George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the passing of one of the most effective and respected political leaders in modern California political history, and a very dear friend throughout my adult life, Donald E. Muir of San Francisco. A heavily- attended memorial service this past weekend in San Francisco brought together an enormous assortment of public officials, former officeholders, colleagues, friends--all testimony to the active role Don played in the life of California politics and the Democratic Party over the past 30 years. Don had been a colleague on the staff of State Senator George Moscone in the 1970's in Sacramento, and since that time was a trusted adviser to many of the leading Democratic officeholders in California at the State and Federal levels. Don Muir was a political realist, and for him, politics was in part a business. No one performed the business side of politics more expertly or tirelessly. Don was a pro who could read politicians better than anyone, sometimes better than themselves. But politics was more than business for Don Muir, too. It was very personal. He was cynical without being a cynic; his easy going style--open- necked shirts and cowboy boots--belied an intensity and a competitiveness that were renowned. For all his partisanship and fascination with insider intrigue, Don's real love was for our democratic institutions. He understood as well as anyone the practical pressures confronted by elected officials confronting difficult choices, but he always figured Franklin D. Roosevelt--one of his heroes--had it about right: political leaders should challenge their constituents and their Nation, and shouldn't sacrifice principle and the public good to fleeting whims or political expediency. At a time when many ran and hid from the stigmatized notion of being a ``liberal,'' Don remained an unabashed and unapologetic believer that government should help the poor and the disenfranchised. He wasn't in the least starry-eyed, utopian, or naive. But he was unwilling to abandon his deep faith in people and our constitutional system because of what was popular or saleable at any particular time. Don was an adviser, a fundraiser, a strategist, and kibbitzer. He loved the campaign fights and he loved the corridors of the legislatures--state and national--but he also loved sitting for hours in some San Francisco restaurant, a glass of good California wine in his hand, speculating about political developments and digesting political gossip. Don was born in Roseville, CA, the son of railroad workers, and held degrees from Sierra College, California State University at Sacramento, and San Francisco State. He taught government and English in Roseville until he was sucked into the world of elections and politics during the 1960 Presidential campaign of Senator John F. Kennedy. He subsequently worked in the 1962 reelection campaign in which Pat Brown defeated Richard Nixon, and then in the 1964 Presidential campaign for President Lyndon B. Johnson. After working in Brown's 1966 campaign, he became the Governor's travel secretary, and began a career in fundraising that continued through every succeeding Presidential campaign, and countless campaigns for State and Federal candidates. But for all the fun he had and the substantive contributions he made to our political process, I often think that Don's first choice would have been to return to academia, finish up that elusive doctorate, and teach what he had learned about our political system to another generation of Americans. He did return to teach at San Francisco State, and he would have made a great career professor, just as I am sure he was an inspiring teacher earlier in his career and in his last several years as well. He was knowledgeable, he was passionate, and he was deeply committed. In the end, leukemia would overtake his powerful spirit. Don leaves a wonderful family, his wife Linda, with whom he built a successful business and raised three accomplished children, Stacey, Maggie and Mike. To them and to the rest of his family, all of us who profited by this man's faith and friendship offer our deep condolences and prayers. Don's legacy lives on not only in his children and grandchild, but in the scores of people influenced and inspired by him to dedicate themselves to lives of public service for the improvement of our society.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my objection.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I appreciate the explanation of the budget of all of the committees of Congress, but what I would prefer to hear is a discussion about how we are going to deal with campaign finance reform. We have tried on the floor of the House now for many months to get the majority party to tell us when they are going to bring a campaign finance reform bill to the floor. Their suggestion is that they have to investigate first and the investigation takes the place of campaign finance reform; that they only want to deal with those matters that are illegal. The question I ask is: Is it legal and does the system condone the majority whip to let lobbyists sit in his office and write legislation and offer amendments? Is it legal and does the system now allow for the Republicans to threaten lobbyists if they do not direct more of their contributions to Republican Members of the House? Is it legal for the Republican leadership, including their party leadership, to berate 20 top executives from the Business Roundtable, telling them that they will have no access to the Republican Party, to the Republican leadership in this House, if they do not give more of their campaign contributions to Republicans? Is it legal for the majority leader of the Senate to offer contributors access to the offices of the Senate? Is it legal to start drafting up lists of trustworthy friends, those who can donate more to Republicans than to Democrats? Is it legal for Members of this House to berate lobbyists because they have not come through with enough money, to tell them that they will be persona non grata; to call their boss and tell them that these people are done, as far as he is concerned, and they are going to tell their friends? If that is legal, my colleagues, that is a system that must be changed. That is a system that cries out for change. That is a system that says money equals access. The American people can sit in the galleries but they cannot get access to the office of the majority leadership because they did not bring the money. They did not bring the money in the proper proportion. They did not bring the money in a sufficient amount. That is what we are listening to day in and day out, day in and day out, are threats and intimidation against business leaders, against organizations and community activists; that if they do not bring the money they cannot have the access. Now we have increased the budgets of the committees of jurisdiction, but no discussion of campaign finance reform, no discussion about how to give this institution back to the people of this country, no discussion about providing equal access for all the people of this country, no discussion about how decisions are made around here. It is a money chase, it is a money chase that is corrupting the democratic principles upon which this institution was built. It is corrupting of the process and it is corrupting of how we make decisions. It must be changed, and I want to hear from the majority when will they bring a campaign finance bill to the floor. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that that is not made in order by the Committee on Rules, and this is the one the gentleman has agreed to.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment may be modified by the form that I have placed it in at the desk.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and myself would like to join in commending the staffs. They have worked long and hard on this legislation, and I would also like to thank the chairman of the committee in the spirit of Hershey this year. We had a wonderful opportunity to offer amendments, and we appreciate that opportunity in committee.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues who have joined in this debate this afternoon. There is a very fundamental, a very fundamental difference between these two pieces of legislation. We believe that one of the fundamental differences is about really preserving the truly voluntary choice by the employee, about truly voluntary flexible scheduling by the employee and making sure again that preserving the choice of the employee about when to use his time. We also have a very fundamental difference, and a number of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle spoke to it. We believe that there are people unfortunately in this country who are very vulnerable workers, who work in industries with a long history of running on their workers' pay, on not sending their contributions to the State unemployment board, of not sending the tax contributions to the IRS, of not paying into Social Security. Unfortunately, some of these people may be well intentioned but rather under capitalized, and they constantly are taking what the employee has earned and using that to run their business, and then the employee is left holding the bag. It happens to tens of thousands of employees all of the time in this country. Hundreds of thousands of employees have been denied overtime that they have worked for and that they have earned according to the Department of Labor. So what are we saying? We are saying in those industries where you have a history of these kinds of activities, the Secretary of Labor ought to be able to say whether or not those employers ought to be able to engage in comptime because let us understand what one does with comptime: ``You agree to work overtime. You agree to work more than 8 hours, more than 40 hours. You agree to work at night. You agree instead of going home at the end of your shift you're going to stay and do some additional work. A lot of that work is real hot and it's real heavy and it's real dangerous, but that's what you agree to do and you've earned that. You should be protected then against the ability of an unscrupulous employer to run on the obligation.'' Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that a number of speakers have gotten up and spoken about that provision of this bill, but we do believe, we do believe, that those people ought to in fact be protected. They can exercise the choice, but they ought to know what the choice is about, and if it is in an industry, then the Secretary of Labor ought to try and determine whether or not we ought to put these people's wages, these people's wages at risk in the case of where we have a history of unscrupulous employers. So there is a fundamental difference about these two pieces of legislation. I would hope, I would hope that those who are truly interested in providing the real choice of comptime versus overtime and real flexibility for families to use it when they need it and can help their families will vote for the Miller substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time with my understanding the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be the last speaker.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time have we consumed; or how much time is left to both sides?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]. (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we offer this substitute, many of my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we offer this substitute because we do not believe that the legislation before us meets the test of flexibility, that it meets the test of voluntary, and that it meets the test of the right of the worker to choose when and how to use the comptime should they decide to opt into that system. We believe that the legislation before us denies that voluntary choice, allows the employer to have too much say, and we believe that it also denies the worker the right to say when they want to use that time. This is a disagreement between the two sides. It has been a disagreement we have had from the time this bill was heard in committee. We also offer this substitute for a very important reason for workers of this country. It is constantly suggested that somehow the choice of comptime is a wonderful thing and it is free, you just decide you want to work overtime and instead of getting overtime pay you take comptime. Let me explain to the Members that this has serious ramifications for workers. The loss of the premium time, the loss of the premium time comes out of your work year sometime later. When you take your comptime, you would be taking it in a work week that you would otherwise be working. You will get reimbursed when you take your comptime at the regular rate, but if you had freely chosen to have overtime you would have had the overtime you worked and the week that you could keep working if you did not have comptime. What does that mean? That means that there is a potential for somebody earning $10 an hour, 140 hours overtime, according to CRS, up to maybe $2,500, $2,700 a year. At $10 an hour that is a lot of wages in terms of family income. It has an impact on unemployment, because if the premium time is not counted in, if you lose that premium time, you lose the unemployment benefits. In California it could be $1,800 in unemployment benefits over 26 weeks. So let us understand this: This is a decision that an employee must make very carefully. This is a decision that the employee must make in a very voluntary fashion. And if in fact the employee does that, then the employee who has earned those hours off, this is not a gift, this is earned by them working long days of overtime, the employee should be free to choose when and how. They keep comparing it to family medical leave. It is one thing to go in to your employer and say, I have a sick child, a sick parent. We are giving birth to a baby in our family. I need time off. It is another thing to go in to your employer and say, I have a chance to spend 3 additional days with my kids at the lake. The employer looks at his schedule and starts weighing those two competing choices. But you earned this time. You earned this time. You worked late nights. You worked Saturdays and Sundays. Truly, you have got to have that choice. That is why this substitute is being offered, because the underlying bill, H.R. 1, fails in each and every one of these categories to protect the voluntary nature of the decision, to protect the choice, to protect the flexibility and, most importantly, to protect the wages and the benefits and, even down the road, the level of your Social Security payments for those people who work. If they spend a career in comp time, they will lose a substantial portion of their remuneration of Social Security payments down the road. So this is not just a delightful little decision that you make willy- nilly. This has consequences for those families. That is why the President drafted his comp bill in the manner in which he did, because this is a decision that must be weighed and workers must be fully informed. The supporters of H.R. 1 like to suggest that just the standard of ``take it or do not take it'' is enough. It is not enough for the hard- working American families of this country.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called Family Flexibility Act. Once again we see the Republicans bringing to the floor of the House legislation whose title suggests this is helpful to families but turns out not to be helpful for families. Why is that so in this case? Because H.R. 1 simply fails to meet the test to provide families the flexibility that they can control in their working schedule. The fact is that under their legislation, the families will not have more flexibility to manage their schedules. Their employers will have more flexibility to manage the schedules, and that is the No. 1 complaint among workers about the loss of control over their schedules so that they can deal with the concerns they have with their family and the time they would like to spend with their family and to meet the needs of that family. This legislation, as presented, simply does not meet the test. It does not meet the test of freedom of choice because, again, the worker does not have that choice. It is about the employer having the ability to manipulate that choice. Under the Republican bill, it is the employer that gets to decide when the employee can use the comp time. It makes no sense for an employee to agree to work overtime, to work 20 or 30 hours a week overtime, or 10 hours a week, or a 20-hour day, or whatever it is decided that the employer gets to dictate to that employee to build up comp time, if the employee does not truly have the choice when and how that comp time will, in fact, be used. That is where the Republican bill fails. The choice about when that comp time can be used by the employee, to meet whatever, for whatever purposes they decide, but let us assume it is to spend more time with the family or to take care of those critical needs, what we see is, in fact, that that remains in the hands of the employer. I think when employees discover that, they will find out that this is not some nice option because they can be forced into working overtime, somehow believing that they are going to get comp time off, but throughout the work year they can find out that it can be denied time and again because of the low threshold that is put in the bill. We must also understand that this has serious financial ramifications for working families, which we will discuss later.