George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That was a Statewide drought. Yes, they lost some employment in farm work, but, in fact, agricultural employment, even through the drought, was pretty stable. The big employment in the Central Valley came because we were selling homes to people who couldn't pay for them. That was the crash. It was first place and the longest crash that we had in this country in terms of mortgages and the loss of the people who were working in those trades. But that drought was still felt across the State. Thousands of people lost their jobs in tourism in northern California, in commercial fisheries, in recreational fisheries, in the bait shops and the support services all across our State. That drought was an equal destroyer of this California economy from north to south. Don't wreck this opportunity for California to settle California's problems.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Let us understand what is taking place here. In California, for the first time in 40 years, all of the various water parties have gotten together to try to work out these disagreements and come up with a sustainable water policy that serves all of the needs of all Californians--agriculture, manufacturing, municipal uses, environmental uses--all of that together. For the first time, the State legislature passed historic legislation empowering these negotiations to take place in order to take care of disparate interests. But there are two parties in that negotiation that keep threatening to walk out of the room. They're going to walk out, walk out, walk out. Apparently, they did walk out. They walked out, and they came back to Washington, D.C., to cut a separate deal. These are among the largest water users in the State. These are among the most highly subsidized users in the State. One of our conservative friends on the other side was complaining about the deficit when he started to talk on this bill. These are people who are getting a $400 million interest-free loan from the taxpayers of this country. These are the people who are getting $400 million in subsidies every year from the taxpayers of this country. And what do they do? In this bill, they have an earmark. You gave them 40 years and these rights in perpetuity to get at least $400 million a year from the taxpayers of this country. That's not on top of the crop subsidies. That's not on top of the insurance payments, disaster payments. This is just in subsidized water that goes to these people who are crying poor. The largest users have decided they want two negotiations--one in California and one in Washington. To do that, they want to overturn the California laws, the California legislature, the Supreme Court decisions, and the science. We'll go back in time 18 years and say that this science is good enough. But the heart of this, more than water, is money, and the money sits there, and it flows with the water. Every drop of water that goes to the San Luis Unit and others is subsidized. Right now, they only have a year-to-year contract. They'd have a 20-year contract possibly if they reach agreement. You give them 40 years, and then 40 years in perpetuity: $400 million a year times perpetuity. You figure out what this earmark is worth. You figure out what this special treatment is worth. Do you want to know who is driving this process? It's those very, very special interests that are moving this process, and apparently, they can move our friends on the other side to overturn Supreme Court opinions. They can overturn the State legislature. They can overturn these negotiations. There used to be a saying around here that said that it takes some skill and talent to build a barn, but that any damned fool can kick it down. So what these people have decided is that they're just going to kick over those negotiations in California, those negotiations in which people have invested a huge amount of time and talent--from the legislature, to the agencies, to the farmers, to the environmentalists, to our cities, to our counties--all of whom oppose this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the senior Democrat on the Higher Education Subcommittee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Chair and Members of the House, we are now considering legislation that would significantly compromise the Department of Education's ability to oversee and safeguard our Federal investment in higher education and safeguard and protect the taxpayers who are paying for that investment in higher education. This legislation couldn't be more ill-timed. In this tough budget environment, we should be concerned with how the Federal Government spends the limited resources we dedicate to Federal student aid. During the 2009 2010 school year, students relied on nearly $200 billion in Federal student aid to prepare for jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow. That's the money that they borrowed, and that's the money that was given to them in grants. If that money is not spent in a responsible way, and if it's not protected, it goes down the drain. It's lost forever, and the students are left with the debt. Two years ago, the Department of Education's inspector general exposed a loophole that allowed a higher education institution to award more credits to get more student financial aid than was appropriate. They were charging for nine units a day that they said was graduate work. It turned out when the accreditors went through and looked at it, they deemed it was really the equivalent of 3 hours of credit work, and the level of work was at the undergraduate level. But they were able to charge the students, students had to borrow money, and at the end of the day they ended up with units that were worth nothing. Students attending this institution, many of whom were relying on Federal aid programs, were paying double the price because the school inflated the number of credits charged. In response to the inspector general's findings and recommendations, the Department of Education promulgated rules defining a credit hour and providing other protections for students, including ensuring students have access to a complaint process if there's fraud involved. What the Department of Education did was necessary and narrowly targeted to address a very costly problem. However, the bill before us today seeks to prevent the Department from protecting taxpayers and students. It would blow open the loophole that the inspector general concluded led to the inappropriate Federal spending. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today explicitly increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in our Federal student aid programs. At a time when the higher education market is in so much flux, with new kinds of programs popping up around the country and online, this is the wrong time to open this loophole against the taxpayers' best interest. The Department of Education should have tools to ensure that students who are eligible to receive Federal student aid are receiving it, and that the institutions that serve these students are upholding the integrity of the programs. This seems like a simple proposition: making sure taxpayers and students aren't getting ripped off. This legislation eliminates those important consumer protections, and it does so under the banner of academic freedom. But the Department's protections do not interfere with academic freedom. Colleges and universities will continue to be free under the Department's rule to set whatever higher standards they see fit for their students as long as the accreditors agree. In this economy, millions of students rely on Federal student aid programs to make the college dream a reality. This is exactly why the Department of Education has moved to ensure greater accountability and taxpayer protection. And it's exactly why the legislation is misguided. Now more than ever, we need accountability in higher education that works in the best interests of students who use Federal aid programs. In the last Congress, Democrats worked to make sure that our student aid programs worked in the best interest of students, families, and taxpayers. We also worked hard to make higher education more accessible for families for whom degrees may have been out of reach. One way we helped to make higher education more accessible and affordable and financially manageable for students and families was to lower the interest rates on loans. Specifically, we lowered the interest rate on need-based student loans to 3.4 percent, almost cutting the cost to those borrowers in half. The interest rate reduction is scheduled to end this summer. It will bounce back to where it was before the Democrats acted to reduce it. For the sake of our students, low rates should be extended. If Congress fails to act, interest rates on need-based student loans for more than 7 million students will double this July. This increase will cost an average borrower almost $2,800 in additional interest payments. At a time when our economy is on fragile footing, we shouldn't be building more hurdles for young people to get the education and the skills they need to succeed. When interest rates are at historic lows, we should not be asking students to pay more on their student loan debt just because Congress failed to act. Earlier this month, Mr. Hinojosa and I asked the committee's majority to take immediate action on this important issue. The President has called for action as well. But just like with other economic issues that are vitally important to the American people, those requests have been met with silence. So today, instead of saving students from interest rate hikes, we are here debating a bill that will take away the tools the Department of Education needs to oversee and protect our investment in higher education, to protect those students who are borrowing money to go to college. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I urge the majority to take up a bill to make sure that interest rates don't double come July. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We have no further speakers, Madam Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would just conclude that I think, when you consider the $200 billion that the taxpayers of this country provide through the Federal Government student aid programs to the institutions of higher education all across the country, all of different dynamics, that before we throw out what modest accounting system we have for trying to make sure that we buy value for each and every student who spends their money, the money that they borrow, the money that their parents borrow to try to provide them the educational opportunities so that they can participate in the greater American opportunity all across this country, we ought not to be throwing this system out. As Mr. Bishop pointed out, this is a minimum requirement. It's a requirement that many people will recognize. When you sign up for a three-unit course, very often you find you spend 3 hours a week in that class. If you sign up for a five-unit course, you're spending more time. The question really becomes--now as we see a lot of different institutions mixing into this space and receiving and living off almost 85 to 90 percent of their revenues that come from the Federal taxpayers--do these courses really have value? Are they giving the student the value for which they're signing up? The record is replete that in many instances that's not the case, that in many instances the students have been defrauded. In many instances, it was represented that this was all transferable to the State colleges and to the university systems when, in fact, it turned out not to be true. I think that we ought to make sure that we don't throw out that current accounting system to make sure that taxpayers and students are getting value for the money that they spend and the money that they work hard to pay back at a time when we have nothing to take its place. The idea now that in the future you need no accreditation in a State to start up an institution and then you have access to all of the revenues you can grab from the Federal Government makes no sense to me at all. We ought to have accountability in this system, and that accountability runs to the students and it runs to the taxpayers in this country. I would hope that we would reject this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just quickly, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, well, a lot of States are already doing this, but now we don't want to add a burden. This simply says the State has to have a process. If the State has a process, it's over, it's done. So why would we take away that voice in those States that don't have a process? Let's make sure that students have a place to go. As we know, many of these financial scandals have been brought to us by students because they can't get redress anywhere else. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair. This amendment is absolutely consistent with this legislation. What it does is just simply make it easier for any institution to maximize the amount of Federal aid they get. Under this amendment, they would be able to choose whether or not they want to be a clock-hour or a credit-hour institution, and that would depend really on how they could game the reimbursement that's available to them again without checking whether or not this provision allows for the student to receive value for that money which they borrow to pay for their education. I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for offering this motion to recommit. I say to my colleagues here in the House, this is a very simple proposition. If Congress fails to act in July of this year, interest rates on student loans will double. And if those interest rates on student loans double, that means that the average borrower will pay another $2,800, almost $3,000, in additional interest. At a time when families and students will be paying higher interest rates than any time in the recent past, we ought to make sure that the Secretary has the authority to make--that they understand that they get value for what they're buying, that they don't get overcharged, and that they're not the subject of fraud, abuse, and waste in the system when people try to overcharge them for the number of units that they are offering them. We cannot let these students go into areas unprotected when interest rates are about to double. Congress can solve this problem by retaining the interest rates at three-quarters percent and be done with this issue, and the legislation will go forward. But if we don't protect the students and their families from the increase in interest rates, then the Secretary retains the authority to make sure that they are not subject to waste, fraud, and abuse when they are borrowing money to pay for their education. I thank the gentlewoman for introducing her legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today with my colleagues Congressman Pete Stark, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Jerry McNerney, and Congressman John Garamendi to honor our friend, Hulet Hornbeck, who passed away on January 7, 2012. The State of California has lost a tireless leader whose many contributions to the East Bay Regional Park District will be remembered and revered by the residents of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and by all who knew him. Hulet relocated to California soon after the end of World War II and began his career at the East Bay Regional Park District. He enjoyed a distinguished career as Chief of Land Acquisition for the East Bay Regional Park District from 1965 through 1985, serving with legendary leaders William Penn Mott and Richard Trudeau. Hulet is credited with overseeing the acquisition of 49,000 acres of parkland and expanding the District's land holdings from eight parks of 13,000 acres to 46 parks of 62,000 acres. His acquisitions elevated the East Bay Regional Park district to the largest regional urban park district in the nation, a unique distinction it still holds today. A lifetime conservationist and outdoorsman, Hulet held many positions in local trail and conservation organizations and received countless honors and awards as a result of his work. He provided leadership and advice for organizations, including the California Conservation Council, the American Hiking Society, the National Trails Council, the Martinez Land Trust, the Trails and Greenways Foundation, American Trails, Heritage Trails Fund, Amigos de Anza, the California Recreational Trails Committee, the East Bay Area Trails Council, the American Trails Association, Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation, and the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. In 2005, on Hornbeck's 88th birthday, the California Riding and Hiking Trail in the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Park was renamed the Hulet Hornbeck Trail, ``in recognition of [his] tireless efforts in parkland development and management on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District,'' according to the National Trails Training Partnership. Hulet was one of the most creative land acquisition agents in the country; on behalf of the public he partnered with private companies, individuals, non-profits, and all levels of government. We owe him and the East Bay Regional Park District a great debt of gratitude for creating the largest urban regional park district in the nation. Mr. Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in offering our condolences to Hulet's family and friends. Hulet will be sorely missed, but his contributions toward environmental conservation and dedication to public access to open spaces will be enjoyed for generations to come. His legacy lives on in the heart of every resident and visitor who seeks solace in the thousands of acres of wild greenbelts that grace the East Bay.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. This compromise stands as an example of why it is counterproductive to negotiate with hostage takers. Initially, the Republicans insisted that to keep the FHA up and running we make union elections as unfair as possible. For instance, they said that in a union election we should count anyone who did not vote in that election as a ``no'' vote. Members of Congress immediately recognized that none of us would win those elections and none of us would be here today; and if it is unfair for us, it must also be unfair for the workers of this country. The Republicans gave up that demand thanks to the Democrats. The rule providing for fair elections is protected. Instead of succeeding at making union elections unfair, this conference report makes these elections difficult, if not impossible, to hold at all. This report contains numerous statutory changes, not rules changes, but statutory changes, that will make it harder for workers to get an election and have a voice at work. A voice at work is a fundamental right granted to every worker in this Nation by the laws of this Nation. These changes will require an act of Congress to undo. The compromise leads to absurdities. Under the election rule, which is safe for the time being, workers need a majority of actual votes to win in a union election, and that is fine. Under the conference report, to even hold an election, workers must first get a majority of all of the eligible workers to sign cards supporting the unions. These are nationwide units stretched across the country. You don't have access to all of those workers. You don't even know where many of them are. In the airlines, many of them may have been furloughed for a number of years. Imagine if a congressional election were run this way. To get on the ballot, you first need a majority of all of the voters in your district to sign cards saying they supported you, but you didn't know who those voters were and you didn't know where they lived. None of us would be elected.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. None of us would be elected under this requirement. In fact, there probably wouldn't even be an election. Once again, we wouldn't run under these conditions. We wouldn't participate in an election under these conditions, and yet we are insisting that American workers have their elections rigged in this fashion. At this point, especially when you see how it might work in airline mergers, there again this rule works against the workers in trying to assemble the election unit. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill. It undermines the rights of American workers for no purpose other than to satisfy the ideological demands of the Republicans and their special interest backers. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this conference report.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Novelean ``Mother'' Harris of Richmond, California, who passed on January 11, 2012 at the age of 95. Mother Harris was a deeply religious and caring woman who fed and clothed the unfortunate and those in need, and a pioneering business owner in her community. Mother was the second child born to the late Charlie and Lillie Turner on Thursday, June 15, 1916 in Bernice, Louisiana. She came to know Christ at an early age when her family moved to El Dorado, Arkansas, and joined the New Bethel Baptist Church. Later, Novelean married the love of her life, the late George H. Harris, and had two sons, James and George, and a daughter, Carolyn. George moved his family to Richmond, California, in 1943 to seek better opportunities. Soon afterwards, George and Mother joined North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church, under the late Reverend F.W. Watkins, where they were active participants in their church and their community. George opened one of the first successful insurance businesses in Richmond. He was also one of the first African Americans to serve on the Contra Costa County Grand Jury. With the goal in mind to also own a business, Novelean enrolled at the Charm Beauty School in Oakland, obtained her state cosmetology license, and opened the first African American owned beauty salon in North Richmond. She later established Novelean's Beauty Salon on the Southside of the city where she mentored and trained other women to become licensed cosmetologists. At the time of her death, Mother Harris held one of the oldest business licenses in the City of Richmond. Mother Harris served in many capacities at North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church, but she will be most remembered for running the church's Soup Kitchen. Mother Harris never turned away a hungry person. She and her volunteer staff provided nutritious meals to countless people and ensured that the needy received a bag of groceries and clothes. She ministered to the homeless who came to eat. Each day at noon, Mother Harris would stop whatever she was doing to lead a prayer. Her passion for feeding the hungry extended beyond her service in the church. Mother Harris often prepared large pots of soup in her own kitchen and delivered meals to the homes of seniors and the disabled. Mother Harris was a strong pillar in her city. She encouraged others in the community to vote and supported the campaigns of many who sought elected office by giving advice, raising contributions, and feeding candidates in local, state, and national elections. The City of Richmond declared May 5, 2007, ``Mother Harris Day'' in honor of her contributions to the community. A bench was dedicated to her outside of North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church. Mother Harris was a life member of the Richmond Branch NAACP and was a founding member of the Cosmetology Organization of the Greater Bay Area. Simply stated by Mother Harris, ``God gave me a vision early in my life to reach out and help those in need.'' She leaves a legacy for us all to follow. I ask my colleagues to join with me in offering sincere condolences to her children, family, and friends.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Congressman Pete Stark, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Mike Honda, Congressman Jerry Mcnerney, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, and Congressman John Garamendi to recognize Will Travis, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) of 17 years, as he retires after 42 years of public service. Will ``Tray'' Travis, holds a Bachelor of Architecture and a Master of Regional Planning degree from Pennsylvania State University. From 1970 to 1972 he served as BCDC's first Bay Development Design Analyst, after which he spent 12 years with the California Coastal Commission, holding a number of positions, including heading the agency's offshore oil drilling permit staff, directing its public access program, and overseeing its budget and administrative functions. He returned to BCDC in 1985 as Deputy Director and was later appointed Executive Director in 1995. Travis has written many articles on coastal issues, has provided advice on coastal matters to other states and nations, and has been a university lecturer throughout North America. He was appointed Chairman of the Shell Oil Spill Litigation Settlement Trustee Committee, which administered a multimillion dollar settlement fund to settle claims resulting from a 1988 oil spill. In that capacity, he spearheaded the public acquisition of 10,000 acres of privately owned salt ponds along the northern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay in one of the largest coastal wetland restoration projects in California's history. Over the years Travis has been a tremendous leader in protecting San Francisco Bay while balancing the difficult roles of conservation and development. He has established himself as a leading advocate for a regional strategy to address climate change and sea level rise in the Bay Area. My colleagues and I, as well as over 7 million residents in the Bay Area, owe him a great debt of gratitude for protecting our quality of life. Travis was the 2009 recipient of the Jean Auer Environmental Award and is a member of the National Research Council Roundtable on Climate Change Education. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, the EcoAdapt Climate Change Adaptation Innovation Center, the Executive Management Committee of a Joint Policy Committee of four regional agencies, the Community Advisory Board of KB Home Corporation and Friends of One Bay Area. Furthermore, Travis is a member of Lambda Alpha, the honorary society for the advancement of land economics, he has chaired a special committee established by the City of Berkeley to work with the University of California to develop a new plan for downtown Berkeley, and has served on the project team of ``Saving the Bay,'' a public television documentary film. Mr. Speaker, we invite this chamber to join us in honoring Will Travis for his tireless and dedicated service to the people of California and the San Francisco Bay Area. We also join his family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating him on a successful and fulfilling career at BCDC and wishing him well on his new initiative as a senior policy advisor for the Bay Area's Joint Policy Committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 7, rollcall No. 8, and rollcall No. 9 on January 24, 2012, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 516, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the passage of a fiscal year 2013 Federal budget is of national importance. I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2070. And I would have voted ``yea'' to instruct conferees to file a conference report on the Payroll Tax Cut no later than February 17, 2012.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 5 and rollcall No. 6 on January 23, 2012, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted to suspend the rules and pass both H.R. 1141 and H.R. 3117.