George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise with my colleagues Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman John Garamendi to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Contra Costa Times pet and wildlife columnist Gary Bogue as he retires after 42 years of public service. Gary began his long career as a columnist in 1970 while still working at the Lindsey Wildlife Museum. During his thirteen year tenure as curator of the museum, he established one of the Nation's first wildlife rescue programs, tending to injured wildlife and raising a wide variety of orphaned animals. In 1982, Gary signed on as a full- time writer with the Contra Costa Times, using the skills and knowledge he gained as a curator to share his expertise on wildlife and domestic animals with the public in his own daily column. As a prominent voice for preserving and protecting the environment in our region, Gary has left a lasting impact on our community. In 1990, when Oakland Athletics manager and animal-lover Tony La Russa realized that there was not a single ``no-kill'' shelter for animals in the area, he called on Gary for help. Together they cemented the idea that a nonprofit shelter was urgently needed. A year later La Russa launched his Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF), which has helped countless homeless and unwanted pets to find permanent homes. Through his column, Gary has also spread awareness about the importance of preserving our natural land and has been a valued partner with such organizations as Save Mount Diablo and the Muir Heritage Land Trust in advocating the preservation of open space in the East Bay. Over the years, Gary's work has been widely recognized throughout the Bay Area as his writing was picked up by the Oakland Tribune, San Mateo County Times, and the San Jose Mercury News. He has also written five books that have connected with environmentalists and wildlife advocates worldwide. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Gary Bogue for his committed and diligent service to the community, our natural environment and the wildlife whose space we share on this planet. I am pleased to join his family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating Gary on an outstanding career and wish him the very best as he begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on September 13, 2012, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' on Roll No. 575. I ask that the record reflect that I intended to vote ``yea,'' to approve H.R. 1775.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 2012, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall vote No. 557, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 558, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 559, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, while I fully believe that the Federal Reserve is in need of greater transparency and accountability, I rise in opposition to this bill, which I believe approaches the issue in a problematic way. I want to be clear that the Fed should not take my vote against this bill as a vote of confidence. In order for the Federal Reserve to function properly as an independent central bank, I believe that its monetary policy functions must be independent of pressure from Congress, which would be jeopardized by a GAO audit of the Fed's monetary policy. We've seen recently the harmful impact that congressional pressure can have on the Fed's monetary policy even without this audit, such as Republican members of Congress urging the Fed to take no further actions to rescue the economy, which is why I bring to my colleagues' attention the below column by former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman, Alan Blinder, in which he points out additional options for the Fed to tackle the elevated unemployment rate that are not being used. That said, it is clear that cultural change is needed at the Federal Reserve, which has too often put the needs of America's biggest banks ahead of the interests of the American public. As just the latest example, JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, has refused to resign from the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, despite the fact that the New York Fed is investigating misbehavior at JPMorgan Chase's Chief Investment Office that contributed to its recent multi-billion dollar trading loss. Furthermore, I strongly supported a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that has increased transparency at the Fed, providing for an audit of the emergency financial assistance provided by the Fed during the financial crisis, as well as requiring the Fed to release information going forward about parties participating in emergency lending programs and the details of those transactions. The bill also importantly limited the power of bankers like Mr. Dimon who serve on the boards of regional Federal Reserve Banks. There is one aspect of today's bill that I strongly support, the provision of this bill added in committee by Mr. Cummings, which provides for an audit of the Independent Foreclosure Review, which has been grossly mismanaged by the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and does not appear to be on track to provide appropriate compensation to homeowners who were abused. I believe that the Fed needs to know that their role is to look out for the American public, and I hope they hear that loud and clear today. How Bernanke Can Get Banks Lending Again (By Alan S. Blinder) If the Fed reduces the reward for holding excess reserves, banks will have to find something else to do with their money, like making loans or putting it in the capital markets. The U.S. economy could use another boost, and it won't come from fiscal policy. Can the Federal Reserve provide it? Chairman Ben Bernanke keeps insisting that the central bank is not out of ammunition, and in a literal sense he is right. After all, the Fed has not yet exhausted its bag of tricks. It is still twisting the yield curve. It can purchase more assets. It can tell us that its federal funds target interest rate will remain 0-25 basis points beyond late 2014. It can even nudge the funds rate down within that range. The operational question is: How powerful are any of these weapons? Let's start with Operation Twist, which was recently extended through the end of this year. The Fed seeks to flatten the yield curve by buying longer-term Treasurys and selling shorter-term ones. And it's probably succeeding--a bit. But Federal Reserve activity in the Treasury markets is modest compared with the vast volume of trading. Realistically, the U.S. yield curve is probably influenced far more by daily developments in Europe. In any case, the Fed will be out of short-term Treasurys to sell by December. The logical next step would be more quantitative easing-- QE3--or, as the Fed likes to call it, more large-scale asset purchases. Purchases of what? There are two main choices. One is Treasurys. But does anyone really think that lower U.S. Treasury rates are what this country needs? Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) are a better choice, the idea being to reduce mortgage rates by shrinking the spread between MBS and Treasurys. But mortgage rates are already falling toward 3.5%. With 10-year expected inflation around 2.1%, can a 1.4% real interest rate be deterring many prospective home buyers? No, they are shut out of the market by the unavailability of credit. Posted rates are low, but try getting a mortgage. The third available weapon is what the Fed calls ``forward guidance''--that is, indicating (please don't say promising!) that the 0-25 basis points funds rate will be maintained for years to come. The Fed's current guidance (please don't call it a pledge!) extends ``at least through late 2014.'' While that's pretty far into the future, the Fed could stretch it to 2015, 2016 or 2025 for that matter. In rational models, the yield curve should flatten a bit every time the Fed pushes that date out further. But the key words here are ``rational'' and ``a bit.'' To most bond traders, two and a half years is already an eternity. Would they really respond much if 2015 replaced 2014? This brief analysis paints a pretty grim picture: The Fed has three weak weapons, one of which will be exhausted by year's end. Fortunately, there is more the Fed can do. I have two out- of-the-box suggestions to make, one in today's column and another in a companion piece soon. The simpler option is one I've been urging on the Fed for more than two years: Lower the interest rate paid on excess reserves. The basic idea is simple. If the Fed reduces the reward for holding excess reserves, banks will hold less of them--which means they will have to find something else to do with the money, such as lending it out or putting it in the capital markets. The Fed sees this as a radical change. But remember that it paid no interest on reserves before the 2008 crisis and, not surprisingly, banks held practically no excess reserves then. In early October of that year, Congress gave the Fed authority to pay interest on reserves, which it promptly started doing. When the Fed trimmed the federal funds rate to its current 0-25 basis-point range in December 2008, it also lowered the interest rate on reserves to 25 basis points, where it has been ever since. My suggestion is to push it lower in two stages. First, test the waters by cutting the interest on excess reserves (in Fedspeak, the ``IOER'') to zero. Then, if nothing goes wrong, drop it to, say, minus-25 basis points--that is, charge banks a fee for holding their money at the Fed. Doing so would provide a powerful incentive for banks to disgorge some of their idle reserves. True, most of the money would probably find its way into short-term money-market instruments such as fed funds, T-bills and commercial paper. But some would probably flow into increased lending, which is just what the economy needs. The Fed has steadfastly opposed this idea for years. Why? One objection is true but silly: Lowering the IOER might not be a very powerful instrument. No kidding. Are there a lot of powerful instruments sitting around unused? The other objection is that making the IOER zero or negative would push other money-market rates even closer to zero than they are now, thereby hurting money-market funds and otherwise impeding the functioning of money markets. My answer two years ago was that we have more important things to worry about. My answer today is that it has mostly happened anyway: U.S. money-market rates are negligible. It is noteworthy that the European Central Bank just jumped ahead of the Fed by cutting the rate it pays on bank deposits to zero--and European money markets did not die. Denmark's National Bank went even further, dropping its deposit rate to minus 20 basis points. Yet the Little Mermaid still sits in Copenhagen harbor. The Fed's hostility toward lowering the interest on excess reserves is almost self-contradictory. When Mr. Bernanke lists the weapons the Fed plans to use when the time comes to tighten monetary policy, he always gives raising the IOER a prominent role. His reasoning is straightforward and sound: If the Fed makes holding reserves more attractive, banks will hold more of them. Why doesn't the same reasoning apply in the other direction? But suppose it doesn't work. Suppose the Fed cuts the IOER from 25 basis points to minus 25 basis points, and banks don't lend one penny more. In that case, the Fed stops paying banks almost $4 billion a year in interest and, instead, starts collecting roughly equal fees from banks. That would be almost an $8 billion swing from banks to taxpayers. There are worse things. Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 2012, I was in California attending to family obligations. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 499, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 500, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 501, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is nothing more than a cynical attempt to put the profits of well-connected special interests above the interests of working families and middle class Americans. But this is nothing new. In this House, ideology prevails over bipartisanship, the powerful over the middle class families, politics over job creation, and brinksmanship over cooperation. Congress has paid the price in its approval ratings, but low approval ratings do not compare to the damage that this sort of politics inflicts upon the American people and our economy. Indeed, our Nation's working families are paying the price. There was a chance for the House to put working people first by allowing the full debate and vote on a number of amendments filed by Democrats that would have put people first. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership blocked many of these amendments from being considered for this legislation. One amendment would have ensured that ``Buy America'' provisions could be implemented. Another amendment would have facilitated job protection and family leave for military families. Another would have insured that Federal contractors recruit and employ veterans. Another amendment would have allowed health and safety officials to continue their efforts to better protect the Nation's miners from black lung disease. The facts are indisputable. Black lung is on the rise again, and some mine operators are exploiting loopholes and obsolete rules to evade compliance. The present system is badly broken, and the improvements are desperately needed. It's time to move forward with modern protections based upon years of careful scientific study. Blocking efforts by the Mine Safety and Health Administration to modernize miner protections will only cost the lives, careers, and family income of those who go underground every day to provide the energy that this country needs. Mr. Chairman, this bill puts the lives and the well-being of working people in serious peril. It threatens the effort to protect American jobs. It's not what the American people sent us here to do. It is well past time to put these transparently political efforts behind us and work together to re-energize the economy, to grow and to strengthen the middle class. And I urge my colleagues to vote against this very special interest bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I seek to offer an amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, my amendment would allow the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to continue efforts to prevent combustible dust and fire explosions in the workplace. Combustible dust explosions threaten lives, limbs, jobs and property across this country. And it's abundantly clear that Federal regulatory action is needed, but the bill before us today threatens to block that action. Beginning in 2003, the Chemical Safety Board investigated three major explosions caused by combustible dust in North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana, where 14 workers lost their lives. As part of its investigation, the board identified hundreds of other combustible dust fires and explosions, causing at least 119 fatalities and 718 injuries over 15 years. The board recommended that OSHA issue rules to protect against these hazards because the existing OSHA protections were inadequate. The investigators were not alone. Family members have also asked that action be taken. Tammy Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress how her brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in a metal dust fire in an aluminum wheel plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003. She told us how Shawn suffered from this horrific event. She said that Shawn did not die instantly. He laid on the smoldering floor after the explosion while aluminum dust burned through his flesh and muscle tissue. His breaths burned his internal organs as the blast took his eyesight. Shawn was still conscious and asking for help when the ambulance took him. He lived for a number of hours before he finally succumbed to his injuries. Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he hasn't been the last. It's been more than 4 years since the Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia. That explosion killed 13 workers. It caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The tragedy was the result of unchecked accumulation of sugar dust that ignited and caused a chain of explosions, and Port Wentworth sugar refinery was leveled. These workplace explosions have not stopped. There have been 23 major combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 15 and injured 35 since that Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia. The response of OSHA has been to begin the development of a rule to reduce the risk of combustible dust explosions. That rule should be allowed to go forward, and this bill threatens the opportunity of that bill to go forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So, as for these workers who work in these dangerous conditions around all kinds of dust that explode on a moment's notice--without any notice, in fact--they should rely on the idea that we would all be compassionate here. The subcommittee that reported this legislation asked people in the industry, and they immediately targeted this standard. This won't be about the compassion of Members of Congress. This will be about the interests and the lobbying by the special interests to keep this dust standard from going into effect. It will not meet the requirement of imminent danger because it happens all the time. We have about 18 of these a year. It happens all the time. People are killed all of the time in different settings and with different dust. This isn't about one size fits all. This is about dust that explodes and kills people and burns them to death on the job. It destroys the workplace, and in some cases it's never rebuilt and the jobs are never brought back. In other cases, as in one of these cases, the employer is now saying, Give us this dust standard. Give us this dust standard. The workers in this country have a right to rely on the law to protect them, not on some notion of this committee or of this Congress' sense of compassion and of whether it will be invoked on that given day or not against the lobbying efforts by these industries. It's about the law that protects workers and their families--workers who get up and go to work every day, whose families hope they get to come home at night, but it doesn't happen for a lot of workers. In these industries with combustible dust, it happens over and over and over again. They get killed on the job. I've been here a long time working on combustible dust. Let me tell you, the industry doesn't say, Ah, gee, we've killed enough people. Let's all just kind of hold hands and see if we can come up with something. It's complicated. You must do it right. It's based upon science. It's based upon research so that you can isolate the dust so the explosions don't happen. But this legislation suggested by the committee notices in the committee that this is one of the regulations that they would target. They can use the old conundrum ``one size fits all.'' Do you know what? If you're working around combustible dust, you want the dust that you have taken care of. So maybe we can whittle it down. We'll take care of some of the dust but not all of the dust because we can get under the $100 million rule. What are you talking about? These are the lives of the American people. These are the lives of working people. This is an interesting notion you have. It just doesn't fit in the workplace. It just doesn't fit in the daily lives of these people who are threatened by these horrible, horrible, horrific incidents that take place usually through no fault of the workers. Other decisions were made about not keeping the plant clean. Other decisions were made about not installing equipment that could mitigate this under the old standards. That's the reason we need the law, the reason the workers in this country need the law--not some expression of compassion late at night in an empty Chamber of Congress. Tell them to rely on that, that one night in an empty Chamber of Congress the proponent of the legislation said, We'll be compassionate when this comes to the floor. We understand this. We'll grant you a waiver. We'll figure it out.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman John Garamendi, to recognize Mary Alice O'Connor as she retires after 7 years as Executive Director of the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center. Mary Alice, born in Chicago, Illinois, was ordained a minister by the Unity of the Spirit Ministry School in 1991 and earned her bachelor's in business administration from Golden Gate University in 2002. After many years working for industry leaders in the communications sector, Mary Alice joined the Peace and Justice Center as executive director in 2005. Over the past 7 years, her work has embodied the Peace and Justice Center's mission ``to work for a culture of peace through education, advocacy and community building,'' while at the same time increasing business operations and doubling the Center's operational budget in just 3 years. Under Mary Alice's leadership, the Peace and Justice Center planned, expanded, and promoted a number of invaluable community programs that have raised awareness for both local and global issues of social justice. The ``Speakers' Forum'' hosts distinguished individuals to address global peace, issues of environmental justice, gun violence, and the politics of crime and punishment that affect quality of life in local communities. The ``Art and Writing Challenge'' encourages awareness and discussion among Contra Costa County students of the environment, economic inequality and the promotion of non-violence. The first ``Creating Peaceful Schools Conference'' brought together over a hundred local educators to develop strategies for promoting non- violence in the classroom and encouraging children to focus on ways to promote a more peaceful and just environment. Furthermore, through peaceful public protests against wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and many educational forums developed by Mary Alice and her board of directors, the Center has become a well-known hub for thoughtful discussion of current events in the East Bay Area. Mr. Speaker, we invite this chamber to join us in honoring Mary Alice O'Connor for her tireless and dedicated service to the people of Contra Costa County. We join her family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating her on a successful and fulfilling career at the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center, and wish her the very best on her future endeavors.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of S. 2009. This legislation includes provisions adjusting the federal minimum wage schedule for American Samoa in light of GAO's findings on its unique labor market conditions. Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa has asked the Congress to make these adjustments for American Samoa and pass this bill. Current law requires that the minimum wage increase in American Samoa annually until it reaches the Mainland's federal minimum wage level. Current law also requires the GAO to regularly report to Congress on economic conditions in American Samoa over the course of these minimum wage adjustments. These GAO reports are intended to give Congress information so that, if necessary, Congress can adjust the minimum wage schedule for the territory. Precisely because American Samoa has a unique, isolated, and relatively undiversified economy and because the path to the full federal minimum wage for this territory is a necessarily long one, Congress must be flexible over time with the minimum wage schedule in response to changing economic conditions. Congress must also maintain the clear requirement that the minimum wage in American Samoa be on a schedule to reach Mainland levels. In decades past, the use of a special industry committee to periodically review and set the minimum wage in American Samoa proved ineffective, unfairly depressing wage levels below what was economically feasible. The minimum wage provision in S. 2009 meets these standards. The adjustment proposed by S. 2009 is the result of the GAO's latest report, which lays out certain economic difficulties confronting American Samoa. These difficulties arise from a variety of factors, including recent global economic conditions and a specific set of challenges facing American Samoa's tuna canning industry. In response to the GAO report, this bill adjusts the schedule by delaying any minimum wage increases in American Samoa until 2015. Importantly, it maintains a clear minimum wage schedule for the territory, with new increases made triennially. This is not the first adjustment in the schedule since the increases began in 2007. Adjustments were also enacted in 2010. Congress must continue to monitor conditions in American Samoa. Future adjustments to either accelerate or delay the minimum wage schedule may be necessary and warranted. Workers in American Samoa deserve a fair minimum wage as soon as possible, which not only improves their standard of living but generates new economic activity for everyone's benefit. To achieve that end and to be sensitive to other economic pressures on the island that may affect employment levels, it is our ongoing responsibility to calibrate the minimum wage schedule as conditions warrant. I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Faleomavaega and other colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure workers in American Samoa receive a just wage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on July 9 and July 10, 2012, I was in California attending to family obligations. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 452, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall vote No. 453, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall vote No. 454, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall vote No. 455, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall vote No. 456, I would have voted ``nay'' on the previous question, so that instead of voting on the Patients'' Rights Repeal Act, the House could instead vote on H.R. 5542, a bill that focuses on jobs and working families. On rollcall vote No. 457, I would have voted ``nay'' on the rule that will govern the 31st attempt this Congress to take away healthcare benefits and patient protections from millions of Americans. On rollcall vote No. 458, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As has been said, for the 31st time in this Congress the House Republicans are trying to put insurance companies back in charge of America's health care. The House Republicans are preoccupied with taking away the patient protections while they're keeping their own protections. I recently got a letter from a woman named Annie who lives in East Bay of the San Francisco Bay area and she told me how vital this law is to her and her family. Her husband is self-employed. He has diabetes; and thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the husband will finally have access to quality, affordable coverage. Annie's daughter has a preexisting condition; and thanks to this law, the insurance companies won't be allowed to deny her daughter coverage. And Annie's son, a 25- year-old, thanks to this law, is able to get on his mother's health care plan and save the family a great deal of money. But today, the Republicans want to take that all away. They want to take away all these protections and these benefits that American families haven't had in the past. Today, the Republicans in the Congress want to put the insurance companies back in the business--the same insurance companies that took away your policy when your child was born with a disability; the same insurance companies that didn't allow you to have cancer surgery because you had a lifetime limit or they decided you had a preexisting condition; the same insurance companies that decided that your children would be kicked off your policies when they're 18. I don't think we should go there, America. But that's what repeal brings you. That's the Republican plan: to give it all back to the insurance companies. After a hundred years of struggling, take it away and give the power to the people to determine their own health care needs and the kind of policies that they need.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference agreement. Without it, transportation projects would dry up, countless American workers would be thrown out of work, and a college education would cost an additional $1,000 for more than 7 million students and their families. The benefits of this legislation for millions of Americans will be felt immediately. In my home State of California, this legislation will save or create nearly 180,000 construction jobs rebuilding our highways and bridges and bike paths; and it will save 570,000 California students from going deeper into debt this next academic year. With this conference report, 7 million students across this country will get another year of interest rate relief as they take out their student loans for the coming college year. More than 4.5 million of those will be women, more than 1.5 million of those will be African American, nearly 1 million are Hispanic students, all who are struggling to stay in college. This interest rate relief that we are providing today will help them. What is happening today, though, is a rare thing in this Congress. It's a victory for college students. It's a victory for low-income families. It's a victory for the middle class. It's a victory that should not be as rare as it is in the Congress today. The American people should thank this win, and we should make sure that we continue to cooperate in this Congress. And we should also make sure that we heed the words of Mr. Young and Mr. DeFazio that we have to do more on our infrastructure to make this country a first-rate country going forward in the future. Thank you very much for yielding me this time, Mr. Rahall, and for all of your work on this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2012, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall no. 450. I intended to vote ``nay,'' and that reflects that I oppose H.R. 5972.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on June 21, 2012, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall votes 408, 409, 410, and 411. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall no. 408, the amendment to fully fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to limit speculation in energy markets. I oppose the irresponsible H.R. 4480. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall no. 409, and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall no. 410. Finally, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall no. 411, the motion to instruct transportation conferees to supersede the EPA's authority to permit coal waste disposal sites.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and amend this rule to allow consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill is critical to women and families, and its time has come. It's not only about basic fairness for women--getting equal pay for equal work. It's also an economic issue for families. Getting paid less for just being a woman means fewer resources to pay the mortgage or to put food on the table. Today, women earn 23 percent less than men do for doing the same job. But those women don't get a 23 percent cut in their health care costs. They don't get 23 percent off their rent. They don't get 23 percent off their grocery bill. But they do get 23 percent off their paycheck. It's outrageous that this Congress is not doing all it can to eliminate pay discrimination, and it's outrageous today that American corporations have as a matter of their business plan to pay women less than they pay men for the identical jobs, identical responsibilities, identical education, and identical experience. Corporations have made a decision that they will pay those women less, and that's why women earn only 77 cents for every $1 that their male counterparts earn for doing the same job. Congress ought to let us take up this bill and get rid of this inequity to America's women, women who are working to support their families and to provide for their families.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 17, I was unavoidably detained during several rollcall votes, numbers 259, 260, 261, and 262. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 259 and rollcall 260. The rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4310 denied the House the opportunity to consider a number of key issues of interest to members of the House and our constituents. In particular, the rule denied a vote on my amendment to restore important health and safety protections for workers and residents who live near nuclear weapons facilities that will be undermined by the underlying bill. The rule also did not allow for a vote on the amendment offered by Mr. McGovern to accelerate the redeployment of our troops from Afghanistan that was supported by Armed Services Committee Ranking Democrat Adam Smith, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Republican Representative Walter Jones, and others. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 261. I support H. Res. 568's goal of preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capacity and am on record on numerous occasions supporting legislation to this effect. Yet I do not believe that this resolution is a sensible way to pursue that goal. President Obama has effectively utilized aggressive sanctions and has united the international community diplomatically, which has substantially increased pressure on Iran to agree to a deal to prevent continued uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors to verify that Iran's nuclear program is not being used for military purposes. Congress should encourage that progress to continue but I am concerned that H. Res. 568 could disrupt the progress that is being made through negotiations and could bring the U.S. closer to war unnecessarily. In addition, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 262.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2012, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 215. I intended to vote ``no,'' and I ask that the Record reflect that I oppose the Huizenga Amendment to H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in opposition to the bill and to the underlying rule. To put it simply in the minute that I have, this bill needlessly puts in jeopardy the health and safety of workers and residents who live near nuclear weapons facilities. Congressman Visclosky, Congresswoman Sanchez, and I offered an amendment to fix these dangerous flaws. But today's rule will not allow that amendment onto the floor. Our amendment recognized that these facilities pose unique challenges when it comes to health and safety. They are ultrahazardous. They make plutonium pits, handle bomb-grade uranium, and manage high explosives. If the worst were to happen, the American taxpayer is on the hook for any nuclear event, even if the contractor that operates the facility engages in gross misconduct. To protect workers, residents, and taxpayers, we need to ask that contractors live up to the highest standards of safety. This legislation does not do that. I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for trying to get this amendment made in order in the Rules Committee. It's an important amendment. We're hearing from workers in these facilities all across the country that we're removing a critical margin of safety for them, that we're turning this over to contractors and lessening the safety standards across these plants and removing the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy. This bill should be rejected for what it does to these workers. These are some groups submitting letters opposing changes to nuclear safety protections in H.R. 4310: 1. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 2. Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups 3. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 4. Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL CIO 5. Metal Trades Department, AFL CIO 6. United Steelworkers 7. Laborers International Union of North America 8. Communications Workers of America 9. National Treasury Employees Union 10. Project on Government Oversight Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Washington, DC, May 7, 2012. Hon. Loretta Sanchez, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Sanchez: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and comments on HR4310, the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization bill, particularly with regard to the sections in Title 32 that affect nuclear safety, and the Board's oversight mission, operations and budget capacity. I'm convinced that the legislation, if enacted, will weaken current independent nuclear safety oversight and enforcement at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. I have spent my entire career spanning more than 40 years supporting the national security programs of the United States. Nothing would sadden me more than seeing that mission compromised by threats to public and worker safety resulting from lapses in safety. As you know, I presently serve as Chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), having been appointed by President Bush to the Board in 2006 and later reappointed as its Chairman by President Obama in 2010. I have 43 years of experience as a scientist and engineer in the field of radiation effects science, technology, and hardness assurance in support of military and space systems. I was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and the American Physical Society, and was selected as one of the most highly cited researchers in Engineering by the Institute for Scientific Information, which lists the 250 most highly cited researchers in the world in given scientific fields. I have been honored with the 2000 IEEE Millennium Medal, IEEE Nuclear & Plasma Sciences Merit and Shea Award, R&D 100 Awards, Industry Week's Top 25 Technologies of Year, and Discover Award, and many prize-winning papers. I have authored 140 publications in the open refereed literature, including more than 30 invited papers, book chapters, and presentations. The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. As Chairman of the Board I am proud of the safety record of the DOE and the role that the Board has played over the last 23 years. There is no question that the defense nuclear facilities complex is in a safer posture now than when the Board commenced operations in the late 1980's. However, we cannot ignore the current and emerging challenges that will define the future of DOE's defense nuclear facilities, the need for federal stewardship of this enterprise, and the federal commitment to protect the health and safety of the workers and the public. Today's challenges of aged infrastructure, design and construction of new and replacement facilities, and the undertaking of a wide variety of new activities in defense nuclear facilities coupled with ongoing mission support activities require continued vigilance in safety oversight to assure public and worker protection. A nuclear safety incident cannot be tolerated and would do irreparable harm to the stockpile stewardship and legacy waste missions of the Department of Energy. This legislation contains significant changes to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Act and the Board's Enabling Statute that would put NNSA and DOE's national security mission in jeopardy. The proposed changes, if enacted, would amount to Congress concluding that NNSA does not need independent safety oversight. It would all but erase the Board's independence and authority with respect to safety oversight of NNSA defense nuclear facilities and activities. Changes to the Atomic Energy Act would lower the standard used to ensure adequate protection of public safety. The legislation endorses a strong shift toward contractor self-regulation, which is not justified based on the present maturity of contractor assurance systems but, even more importantly, neuters the inherent responsibility of the government to ensure public and worker safety. This responsibility cannot be delegated by NNSA to its contractors. Finally, the President's ability to direct NNSA's operations through the Secretary of Energy would also be much reduced. Let me address a few of these concerns in more detail. Section 3113 of the bill gives the NNSA Administrator complete authority to establish and conduct oversight of NNSA activities outside of that already established by the Secretary of Energy. The Administrator develops a system of governance, management, and oversight, of covered contractors and ensures that any and all Federal Agencies comply with this system. Clearly, this vacates the notion of independent oversight, which should be of grave concern to the Congress. Other agencies that presently provide oversight include the Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and the Occupational and Safety Health Agency (OSHA). Some examples of undesirable consequences of the proposed language include: The Board will be unable to provide effective safety oversight. The NRC will be precluded from conducting license-related oversight activities associated with operation of the MOX facility. NNSA itself will be precluded from conducting Operational Readiness Reviews, Integrated Safety Management System Verifications, and Nuclear Explosive Safety Studies. Section 3113 of the Bill further directs the NNSA Administrator to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and performance-based standards rather than transactional oversight.'' I am convinced this model is inappropriate for oversight of complex, high-hazard nuclear operations at defense nuclear facilities. NNSA defines ``transactional oversight'' as activities that assess contractor performance through evaluating contractor activities at the work, task, or facility level; direct interaction with personnel at any level within the contractor organization; and direct independent Federal staff evaluation of activities, physical conditions, and contractor documentation. [NA 1 SD 226.1A, NNSA Line Oversight and Contractor Assurance System Supplemental Directive] Clearly, transactional oversight is essential at the Pantex Plant where nuclear weapons are assembled, disassembled, and undergo surveillance. It is also essential for plutonium operations at the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility, highly-enriched uranium operations at the Y 12 National Security Complex, and for complex, high- hazard nuclear operations at the Nevada National Security Site, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories. For these activities, anything other than transactional oversight is irresponsible and will jeopardize the NNSA mission. The government cannot delegate its responsibility to ensure public and worker safety to its contractors. I think it is important to understand that a system based on ``outcomes'' is inappropriate in safety space. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses performance-based regulation to improve effectiveness and efficiency, but not where failure to meet a performance criterion can result in an immediate safety concern. For safety, a system of ``leading indicators'' to prevent accidents is required. For complex, high-hazard nuclear operations, a performance-based outcome approach may appear successful on the surface, but underlying weaknesses in processes can eventually lead to serious accidents and unwanted results. A significant body of information on this subject is available in both the commercial and academic sectors; it was also explored in the series of public meetings and hearings that led to issuance of the Board's Recommendation 2004 1, Oversight of Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Operations. The Board has devoted considerable resources in the past few years to understand activity-level work planning and control. We have teamed with the Department and NNSA to understand the challenges of writing and implementing procedures that account for hazards in the workplace and the controls necessary to mitigate those hazards. There are many challenges to implementing those procedures that must account for a wide range of human factors. The inescapable conclusion is that the key to worker safety is the ability to faithfully and repeatedly execute procedures. A procedure is only the starting point. A system of transactional oversight is the only way to ensure the safe execution of work through the effective implementation of procedures. I believe one of the contributing factors that lead the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee to propose this legislation was a basic misunderstanding of the testimony it received at the its February 16, 2012 hearing on ``Governance, Oversight, and Management of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.'' At that hearing, Dr. Shank, Co-Chair of the Committee to Review the Quality of the Management and of the Science and Engineering Research at the Department of Energy's National Security Laboratories, testified about the scope of this review and its conclusions. One concern and associated conclusion is embodied in this legislation, i.e., the need to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and performance-based standards rather than transactional oversight.'' However, when the Board subsequently met with Dr. Shank, it became clear that his review committee did not look at defense nuclear facilities at any of the laboratories. Dr. Shank explained that the committee focused on management of science, not safety, and not production facilities. The review was focused on the need for the laboratories to do research more efficiently and effectively, and improve morale at the laboratories. The committee did not review complex, high-hazard nuclear operations or any high-consequence operations. In my opinion, this testimony should not be used as the basis to argue against the need for independent oversight or eliminate transactional oversight at defense nuclear facilities. For the record, the Board's staff asked about the significance of Appendix 3 to the Committee's report, ``Review of Relevant Studies and Reports 1995 2010.'' Appendix 3 is the only part of the report that discusses the Board. Dr. Shank characterized Appendix 3 as an add-on and not part of the report. The Board's staff followed up with Mr. Shaw, Project Director, on April 20, 2012, to understand this distinction. Mr. Shaw explained that he and his staff of research assistants prepared Appendix 3 as background material for the committee. The appendices are a compilation of lines of inquiry or questions that the Committee members raised as the study progressed, and items for which Mr. Shaw and his staff thought they needed to provide more background information to the Committee members to understand what had been presented. He informed the Board's staff that, to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that information along withal! other such material provided to the committee were included as appendices to the report. However, he reiterated that they should not be viewed as the work of the committee or representative of the Committee's conclusions. The proposed legislation requires the Board and NNSA to use a new health and safety standard. More specifically, Sections 3115 and 3202 of the legislation establish a new lower standard for protection of the public in proximity to DOE's defense nuclear facilities. (As discussed below, Section 3202 of the bill deals with ``Improvements to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.'') The new standard ``ensures that risks to . . . the health and safety of the general public . . . are as low as practicable and that adequate protection is provided.'' (Please note that in Section 3115 the risks are ``as low as practical,'' while in Section 3202 the risks are as low as reasonably practical.'') This standard lowers the protections presently provided to the public by the NRC for commercial nuclear power and by the Board in making recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, which is to ``ensure adequate protection of the public.'' The legislation proposes the Secretary or Administrator can perform a cost- benefit analysis to determine the need to provide adequate protection of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, has always been clear that the Secretary must provide adequate protection to the public and that cost is not an element of adequate protection. However, cost can be considered in determining the need for safety margin or defense in depth, i.e., additional protections beyond the need for adequate protection. The application of the ``as low as [reasonably] practicable'' standard is unclear. It has been used in British and European law as a modified cost- benefit analysis, but has no standing in U.S. law. It is also unclear why the public safety should be subjected to considerations by the Secretary or Administrator of whether risks are as low as [reasonably] practical. The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. In addition, the Board has unique responsibilities under its statute to address ``severe or imminent'' threats to the public. I would now like to comment on Section 3202 of the bill: ``Improvements to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.'' Let me say categorically that these are not improvements. I believe these provisions in the bill arise from a total misunderstanding of the operation of the Board. I feel strongly that these ``improvements'' to the Board's Enabling Statute will degrade nuclear safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. Let me once again detail my concerns. To begin with, the Board is a collegial body composed of five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate who are respected experts in the field of nuclear safety. Since the Board's inception nearly 23 years ago, every Board letter or recommendation has been voted on and approved by each and every Board Member. Those familiar with the scientific discipline will readily understand that this involves a great deal of respect and camaraderie among the Board members to enable them to unravel complex technical issues and forcefully act on safety concerns. One aspect of these bill's improvements is to allow Board members ``to employ at least one technical advisor.'' This is unnecessary on two counts. The first is that Board members have full access to all the Board's staff. Board members already have 80 technical advisors. The second is that Board members are technical experts who are able to independently weigh technical evidence and make decisions important to safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. A system of advisors will simply place an unnecessary burden on Board resources and create dissension. A provision in Section 3202 requires that all Board members ``have full, simultaneous access to all information relating to the performance of the Board's functions, powers and mission.'' This provision is simply unworkable and argues against the public interest and trust. For example, the Technical Director must inform the Board Chairman about a serious accident at a defense nuclear facility, even if other Board members are not immediately available. The Board always strives to share all available information with all Board members. The Board members are always collectively briefed by DOE and Board staff, but Board members sometimes have conflicting schedules and aren't available for the ``simultaneous'' exchange of information . The origins of this provision suggest a serious lack of knowledge about the operation of the Board. Under this legislation, the Board ``shall consider and specifically assess the technical and economic feasibility, the cost and benefits, and the practicability of implementing [its Recommendations].'' Under its existing statute, the Board must consider the technical and economic feasibility of implementing its recommended measures. The Secretary of Energy may ``accept'' a Board recommendation but make a determination that its implementation is impracticable because of budgetary considerations or because the implementation would affect the Secretary's ability to meet the annual nuclear weapons stockpile requirements. The Secretary must report any such decision to the President and Congress. The Secretary of Energy has never made a determination that a Board Recommendation cannot be implemented due to budget impracticability. I believe this is strong evidence that we have executed our statute in a faithful and responsible manner. Issues of cost and benefit have historically been the purview of the Secretary of Energy and should remain so. It is important to note that the Board nominally identifies the problem, but leaves selection of the solution to the Secretary. In order to provide a cost-benefit analysis, the Board would need to define a solution, which is inappropriate and would hamper the Secretary's flexibilities to respond to a Board recommendation. Mr. Gene Aloise, Director of Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office, testified at the Committee's February 16, 2012, hearing on Governance, Oversight, and Management of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. He said, ``NNSA currently lacks the basic financial information on the total costs to operate and maintain its essential facilities and infrastructure, leaving it unable to identify return on investment or opportunities for cost savings.'' If NNSA isn't capable of performing cost-benefit analyses, it's unreasonable to expect the Board to produce valid estimates of those costs. Needless to say, the Board would require a significant increase in budget and manpower to perform any meaningful cost-benefit analysis. The Board is very mindful of the need for efficient and cost-effective solutions to safety problems at defense nuclear facilities. In evaluating the proper course of action for existing facilities that do not meet modern industry standards and design requirements, both the Board and DOE consider the entire suite of options for mitigating hazards as well as factors such as the remaining life of the facilities, schedules for replacing them, and means to mitigate disruptions to ongoing operations that may result from recommended safety improvements. However, the Board has no authority to specify a particular solution; that authority is the Secretary's. The proposed legislation also weakens the arm's length relationship between the Board and Department of Energy necessary for the Board to provide independent oversight by requiring the Board to obtain DOE review and comments on Board recommendations. This proposed requirement will enable the Secretary to provide comments to Board recommendations prior to their issuance. Board recommendations are fully vetted by intense staff-level discussions that typically take place over months and sometimes years. The Board shapes its recommendation already fully taking into account the feedback it has received from the Department. In the final analysis, the Secretary has the power to accept or reject a Board recommendation. This provision to require comments from the Secretary will delay needed safety improvements to ensure adequate protection of the public at DOE's defense nuclear facilities and erode public confidence that the Board is faithfully executing its mission to provide truly independent oversight. Under its existing statute, the Board's jurisdiction is limited to the Department of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. ``Defense Nuclear Facilities'' are defined to include production or utilization facilities, and certain types of storage facilities under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy. Unless this element is met, the Board's jurisdiction, authority, powers or duties are not triggered. It does not allow the Board to write Recommendations to the NNSA Administrator. Under this legislation, NNSA may become a separate entity. An NNSA independent from the Department of Energy, where the Secretary of Energy would have no authority over NNSA, would defeat (1) the Board's recommendation jurisdiction, (2) the Board's jurisdiction and duty to report to the President in the case of imminent or severe threats issuing from defense nuclear facilities, and (3) the Board's information gathering jurisdiction. Essentially, the NNSA would have no independent safety oversight body. The Department of Energy has a well-established regulatory structure, with a significant body of rules, orders, manuals, and standards. These would have no standing in an independent NNSA. The set of safety standards to be used in NNSA would have to be reconstituted. Based on recent experience, I am concerned that many standards necessary to safely perform complex, high-hazard nuclear operations would be automatically deleted as a part of standing up this newly independent organization. It must be understood that the Board evaluates safety at defense nuclear facilities based on DOE's requirements and standards. The Board does not have separate requirements. Lack of an adequate set of safety standards would rapidly degrade safety at defense nuclear facilities. In summary, I am deeply concerned that the proposed legislation will diminish both the effectiveness of the Board and safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. The proposed changes, if enacted, would all but erase the Board's oversight independence and authority with respect to NNSA's facilities and activities. NNSA would become essentially self-regulating without any significant oversight from the Secretary of Energy, the Board, or any other Federal entity. Additional provisions in the legislation encourage the NNSA in large part to delegate its inherent responsibility to protect public and worker safety to its contractors. If I can answer any question or provide additional insights, please don't hesitate to call. Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide my views on this legislation. Sincerely, Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D., Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last year, I reintroduced the Keeping All Students Safe Act, to protect children from abusive seclusion and restraint practices in school. Two years ago, this legislation passed the House with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it never became law, and the incidents of students who are being abused or inappropriately restrained while in school continue to occur. We cannot sit idly by. Congress must step up to the plate and protect our Nation's children. In recent months, we've been hearing more disturbing stories of students who are being dangerously restrained by teachers and staff while in school. In several of these cases, students have suffered serious injuries or have even died as a result of their injuries. In December, in Kentucky, 9-year-old Christopher Baker, who has autism, was stuffed into a duffel bag at school as punishment. In Connecticut, children have been afraid to go to school because they've heard other students screaming in small, windowless rooms. The students in these elementary schools refer to these rooms as ``scream rooms.'' In Texas, 10-year-old Lukas Hines, who suffers from seizures, dyslexia, and ADHD, was put in a choke hold while riding home on a Texas school bus. For 4 minutes, the school supervisor refused to release him into the care of his mother, and instead kept him in the dangerous choke hold. Then, on April 18, at the Leake and Watts School in New York, 16- year-old Corey Foster was restrained by the school staff, who were trying to remove him from a basketball court. Witnesses reported that several staff members piled on top of him. Corey told the staff he could not breathe. Tragically, while he was being restrained, he went into cardiac arrest and died. Corey's story is far too similar to a story I learned of several years ago. That was the story of Cedric, a 14-year-old in Texas. Cedric was restrained, facedown, with his teacher sitting on top of him. He yelled out that he couldn't breathe. Minutes later, Cedric died on the floor of his classroom. Tragedies like Cory's and Cedric's need to stop. In March, the Department of Education released nationwide data showing that tens of thousands of children are subject to restraint and seclusion in school each year. This map shows that 31 States have had reports of abusive incidents since the last time that we tried to enact the Keeping All Students Safe Act. No corner of the country is immune from abuse. It is widespread, and it has gone on far too long. This map shows that we need a nationally driven reform, because where States have enacted, students are still subject to the worst practices in these educational settings. According to the report released last month, only 30 States have any meaningful protection for the use of seclusion and restraint in school. Only 18 States prohibit restraint that restricts breathing. Only 16 States limit the use of restraining to emergencies involving immediate risk or harm. Only 16 States ban the use of mechanical restraints. And only 24 States have any requirement that their parents be notified that their child was restrained or secluded in school. In fact, children can go to school day after day, be restrained, be secluded, be locked in dark rooms, kept in those rooms where they urinate on themselves, and their parents are never notified. When parents are excluded from the information about their students, where is that a matter of good public policy? The child and their safety should not depend upon what State they live in. The Federal Government, this Congress, needs to set minimum standards and model standards. We have the Federal laws in place to prevent seclusion and restraint abuses that happen in hospitals and other health facilities, but children do not have any Federal protection against these potentially dangerous and torturous practices when they're in school. Schools are supposed to be a safe place, a place for children to learn, a place for children to socialize, and parents should never have to worry about the safety of their children when they're at school. No child should be forced to suffer abuse, neglect, injury, or even death while they're trying to learn. The Keeping All Students Safe Act would set minimum safety standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and provide training and support for school personnel to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint. It makes it illegal to strap children to chairs, put children in duffle bags, or restrict their breathing. Seclusion restraint practices should only be used in emergency situations by trained staff and should end as soon as the emergency has passed. This legislation makes it clear that there's no room for torture and abuse in America's schools. News reports showing children being tied up with duct tape, sat on by staff, locked in rooms for hours at a time is unacceptable. Our children deserve better. This legislation won't bring back Corey or Cedric, but it can prevent future abuses from occurring. I've called upon the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to mark up this important legislation so we can move forward on passing this critical legislation into law. Our children deserve nothing less.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 5326, the FY13 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations and am deeply concerned about provisions included in the bill that will roll back important civil rights protections and undermine key protections for youth in the juvenile justice system. Section 540: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rider to Undermine the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Despite passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA, forty-five years ago, older workers continue to face discrimination in the workplace. They are demoted, denied promotions and fired simply because of their age. While the ADEA provides important protections, older workers continue to be hard hit during these difficult economic times. The challenges they face are substantial. As compared to their younger colleagues, older workers have greater difficulty finding new employment and are twice as likely to be out of work for 99 weeks or longer. The EEOC reports that the number of age discrimination charges filed increased by over 70 percent between 2006 and 2011. And according to the AARP, 60 percent of workers interviewed report experiencing or witnessing age discrimination in the workplace. The protections afforded older workers have been under assault in recent years. In 2009, the Supreme Court rolled back workplace protections for older workers in Gross v. FBL Financial decision. In this case, the Supreme Court held that victims of age discrimination must meet a higher burden than other forms of workplace discrimination when bringing a claim. Rather than having to prove age was a motivating factor for an adverse employment action, older workers are now required to show age was the decisive factor when raising an ADEA claim. The bill before us today would be another significant setback for older workers in this country. H.R. 5326 would prohibit funds made available by the Act to be used to implement, administer, or enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's, EEOC, final regulations on Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other than Age under the ADEA published in March 2012. According to the EEOC, the rider in H.R. 5326 ``would undermine vigorous enforcement of the nation's age discrimination laws at a time when older workers are particularly vulnerable.'' The EEOC regulation at issue should not be controversial. It gives employers greater clarity on how to avoid unlawful disparate impacts under the ADEA. This clarity should be welcomed not rejected. EEOC's intent behind the regulation is straightforward, ``to bring . . . existing [EEOC] regulation into conformance with . . . Supreme Court precedent and to explain the meaning of RFOA [Reasonable Factor Other than Age] defense to employees, employers, and courts.'' Eliminating this regulation would create new confusion on what standards--even outdated ones--might apply in its stead. As a result, H.R. 5326 would create legal uncertainty and uneven results in these cases and would also eliminate important tools for EEOC to use to help employers comply with their obligations under the law. Instead of spending time rolling back the rights of older workers and creating more legal uncertainty for those who are victims of age discrimination, Congress should be fighting for the rights of older workers in the workplace and working together on a bipartisan basis to reverse the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Group. I am also deeply concerned that H.R. 5326 would fund the EEOC at a level which is $7 million less than the President's request. Last year, the agency received nearly one-million discrimination charge filings-- the fourth straight year of record filings. The EEOC must have the resources necessary to combat workplace discrimination and retaliation. Without it, workers will see longer waits as case backlogs increase and the agency's ability to enforce nondiscrimination protections will be undermined. Section 218: Department of Justice Rider to Weaken Americans with Disabilities Act Protections The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA, is intended ``to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.'' The ADA provides nondiscrimination protection to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to and can participate in all aspects of society. A component of these protections requires that public accommodations construct facilities to be accessible and that existing facilities become accessible when it is ``readily achievable.'' The ``readily achievable'' expectation is defined as ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.'' There is considerable flexibility to determine what is achievable based on a business' particular circumstances. The Department of Justice has the authority to carry out the mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities under the ADA. In doing so, the Department of Justice finalized regulations in September 2010 which included regulations regarding accessibility of swimming pools. These regulations are based on accessibility standards established by the Access Board that takes into consideration the needs of individuals with disabilities as well as the needs of business. To comply with the regulation, businesses would need to make an assessment and take steps to accomplish what is ``readily achievable'' for swimming pool accessibility for that business. For some businesses that may require fixed or portable lifts, while for other business if may not require doing anything until increasing accessibility is ``readily achievable'' for that business. H.R. 5326 rolls back protections within the ADA by prohibiting the Department of Justice to use funds to implement the standards for swimming pool accessibility. This bill would establish an extremely dangerous precedent weakening the Department of Justice's authority to enforce the ADA weakening critical civil rights protections. Regardless of whether a person has a disability or not, that person should have the right to access swimming pools. To enable individuals with disabilities to participate fully in their communities, their communities must be accessible to them. Congress should focus on increasing access to community life rather than establishing dangerous precedents which prevent individuals from accessing their communities. Title II I am strongly opposed to the funding cuts for Title II of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act, JJDPA. The JJDPA was first written in 1974 with the goal of supporting states' actions to prevent youth crime and provide certain core protections for children. The law rightfully recognized that clear biological differences between teenagers and adults meant that youth should not be treated in the same manner as adults. Without question, youth must be held accountable for their actions. But justice should not be driven by fads or politics. The juvenile justice system in this country currently affects thousands of children and youth, and the core protections in JJDPA are critical to efforts that help reduce youth crime, keep our communities safe, and ensure our juvenile justice system preserves basic rights for the children it serves. The juvenile justice system can be a place of redemption and rehabilitation or a place where children are thrown away. The funding cuts to Title II of JJDPA threaten the existence of these protections, and if this appropriation were enacted, our nation's children, families, and communities would undoubtedly suffer.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. This rule provides for the consideration of the Commerce-Justice appropriations, but it adds some extraneous matters, things like martial law for reconciliation. If we are going to consider other matters in this rule, we ought to be allowed, as the gentleman from Florida said, to be able to consider the question of the doubling of the interest rates of student loans. The House Democrats, months ago, asked for this action to be taken so that interest rates would not double on students this July 1, doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Calls for bipartisanship were met with silence, silence, silence, and silence for months. All of a sudden, the Republicans in Congress started to understand this issue when President Obama took it to the parents and to the students of this country and explained to them what was at stake. Then, 2 weeks ago, the Republicans surprised us with a bill on the floor when they said they all now agree with it. Even though they had voted against it 2 weeks earlier, they agreed that there shouldn't be a doubling of the student loan rates. But what did they decide to do? In deciding on not doubling the student loan rates, they gave the House a choice in which they would take it out on women's health, denying women early screenings for breast cancer, for cervical cancer, denying newborn infants early screenings for birth defects. That's how they decided they would pay for it. We tried to offer a Democratic alternative, the legislation of Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts, which would have taken away the unjustified, unfair tax breaks to the largest oil companies in the country at a time of record profits and use some of that money to pay for making sure that the interest rates don't double, but the Republicans wouldn't allow us to offer that. Today, what we're trying to do is to defeat the previous question so that we will be able to offer the Democratic substitute, which would keep the interest rates from doubling. We would pay for it by taking away the unfair tax cuts to the largest oil companies and not do what the Republicans did, which is to say you can have your student loan subsidy, but you're going to have to take it out of the hides of newborn infants, of children's immunizations, and of the preventative care and early screenings for women with cervical and breast cancer.