower rates will save students over $1 billion over the next five years, reduce defaults, and treat students in both the direct and guaranteed loan programs fairly. In response, a group of financial institutions sued Education to make direct loans more expensive for students and drum up business for their own student loans. The legislation I am introducing today will promote stability in the loan programs by resolving this dispute and benefiting students in both programs. It will leave students and schools free to choose among the programs based upon the quality of service they offer. Now is the time to end the student loan tax. The Affordable Student Loans Act will save the typical student roughly $400 on their loans and make college more affordable for students in both loan programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to also thank him for all of his work on our behalf as the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. We all recognize that we have an urgent national need in this country to make a greater investment in our education system so that we can help a greater number of our children succeed within that system. I had the honor and the pleasure of meeting with President Bush before he was sworn in to talk with him and a number of our colleagues about education reform in this country. We talked about the things that needed to be done: to make schools more accountable, to make teachers more accountable, to improve the professional development of teachers, to make sure that we could direct the resources, as he said, to the poorest children in the poorest performing schools. But we also said in that meeting that it was very clear that those things would not happen unless we had the resources that were necessary to provide those schools the quality education that we all want. I had an opportunity to meet several other times with him and with Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords and with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and again we talked about the kinds of reforms and the results that this President genuinely wants. We said again, Mr. President, if we are going to have testing and we are going to require all of the States to go about this, we are going to have to provide the resources. We are going to provide the resources so that, in fact, it can be done in the right way, not in the wrong way, not in a way that is harmful. If we are really going to help these children and we are going to get qualified teachers in front of them on a daily basis, we are going to have to improve the quality of these teachers. It is going to take resources. He assured us that he recognized that and he understood that. Now, when I see the budget, I am deeply disappointed, because a decision was made here between the times of those meetings and the times of this budget that those resources would be put off into the tax cut. Now we find that the amount of the tax cut that goes to the richest 1 percent of the people in this country is 13 times the amount we would spend on education in this budget, 13 times the amount on the richest 1 percent, and yet we have a huge number of children who are not getting access to a decent, first-class education, who are not having the kinds of reforms that the President wants, that I want, and that many of my colleagues in the Congress want, will not bring about the results that we want, that every parent wants for their child in the American education system. Mr. Speaker, we urgently need these resources. We urgently need these resources because our schools are educating more children now than at any time in our history. They are educating more children with English as a second language, children with disabilities. These are expensive items, and we owe these children an education, and we have to make sure that they have an opportunity to participate in it. That is not what this budget does. It is not an 11 percent increase, as is well documented by the minority on the Committee on the Budget and our committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We are talking about a 5 percent increase. We are talking about the smallest increase in many years, and that is simply not adequate to get the results that the President says he wants and to get them for the children that he has quite properly focused on in his discussion of education, the children that are in most need of these resources so that they can get the same access to an education that children get in the wealthier schools and in the middle-class schools. But we cannot do it on this budget. We cannot do it on this budget. This budget suggests that we are going to try to get first-class, world- class standards in education attainment on behalf of America's children, but we are going to do it on the cheap, and that would be a horrible mistake, because that will lock us into another 5 years of spending without getting the results that the taxpayers deserve and that the children deserve in terms of their educational opportunity. So I commend the gentleman for the motion to instruct, to say that we should move toward the figures that the Senate has talked about and has suggested in their budget resolution, figures that will, in fact, provide us the kind of resources that are necessary for special education, for Title I, for English as a second language, so that we can hire the 100,000 counselors that are necessary, so that we can finish hiring the 100,000 teachers that have allowed us to reduce class sizes. Those are the urgent needs of the American education system, but they cannot be met in this budget without going with the numbers that are suggested in the motion to instruct.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincerest condolences to the families of the 42 individuals-- including 37 young school children--who died in a horrible explosion in China on March 6 of this year. This tragedy resulted from a situation of forced child labor in which the deceased third- and fourth-graders were required to spend long hours during the school day making firecrackers. Along with 16 co-sponsors, today I am introducing a bipartisan resolution that expresses condolences to the families of the deceased and expresses support for international trade agreements that will enforce the International Labor Organization's core labor standards, which include prohibition of child labor and forced labor. For years, the parents of children in the Fanglin elementary school, which is in a small village 40 miles southwest of Shanghai, had complained that their children were being forced by school officials to manufacture large firecrackers at school. Every day, the young children were required to spend hours mounting fuses and detonators into the firecrackers that were then sold by local officials. To ensure that their monetary intake remained high, the officials set a sliding production quota that started at 1,000 firecrackers per day for the youngest children and reached 10,000 firecrackers per day for the fifth-graders. It was only a matter of time before this disturbing example of forced and dangerous child labor would end in tragedy. On a Tuesday afternoon, the firecrackers exploded in the elementary school and took the lives of the 37 young children. Chinese Prime Minister Zhu immediately denied the use of forced child labor, and Communist Party officials invented a story about a ``mad man'' who entered the school and set off the explosion as part of his suicide attempt. However, thanks to the courageous and persistent reporting of both Chinese and international journalists, Prime Minister Zhu was eventually forced to acknowledge the true events of March 6. The forced labor and child labor in China violates several conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO), but unfortunately the ILO has no enforcement powers. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting a bipartisan House Resolution that expresses our condolences to the families of the deceased and urges strong international action to enforce the ILO core labor standards.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the ongoing wage and labor rights violations in factories operating in some of our American territories, and I ask that my colleagues join me in creating reforms that will finally ensure that all workplaces that operate under the American flag do so in compliance with federal law. I have been involved for a number of years in an effort to reduce the well-documented exploitation of temporary foreign workers, particularly Asian women, in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (US/CNMI). In the past few months, I have been troubled to leam that the practice of exploiting temporary workers has now spread to American Samoa. According to a recent Department of Labor investigation, the Daewoosa factory in the American Samoa employed 251 Vietnamese ``guest workers''--more than 90 percent of them women--for nearly two years under conditions of indentured servitude. These workers took on a debt of up to $8,000 dollars each in order to qualify for what they believed would be good jobs in America, but instead they were constantly paid less than the Samoan minimum wage of only $2.60 per hour. Sometimes the workers of the Daewoosa factory were not paid at all. Many workers also faced verbal, physical and sexual abuse, including a severe beating that caused one young woman to lose an eye. As a result of these violations, Daewoosa owner Kil Soo Lee now faces charges of forced labor in federal court. While I applaud the Federal Government for prosecuting this particular violator of labor laws, I believe we must take steps to ensure that these injustices never happen again. I urge my colleagues to read the following article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and consider whether they would ever tolerate such conditions and exploitation in their own districts. I also invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoiing legislation to bring all of the U.S. territories into compliance with the federal laws that protect workers throughout the United States. [From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Mar. 31, 2001] Hawaii Should Lead Fight To End Abuse of Workers in U.S. Territories The issue: Allegations that Asian workers were forced to work at an American Samoan garment sweatshop under inhuman conditions have resulted in federal charges here. Human rights and labor abuses uncovered on the Northern Marianas island of Saipan three years ago embarrassed U.S. garment manufacturers, resulting in lawsuits and federal legislation targeted for the islands north of Guam. Sweatshop conditions as bad if not worse in American Samoa have prompted criminal charges in federal court. The two cases suggest that U.S. territories in the Pacific have been vulnerable to such abuses far more than had been assumed. Reform legislation that failed in the last Congress should be rejuvenated and broadened to include all U.S. possessions. About 14,000 workers, mostly young women, from China, the Philippines, Bangladesh and Thailand were lured by promises of good wages to pay fees of up to $10,000 to enter the labor force in the Northern Marianas. In 1998, federal lawsuits accused 32 contractors on Saipan of beatings, forced abortions and rat-infested quarters in essentially a prison environment surrounded by barbed-wire and armed guards. Major clothing retailers in the United States that had bought garments sewn on Saipan settled lawsuits by agreeing to establish a $1.25 million fund to finance monitoring, compensate workers and create a public education program. Senator Akaka last year won Senate approval of a bill to extend U.S. immigration and minimum-wage laws to the Marianas and allow ``Made in the USA'' labels only on garments on which more than half the work had been done by American citizens. The measure died in the House. More recently, a Labor Department investigation has uncovered similar abuses in American Samoa, with work and living conditions so horrid that some garment workers, mostly women from Vietnam, looked like ``walking skeletons.'' Similar to the situation on Saipan, up to 250 workers had borrowed $2,000 to $7,000 each to acquire their jobs and fly from Vietnam or China to Saipan. Investigators found frequent violations of the Samoan minimum wage ($2.60 an hour) and numerous abuses, including the beating of workers and withholding of meals as a form of punishment. Daewoosa, a Korean-owned clothing manufacturer that had made apparel for J.C. Penney Co., closed the plant in January. A judge in Samoa placed Daewoosa under receivership after it failed to pay $600,000 in back wages and fines resulting from the Labor Department investigation. Penney had canceled contracts with the factory immediately after learning of the abuses. Daewoosa owner Kil Soo Lee now faces charges of involuntary servitude and forced labor in federal court in Honolulu. While the semiautonomous status of U.S. territories in the Pacific may vary, the conditions that were found on Saipan and Samoa should be condoned on none of them. As leaders of the U.S. community in the Pacific, Hawaii's congressional delegation should promote legislation to end these human- rights abuses.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Mr. Wicker, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Callahan, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Kingston in introducing legislation to extend and improve the National Writing Project. The knowledge and skill of a child's teacher is the single most important factor in the quality of his or her education. The National Writing Project is a nationwide program that works to improve students' writing abilities by improving the teaching of writing in the nation's schools. The National Writing Project serves a remarkable number of teachers and students on an exceptionally small budget. Last year, the National Writing Project trained 212,724 teachers and administrators nationwide through 167 writing project sites in 49 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. It has served over two million teachers and administrators over the last 25 years. For every federal dollar it receives, the National Writing Project raises about $7.00 in matching grants. This makes the National Writing Project one of the most cost-effective educational programs in the country. Furthermore, a national staff of only two people administers the National Writing Project. The use of limited federal funds to leverage large private investments is the most efficient way to use the budgeted funds available for the greatest possible return. The National Writing Project works. For example, in Chicago, students of National Writing Project teachers have shown significantly higher gains on the Illinois Goals Assessment Program writing tests when compared to student performance citywide. In an urban Sacramento, California high school, student performance on local writing assessments rose from lowest to highest in the district after an influx of National Writing Project teachers to the school, and college enrollment among this school's senior class rose 400 percent. The National Writing Project has received similarly impressive results all across this country. In fact, the National Writing Project has received glowing reviews from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the National Council of Teacher Education, the Council for Basic Education, and independent evaluators. The National Writing Project is efficient, cost-effective and successful. I look forward to working with my colleagues in enacting this important legislation. 21st CENTURY HIGHER EDUCATION INITIATIVE America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribally Controlled Colleges have provided millions of Americans from all backgrounds with rich and enduring higher education opportunities. They have developed innovative academic strategies, supported cutting edge research, and launched the careers of millions of today's leaders including scientists, doctors, teachers, lawyers, artists, entrepreneurs, and community and religious leaders. Today, these institutions face new challenges as they help prepare a new generation of Americans for the 21st century. To ensure that all Americans have access to high quality education, we must ensure that all students have the financial assistance and support to start and stay in college. And we must ensure that all higher education institutions have the resources to perform vital research, succeed and prosper. The ``21st Century Higher Education Initiative'' will substantially expand college opportunity through student aid and early intervention efforts; double resources to strengthen the infrastructure of minority-serving institutions; and harness the strengths of minority-serving institutions to prepare teachers and the high-tech workforce of tomorrow. It will: Help Make College Affordable for All Americans. Since the passage of the GI Bill of Rights, the federal government has been a key partner to states and colleges to give all students access to higher education. Millions of Americans from low and middle-income families have attended college because of federal financial aid. Despite record levels of college enrollment, however, students from poor families who graduate from high school attend college at half the rate students from affluent families. Among low-income students, minority students earn bachelor's degrees at a substantially lower rate than white students. This disparity of opportunity is unacceptable. To help remedy it, the Initiative would: Restore the purchasing power of Pell grants. The maximum Pell grant would increase from $3,750 to $7,000 over three years. Pell grants provide critical access to higher education, and are particularly important for minority students: About 45% of African-American and Hispanic students at four-year colleges depend on Pell grants, compared to 23% of all students. The purchasing power of the maximum Pell grant has eroded from 84% of the cost of a public university in 1976 to 39% today; a $7,000 grant would restore its purchasing power. Increase the Supplemental Equal Opportunity Grants by over $300 million over three years. The SEOG program provides critical grant assistance to low-income students whose need is not fully met by Pell grants. The initiative would authorize $1 billion for SEOG. Increase Federal Work-Study by $300 million over three years. This critical program leverages private-sector resources to allow students to earn money for college while learning responsibility and work skills. By connecting students with their campus communities, work-study has been shown to encourage students to continue their education. Promote High School Completion as a Gateway to College. Too many young Americans drop out of college while they are still in middle or high school. Only 62 percent of Hispanics in their late twenties have a high school diploma, compared to 88 percent of all Americans. The U.S. Department of Education has found that the intensity of high school curriculum is the single strongest predictor of college success. And one-third of college freshmen need remedial classes; these students are 60 percent less likely to complete college. The Act would: Implement sustainable dropout prevention strategies at high schools, based on similar legislation introduced by Senator Bingaman. This $250 million effort will include strengthening professional development and curriculum, planning and research, remedial education, reducing class sizes, and counseling for at-risk students. Double funding for the TRIO and GEAR UP programs over three years (to $1.5 billion and $690 million, respectively) that intervene in the lives of low-income children and are proven to encourage academic success and college attendance for disadvantaged children. Increased funding would allow TRIO to serve 10 percent of eligible students. Encourage universal access to Advanced Placement classes. AP classes allow high school students to challenge themselves in a demanding class and earn college credit. The Initiative would set a national goal of AP classes in every high school within three years. It would also expand the existing AP Incentive program to pay test fees for low-income students, help schools invest in AP curriculum and teacher training, and use new distance learning technologies to expand AP opportunities. Strengthen college remedial programs through a new $10 million demonstration program to help more students and adult high-school drop-outs receive remediation and eventually earn their college degree through partnerships between four-year colleges, community colleges, and high schools. Build Bridges among Colleges and Universities. Minority- serving institutions offer a critical route to higher education for many minority students because of their low cost, location, and supportive environments. However, too many students at minority-serving community colleges fail to pursue a four-year degree, while many students at minority- serving four-year colleges have limited opportunities to seek advanced degrees. The Act would: Expand opportunities for community college students to transfer to four-year colleges and universities. This new $40 million initiative would support partnerships of minority serving two-year colleges and four-year colleges and universities. The partnerships would create new transfer opportunities by developing articulation agreements, bridging differences in costs between two-year and four-year colleges, and providing counseling, mentoring, and support services to help community college students earn B.A. and B.S. degrees. Create new opportunities for minority-college students to earn advanced degrees. The new $40 million Dual Degrees initiative would increase opportunities for students to earn advanced degrees, including M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s, in fields in which they are underrepresented. Students would spend three years at a minority-serving institution and two years at a partner institution, such as a major research university, and earn a B.A. from their home institution and a B.A. or M.A. from the partner institution. Federal resources would establish articulation agreements and provide scholarships to students to bridge cost differences between minority-serving institutions and partner institutions. This initiative is based upon the Dual Degrees Engineering Program, operated by a consortia of colleges and universities and based in Atlanta, Georgia. Double Resources and Build Infrastructure for Developing Institutions. In recognition of their unique importance in expanding higher education opportunities for an under-served population, the Initiative would double funding for minority- serving institutions under Titles III and V of the Higher Education over three years. In contrast, President Bush has called for only a 30 percent increase over five years. Specifically, under the Initiative: Historically black colleges and universities would increase to $370 million; Historically black graduate institutions would increase to $90 million; Hispanic-serving institutions funding would increase to $140 million, and a new initiative would provide $90 million to improve post-baccalaureate education opportunities for Hispanic and low-income students; Strengthening institutions would increase to $150 million; Tribally controlled colleges and universities would increase to $45 million; and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions would increase to $20 million. Preserve Historic Landmarks. One hundred and three historically black colleges have over 700 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but these facilities require $755 million in repairs. To preserve these national treasures and enable historically black colleges to face the challenges of the 21st century, the Initiative would authorize $60 million a year to preserve the most dilapidated historic facilities. Recruit Minority Teachers. Our nation needs 2 million new teachers over the next 10 years to meet rising enrollments and replace retiring teachers. Minorities are an untapped resource in meeting this challenge: only 13 percent of teachers are minorities. The Initiative includes $30 million for new Collaborative Centers of Excellence in Preparation to strengthen teacher preparation programs at minority-serving colleges, increase the use of technology in those programs, and help students meet teacher certification requirements. It includes a new $20 million demonstration program on effective teacher recruitment and preparation practices, including mentoring, student loan forgiveness, and assistance in receiving teacher certification. It establishes Byrd teachers scholarships for students planning to enter the teaching profession. Finally, it includes a provision-based on legislation by Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. Darlene Hooley to provide up to $15,000 in student loan forgiveness to teachers at tribal colleges. Prepare the 21st Century Workforce. Studies show that minority-serving institutions face a serious ``digital divide'' in providing student Internet access, high-speed connectivity and sufficient infrastructure. The Initiative would create a $250 million initiative-based on proposals by Representatives Edolphus Towns and Senator Max Cleland to wire campuses, acquire equipment, and train educators and students in the use of technology. The Initiative would also increase funding for the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program five-fold to $40 million.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for yielding to me and for taking this special order; and I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). Clearly, the President has disappointed the Nation when he did an about-face and broke his promise to regulate CO2 emissions, especially among the older power plants, oil and gas burning power plants in this Nation. The suggestion has been made by some that it was okay to break this campaign promise because it was only one sentence in a long speech, it came late in the speech. I do not remember when any of us were running that our supporters told us it would be okay to break our promises if it was not the first thing we said in the speech or if it was not the fifth thing we said in the speech, that they would not take it that seriously. As my colleagues have pointed out here, the President made this statement about these controls in CO2 because he wanted to appear to the country to be concerned about the Nation's environment, and he wanted to appear to be more concerned than the Vice President Al Gore. That is why he made this promise. But the public thought he meant it. Now he has broken it. Tragically, he has broken it because he is buying in to a very old idea that somehow America cannot clean up its environment and meet its energy needs, a false dichotomy, a fact that does not exist, that we know time and again is proven in everyday business life in this country, that companies all over the United States are doing exactly that. They are saving energy. They are increasing their efficiency. They are reducing their greenhouse emissions, and the country and the world are better off for that. But this President apparently has a very old energy policy. It begins by dragging these old, old power plants, these dinosaurs from a past age, dragging them into the future and saying this is America's energy policy. It begins by trying to convince the public that somehow we can have oil independence, which is far different than what we should be doing. We can develop energy sufficiency, and we can sustain energy in this country, and we can meet this Nation's need. But that policy is very different than oil independence. The first policy of energy sustainability and sufficiency for the needs of this country is achievable and in the national interest. The other one is not. If we are really seeking to strengthen America's hand with respect to energy and our economy, we should do all that is possible to develop a national sustainable energy policy that would minimize our dependence on foreign oil. Very similar to the cocaine trade, if we are serious, we would make every effort to diminish the demand in the American market. If we are very serious about being independent from foreign oil supplies, then we must make every effort to diminish the demand in the American market. Rather than placing so much of our emphasis on new oil supplies, we would build a national energy policy that is based on the strengths of our country rather than its weakness. These strengths are the marketplace, innovation, technology, and the allocation of capital. If these economic forces were truly unleashed to provide a national energy policy, the role of coal and oil would be greatly diminished, still very important, but diminished. America's energy policy would evolve to one where business decisions, capital allocations, research commitments, and environmental policy would coincide to make business more efficient and productive, development of new products and services would expand, and the environment would be easier and less expensive to clean up. Such a policy demands a synergy that, for the most part, national energy policy to date is treated as a stepchild. To do so, the Congress must stop thinking of the energy policy as an extension of the past. Rather, the Congress and the President must set the tools of the future free to create this new energy vision and reality. Technology, science and the Internet have the ability to almost immediately and dramatically change the demand and the cost of America's energy futures needs. New materials, demand-side energy reductions, contracting out energy management, dramatically improved renewable energy sources, inventory management, business-to-business networks, transportation shipping efficiencies, more development of oil and gas, conservation opportunities in the three big sectors of transportation, lighting and heating and cooling, all will allow for us to develop a national energy policy that in fact provides for an enhanced economic and national security. This is far different than a policy that only concerns itself with the production of oil and continuing to believe in an economy that is as large and dynamic as America that we can simply produce our way to energy independence. No longer would our citizens have to worry every time that another leader in OPEC gets into domestic problems and seeks to solve his problems on the back of the American consumers and the economy. No longer would this generation of Americans pass its energy and environmental failures on to the next generation where they become more difficult and expensive to solve. That would be an energy policy. But the President has turned his back on that policy when he began with breaking his campaign promise to regulate CO2 emissions from older coal plants.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues another milestone in the seventy-two year history of the California Maritime Academy, located in the City of Vallejo in my district of California. In furthering its mission of supporting the maritime interests of the United States, Cal Maritime receives federal assistance, primarily in the form of its training ship, the T.S. Golden Bear. Many of its graduates become licensed officers on merchant marine vessels, or in the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard. As a federally designated regional maritime academy for the Western states, Cal Maritime is the maritime college of choice for students from California, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, and other western states. On June 30, 2001, California Maritime Academy President Jerry A. Aspland will retire, completing five years at the helm of this fine institution. President Aspland, a Cal Maritime graduate, had previously retired from his position as President of Arco Marine, Inc., when the California State University system called him to begin a second career as one of the nation's leading maritime educators. He assumed the position of President of Cal Maritime on July 1, 1996. President Aspland's tenure has been marked by numerous advances for the institution. Cal Maritime has become fully involved with the CSU system, as its twenty-second campus. Enrollment has nearly doubled. Numerous improvements to their facilities have been completed on his watch, including the recent opening of a new, state-of-the art laboratory building, infrastructure and technology replacement and upgrading, seismic retrofits, and the acquisition of additional training vessels. Ground will be broken soon for a new technology center on the campus. A second annual summer training cruise has been introduced, thereby doubling the number of training billets. Academic programs have been expanded, and further options are in the planning stages. Under his leadership, Cal Maritime was the first U.S. maritime academy to receive preliminary approval for having its educational program meet the requirements of the international Standards for Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping. A new strategic plan has just been published, and the institution is in readiness for its next academic accreditation visit scheduled this fall. By any measure the Aspland years at the California Maritime Academy have been years of accomplishment in every aspect of this distinguished academic institution. I invite my colleagues to share my great pride in all that Cal Maritime has contributed and continues to contribute to its students, graduates, and to the maritime interests of the Unite States. Finally, on behalf of the constituents of my district and my colleagues here in this chamber, I wish to extend to President Jerry Aspland our deeply felt appreciation for all that has been accomplished on his watch, along with our very best wishes for the happy, healthy retirement that he and his wife, Carol, have earned and so richly deserve.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very clear that whether one is old or young, the Bush tax cut is too big and will not allow us to meet the priorities of this Nation. For those parents who want a decent education, a first-class education for their children, who want quality teachers in every classroom, who want modern schools, who want to make sure that in fact we can reduce class sizes because we now know that children learn better in smaller classes, the Bush tax cut is crowding that out. For the elderly, the Washington Post points out today that the Bush tax cut is a raid on the Medicare trust fund, that Medicare is being raided for the purposes of paying for the tax cut. So both the young, who we seek to provide educational reforms for and a quality program, and the elderly, who we seek prescription drug benefits for, who seek to have their health care coverage taken care of, those funds are now being raided to pay for the Bush tax cut. We should not allow it. We should understand the priorities of this Nation; and the priorities of this Nation are that people want Social Security and Medicare protected, and they want a first-class education system for America's children. We cannot have that if we have the Bush tax cut.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a great man, Abraham Quezada Amador, who died one year ago at age 70. For 30 years Abraham was the founder and director of Comite Regional Campesino, a nonprofit organization that has assisted countless individuals and families become United States citizens. Abraham made the measure of difference in the lives of countless people. Indeed, it was not unusual to see dozens of people lined up outside the door of his home office patiently waiting their turn to talk with Abraham. He was always willing to offer his help and advice regarding their citizenship applications. Immigration and Naturalization Service documents or letters they needed to have translated, as well as a myriad of other things. Abraham shared his knowledge and expertise with kindness, understanding, and a smile larger than life itself. Abraham was a strong, tireless, and compassionate leader who dedicated his life to assisting those in need, and he has been sorely missed by all whose lives he touched. He devoted his life to helping others and was the most caring and unselfish person I have ever known. We miss his kind words, his sage advice, and his contagious smile. I feel fortunate to have known Abraham for so many years and I am proud to have been his friend. Abraham is survived by his wife, Maria Guadalupe Aceves, his daughters Lupe Saldana, Blanca Amador, Anna Blevins and Gloria Amador, his sons of Antonio, Abraham Jr., Alphonso and Roy, and numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I invite my colleagues to join me as I remember this great man who left a wonderful legacy and made the measure of difference in the lives of so many.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has been fighting this long and hard for a number of years as a member of the Committee on Appropriations.