George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If anybody thinks that this is just a technical change, let's understand what has gone on since the Republicans have taken control of the House. The first effort was they cut $50 million out of the NLRB account. Then there was an amendment on this floor to try and zero out the money for the NLRB. Then they passed a rule that said that you could retaliate against workers and you could move work away from those workers. You could outsource it, and they enshrined the right to outsource work to retaliate against workers. And now we have the effort to try and prevent elections from taking place. This is a systematic effort joined in by a number of States and the Republicans in this Congress to take away the rights of workers at the workplace in America, the basic rights that have built the middle class. And while they've continued this campaign against the NLRB, thank God the NLRB has continued to work because we see today that a settlement has been reached in the Boeing case, and you don't get to retaliate against workers. The new 737 work will go to Washington; the 787 will continue to go to South Carolina. The NLRB worked that agreement out between employer and employee. And let's remember, Boeing is on the record they didn't support the legislation that was put on in behalf of their name. So that worked out. And just a few minutes ago, the NLRB apparently voted on a compromise rule dealing with elections. And so that compromise rule hopefully will now become a permanent rule and that will go forward. That's what the NLRB does: It works out these arrangements between employers and employees over these issues about how the American workplace will be managed, but it does not strip away the basic rights of workers to choose to join a union. It does not allow you to retaliate against the union. It does not allow you to delay elections to such a point that you finally beat the union into submission or people give up, they get dispirited and move away. It doesn't allow that. That's the basic labor law of this country. So today the NLRB, working with employers and employees, has reaffirmed that principle. Today in this House, they continue the effort to try to strip workers of their rights. They continue the effort in light of the evidence that these things get worked out in the workplace. Yes, these are contentious. They're big issues. But we have a vehicle that's 75 years old that has worked well on behalf of this economy. Not only did it build the middle class in this country, it also built one of the largest economies. Why? Because we have the most productive workers in the history of the world industry after industry after industry, however you measure it. Why aren't our steelworkers competitive with China? Because our plants are cost competitive on ton of steel, but when you manipulate the currency, our people can't win. But our workers continue to be there every day. And now, thank you to the work of the NLRB working out these arrangements, the NLRB will continue to be there every day for employers and employees to settle their differences.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act. This bill reflects an initial step to modernize and reform the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). FECA has provided workers' compensation benefits to federal civilian workers injured or killed on the job since 1916. Administered by the Labor Department, FECA provides workers' compensation coverage to over 2.7 million civilian federal and postal employees. The law covers FBI agents shot in the line of duty, guards wounded in facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons, and federal firefighters risking their lives to protect lives and property. It also covers Members of this body and their staff. For example, following the January 8th tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, which killed 6 and injured 13, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords began receiving medical care and intensive rehabilitation services covered by FECA. This law also covers her staff. As we examined reforms, the Committee was guided by three key principles embedded in the law: First, workers and their families should be no better off, and no worse off, than if the worker had not been injured. Second, all federal civilian workers, regardless of the branch of government in which they are employed, should be covered under the same benefit structure. Finally, workers are entitled to be fairly compensated in a timely manner, with benefits administered in a non-adversarial manner. As the committee worked in a bipartisan manner to update the law, there were immediate areas of agreement. Specifically, This bill increases maximum benefits for funeral expenses and facial disfigurement, both of which haven't been raised since 1949. H.R. 2465 clarifies that injuries caused by acts of terrorism are covered. The bill expands the pool of medical providers and expands their authority to certify traumatic injuries for purposes of authorizing claims for continuation of pay. The added providers include physician assistants and advanced practice nurses, such as nurse practitioners, consistent with the scope of practice authorized by state law. The bill includes program integrity improvements that were recommended by the Department of Labor's Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. For example, the Department of Labor will have authority to access a claimant's Social Security earnings information to track whether the claimant is receiving prohibited payments. The bill addresses the difficulty in filing workers' compensation claims for federal employees injured in ``zones of armed conflict'' by extending ``continuation of pay'' for traumatic injury from 45 days to 135 days. The Committee received other reform proposals from the Department of Labor at a May 12, 2011 Subcommittee hearing, but there was insufficient evidence to support adoption of these changes, and the hearing revealed that further detailed study was needed to ensure there were not unintended effects. We note with some concern that the Senate has reported legislation modeled after the Department of Labor's proposal which would reduce benefits for permanently injured workers with dependents, cut benefits for permanently injured workers when they reach retirement age, and slash benefits for survivors of workers killed on the job. As previously mentioned, workers and their families should be no better off, nor worse off, because of a disabling injury or death caused by while in service to the federal government. Members of Congress must be assured that reform proposals do not lead to inequitable outcomes, particularly in light of the fact that FECA is an exclusive remedy. To assess the impact of DOL's other proposals, the Education and Workforce Committee has agreed on a bipartisan basis to ask GAO to evaluate the Administration's additional proposed reforms. This approach is consistent with the recommendation of the Inspector General, who has urged careful consideration before Congress changes the structure of benefits to ensure that injured workers are treated fairly. Before Congress acts, it is important that we take great care to ensure that further reforms are fair to taxpayers and injured workers. Once GAO completes its work, we will analyze their findings. At that time I believe we should also examine whether Congress can generate savings from measures to further reduce work-related injuries and illnesses and to better facilitate the re-employment of injured workers. I am encouraged we have advanced bipartisan bill to improve the program and deliver savings to taxpayers and the Postal Service. I want to thank Chairman Kline, Chairman Walberg, Senior Democratic Member Woolsey for their cooperation and efforts in developing this legislation. Attached to this statement are letters of support for this bill from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Treasury Employees Union, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the National Association of Letter Carriers, and the Workers' Injury Law and Advocacy Group. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Washington, DC, July 18, 2011. Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Miller: I am writing on behalf of the 26,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), to express our support for H.R. 2465, the ``Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act.'' Our organization, has long worked to address major flaws with the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) system, and we appreciate your efforts to advance these common sense reforms. On July 21, 2010, I testified before the House Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and highlighted situations in which federal law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty were made worse by the FECA-Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) system. One of those officers--Special Agent Mike Vaiani, who was injured in the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York City--summed it up best: ``I would rather run back into the tower while it's on fire than have to deal with the Department of Labor.'' To their credit, after the hearing both the Directors of the Federal Employees Compensation Program and OWCP met with FLEOA and agreed to establish traumatic care nurses for law enforcement injuries and a law enforcement officer Ombudsman in each OWCP district. Despite this positive development more work is still needed, and FLEOA applauds this legislation which the Education and the Workforce Committee unanimously approved last week. This bill is a positive step towards addressing many of the underlying issues with FECA that prevent injured federal law enforcement officers from receiving responsive care. Specifically, FLEOA fully supports the ability to allow physician assistants or advanced practice nurses to provide certifications of traumatic injury and related disability; the extension of compensation for death and disability for individuals employed outside the United States to include death or disability caused by terrorist attack; and providing additional compensation for funeral expenses and for injuries that lead to facial disfigurement. Further, FLEOA fully supports the provisions of your bill to extend continuation of pay (COP) for traumatic injuries sustained in a ``Zone of Armed Conflict'' to 135 days. On this particular point, FLEOA has long advocated for increasing the COP time frame. For those officers assaulted by a suspect, exposed to a toxic substance, or shot or stabbed, or involved in an explosive blast while enforcing the law, this time frame would better allow for a proper evaluation to determine if a return to work will be possible. We would therefore request that due to the often traumatic nature of the injuries incurred, that you consider including all Federal law enforcement officers under this extended COP period. On behalf of the membership of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, thank you for your efforts on this important legislation and for taking the steps to bring these long overdue reforms to FECA. Our organization stands ready to work with the Committee on further common sense reforms and to include federal law enforcement officers in the extended COP provision of this bill. Sincerely, Jon Adler, National President.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. They've off-loaded all of the pension costs they possibly could on the backs of these workers. We should not allow that to happen, not in this country, not in this Congress. We should not allow it to happen to American workers and to their families. We should defeat this very anti-family piece of legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. As for regular order, I would like to remind the gentlewoman from North Carolina that when the vote came, there wasn't a single Republican vote back in the Clinton era. Not a single Republican vote. Once again, you balked when it came time to vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Seventy-five years ago this Nation decided as a matter of right and a matter of law that the decision of whether or not workers wanted a union belonged to those workers, and this Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act to give workers this right and an election to decide. Ever since that time, companies have fought to take away the right of the workers because they believe that the companies control all of the rights in the workplace. They believe that the workers should simply take and do as they say, and that's the end of the discussion. And this has been a battle throughout the economic history of this country since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. But the fact of the matter is that when workers decide they want an organization, they go out and they talk to their fellow workers, they form a union, and they have an election. But what we now see is the companies constantly trying to insert themselves into that worker-controlled process by trying to disrupt the elections of those workers and trying to keep them from exercising their rights under the law. And this is the goal of this very antiworker, antifamily legislation. It would end the collective bargaining rights for working people in this country because it would so skew the process that you would never get to that election that workers are guaranteed under the law. This is Wisconsin and Ohio all wrapped up into one. This goes across the Nation. What they can't do in the States where they don't control the governorship or the legislature, where they made the attempt right after the election to take away workers' rights at work, where they can't do that, they now seek to do in the Halls of Congress, to so change the process and to discriminate against the rights of workers so that, in fact, the process ceases to exist. How do they do that? They do that by having endless delays. Why are endless delays important to employers? So that they can hire union- busting law firms to come in and intimidate and teach employers how to intimidate workers because, don't forget, the employer has the right from the moment they're served notice to have captive meetings in the workplace where they threaten the workers with the loss of jobs, where they threaten the workers with being fired, where they threaten the workers of sending work to China or elsewhere, where they threaten the workers that they won't get the promotion, where they change the workers' shift time from maybe day shift to graveyard shift and keep rotating them around to show them that they're in control and the workers have no rights. And if you can do it for 7 days, you have a chance. If you can do it for 10 days, you have a better chance. If you can do it for as many as 2,000 days that these law firms have kept the process open, you can kill the drive for a union. You can intimidate the workers. How else do they do it? When workers decide among themselves that we want a unit within this company, within this factory to represent us, this bill now says that the employer can come in and rearrange the members of the unit that would have that election. They can stuff the ballot box. They can pick your candidates to stand for election. Doesn't sound very Democratic to me. But that's what they get to do under this bill that's proposed. The workers no longer get to decide, as the law says they get to decide. The workers no longer get to decide, as the Supreme Court says they get to decide. The employer gets to decide. The arrogance of these people to suggest that they should pick the leaders of the workers, that they should pick the organization of the workers who have a right to organize. So they get to delay the elections. They encourage and provide for and define the right to continue to file frivolous lawsuits so that this process never ends. You can bankrupt these workers if they try to run head-on-head with these big law firms that are specialized in this, that travel around the country to take away the rights at work. What does this mean? This means underpinning the basic organization in the American workplace today that speaks on behalf of the middle class. This is from the organization that brought you the great American weekend. This is the organization that brought you the 8-hour day. This is the organization that brought you overtime pay if you work longer than 8 hours. This is the organization that brought you sick leave. This is the organization that brought women their rights at work. This is the organization that makes safe work places. This is the organization that provided, for the first time, pensions and retirement benefits for workers. Any wonder why these corporations, why the Chamber of Commerce is so set against this? Because they don't want to do this anymore. They want to ship the jobs to China. They want no minimum wage. They want a sub- minimum wage. They want no rights for workers. How will the American families survive that? They've already off-loaded all of the health care costs they possibly could.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Eshoo and I rise in the memory of Rollin Post, a distinguished journalist, beloved husband, and proud father and grandfather, great American, and dear friend. Rollin was a radio reporter and then television journalist in California for more than four decades, spending most of his career in the San Francisco Bay Area. He was, quite simply, the best at his craft. He died on October 3 at the age of 81 after suffering from Alzheimer's disease. We also rise today to mourn the death of Rollin's wife, Diane Opley Post. After 57 years of a remarkable marriage, Diane survived her husband's death by only a month. She died peacefully at their residence in Corte Madera, California on November 6 at the age of 82. Diane, and her engagement in many important civic activities, will be fondly remembered. We will miss Diane and Rollin for their friendship. And we offer our sympathy to their three children and five grandchildren and we thank them for having shared their parents with us for so many wonderful years. Rollin was born in New York City in 1930 and received his undergraduate degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1952. He started as a radio reporter for the CBS affiliate in Los Angeles in 1954, switched to television in 1957, and moved to the Bay Area in 1961 where he spent more than 40 years working for three television stations--KPIX, the CBS affiliate, KQED, a public television station, and KRON, the NBC affiliate. Rollin represented the best of political journalism. His deep understanding and knowledge of the issues and the California electorate were unparalleled. His analysis of state and national events truly informed his viewers. When ``gotcha'' journalism became the norm in his industry, Rollin stayed true to his beliefs about what it took to be a really good journalist. Rollin informed himself before his interviews, asked his questions, and then asked them again if he didn't feel they had been properly answered. He was very tough but he was fair. He respected his viewers by holding politicians to high standards. Rollin was a man of high integrity, and his love of journalism and politics showed in every broadcast. Our country is poorer today in the absence of his excellent reporting. We ask our colleagues to join us in remembering Rollin Post and in honoring him for his efforts as a journalist to keep our country informed, its politicians honest, and the journalistic profession serious.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two people who have dedicated their lives to improving the educational outcomes for our Nation's youth. Gerard and Lilo Leeds are a shining example of two people who are giving something important back to a society that once offered them the opportunity to experience so much success in their own lives. The Leeds came to the United States in 1939 as refugees from Hitler's Germany. After launching a successful media corporation, Mr. and Mrs. Leeds founded the Institute for Student Achievement--an organization that partners with low-income middle schools and high schools to improve student achievement for at-risk youth. They also created the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc, a coalition of concerned parents and education advocates seeking to reform New York State's school finance system. The Leeds also established the Caroline and Sigmund Schott Foundation--an organization that works on early childhood education and care, gender equity, and education financing issues. The Leeds continued their philanthropic efforts on behalf of adolescent youth by founding the Alliance for Excellent Education in 2001 and charged it with reducing the nation's high school dropout rate and preparing each secondary school student to graduate ready for success at the college level. Gerard and Lilo Leeds are recipients of many civic awards, including Socially Responsible Entrepreneurs of the Year, the Long Island Association Humanitarian Award, and Outstanding Philanthropists of the year for the Long Island chapter of the National Society of Fund Raising Executives. The couple also has been honored by the Urban League of Long Island, the New York State chapter of the NAACP, the New York State United Teachers union, and the American Jewish Committee. They were cited by Newsday in its report on ``100 Who Shaped a Century,'' and were among the ten honorees selected by WCBS-TV for recognition in its annual ``Fulfilling the Dream'' celebration of the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Their spirit is filled with humanitarianism, kindness, and commitment to serve others. As displayed by their social ventures, they are fully dedicated to helping disadvantaged youth achieve and exceed expectations. When asked where their sense of responsibility comes from, they said the only thing that allowed them to succeed, especially as immigrants fleeing Germany during World War II, was a quality education. As lifetime learners earning both a bachelors and masters degree, they believe the same academic experience they received should be the standard--not the exception--for every boy and girl in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Gerard and Lilo Leeds for their tremendous leadership and dedication to helping students across the United States receive a quality education.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, last week the United Mine Workers of America released the results of their investigation into the deadliest coal mine tragedy in four decades. The report describes the conditions on April 5, 2010 in Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine that led to a colossal explosion killing 29 miners. It confirms the findings of two other independent investigations. In short, Massey's failure to eliminate explosive coal dust throughout the mine converted an otherwise manageable methane fire into a catastrophic explosion. The force of this explosion traveled more than 7 miles underground, destroying everything in its path. Miles of coal belts were decimated, railroad tracks were twisted like pretzels, and massive mining equipment was tossed underground like lawn furniture during a hurricane. The report noted that in the 15 months before the explosion, the mine was cited 645 times for violations of mine safety laws. They faced $1.2 million in potential fines. However, rather than improving safety, Massey challenged three-quarters of the fines. And in the month before the explosion, miners had asked that the accumulation of explosive coal dust be addressed 560 times. However, management only responded 65 times. The Upper Big Branch mine was literally a powder keg. The mine workers' investigation concluded that 29 miners died because of a corrupt corporate culture that put production ahead of human life. Massey Energy's top management was well aware of the conditions at Upper Big Branch mine. They knew of the mountains of citations for dangerous conditions, but all they had to do was file an appeal to get Federal safety officials to back off. Massey also obstructed mine safety inspections by illegally alerting operations of an inspector on the property so they could cover up any noticeable problems. And management knew that workers were complaining about the conditions below ground. But all Massey had to do was remind these miners that they were free to find other employment if they continued to speak up. Corporate officers didn't mince words when it came to production over safety. In a ``RUN COAL'' memo from CEO Don Blankenship in 2005, he told his workers their only concern was to produce coal. The message was clear from the very top: produce coal, disregard safety problems or find another job. Miners of Upper Big Branch and other Massey mines have told Congress and investigators similar stories. To enforce their perverse philosophy, top management demanded reports every 30 minutes on how much their mines were producing. It is clear that Massey Energy management actively disregarded their workers' health and safety. Unfortunately, the knowing violation of a mandatory health and safety standard is only a misdemeanor, no matter how many miners are killed. This kind of conduct needs to be made a felony, but efforts to increase sanctions have been stifled by the mining industry's lobby. Instead of being held accountable for the decisions that caused 29 deaths, Massey Energy executives got a massive $195 million payout when they sold off their company, according to the United Mine Workers report. Even though Don Blankenship was forced to resign following the Upper Big Branch tragedy, he pocketed $86 million in the golden parachute when 29 of the miners under his jurisdiction and responsibility were killed. If you wonder why people are talking about the 1 percent and the 99 percent, the 99 percent in the mine had their lives put in danger every day they went to work for Massey. And every day they questioned it, they were threatened with job loss. But the 1 percent-- the 1 percent--walked away with $195 million for overseeing one of the most dangerous mining operations in the history of this country. What about the families of the breadwinners of the 99 percent? They lost their breadwinner, they lost their husband, they lost their father, and they lost their brother. Now we understand the disparity that motivates people to occupy Wall Street. We know why people are occupying hometowns all over the country. We understand this. But we also know that these miners had to simply go to work. This was the job that was available to them, but they were ridden roughshod over by Massey. These families are now simply left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and may receive some scraps later on in some final determination. It's a familiar story in an era where Wall Street companies and their executives took big payouts after wrecking our economy. But Massey Energy executives' decisions resulted in the destruction of 29 lives and 29 families. This makes Massey's payout even more disgusting. Massey Energy was recently sold to Alpha Natural Resources. I have been personally assured that these corrupt practices won't reappear with the new owner. However, there are some troubling contradictions that merit a careful watch. Despite stating their intention to fully cooperate with the government investigations, Alpha has been keeping some senior Massey managers who have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. And Alpha's recent actions to fight potential pattern of violation sanctions at former Massey mines don't set well either. Yes, mining is a dangerous job; but not every mining company operates like Massey, nor should they, nor should we tolerate the Masseys of the coal industry.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Small Company Capital Formation Act, which will help restore the purpose of the ``Regulation A'' exemption that was designed to make it easier for growing small businesses to access capital. It is critical that we ensure that innovative, growing small companies have access to the capital that they need to continue to grow and hire, because these companies play such an important role in our economy. Regulation A offers these small companies a unique chance to raise money through small offerings under a streamlined and less costly registration process. This opportunity is especially important in today's economy, in which access to capital has been greatly reduced as many banks hesitate to lend. Unfortunately, in recent years, few companies have been able to take advantage of the Regulation A exemption because the offering limit of $5 million is too low and has not been updated in the last 30 years. In fact, there have only been an average of eight filings per year under the exemption in recent years. By increasing the offering limit, this bill will ensure that more growing companies can take advantage of Regulation A in order to access the capital that they need to expand and thrive. I'm glad that this bill has come to the floor in a bipartisan way. This proposal is an important component of President Obama's American Jobs Act and has the potential to benefit small businesses across the country. It is the sort of commonsense solution that both parties should be able to agree on. I particularly want to thank the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area delegation, as we have been working since early last year to enact this long-needed change. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the work of the men and women who have organized and staffed the North Bay Stand Down, serving homeless military veterans in my 7th Congressional District for a full 10 years. This annual event has quite literally been a lifeline for countless veterans and their families who have found themselves without support or resources to make it on their own. The North Bay Stand Down was established in 2002 as a one-day, one- stop shop for access to health care and social services. That first year, 100 volunteer workers enrolled 50 veterans in the VA system, provided job counseling to 10 participants, and prepared 150 meals. Over the years, the program has met the ever-growing need in our community by expanding to a full three-day event. Last year alone, 601 volunteers enrolled 265 veterans plus 15 family members in the Veterans Affairs system. In addition, they served 2,700 meals, provided job counseling to 101 participants, resolved 298 court cases, and provided medical services to 413 of the attendees. Each year, the North Bay Stand Down has recorded remarkable success stories. Veterans have found employment as well as medical and dental care. Many have found the strength and support to commit to a sober lifestyle with the help of the psychiatric services on grounds. Families have been stabilized as they have made the connection to transitional housing programs and counseling services. And Stand Down has provided an opportunity for veterans to connect with old friends finding the critical support network that is born out of shared experiences. Our military men and women have stepped up to answer our country's call, and what we do for them as a nation after they step out of the uniform must match that level of commitment. While the GI benefits have been expanded in recent years, it is clear that the needs of our returning veterans still outweigh the resources available. The North Bay Stand Down continues to fill in that gap. So many of our returning military veterans are finding barriers to their successful readjustment to civilian life. I am ever grateful for the men and women volunteers of North Bay Stand Down who, year after year, have helped knock those barriers down.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, one of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote and protect American jobs and values. When it comes to trade, jobs and values go hand-in-hand. To promote American jobs, we must promote American values. We do this by ensuring that our workers are protected from unfair competition with countries that keep wages artificially low by repressing essential democratic rights: the right to speak out, the right to organize, the right to bargain, the right for a better life without fear of reprisals. And so as we now consider the trade agreement with Colombia, what do you get when you exercise your rights in Colombia today? You get death threats and death squad activities against you and your families. Colombia is the most dangerous place on Earth for workers who dare to exercise their rights. During the last Colombian President's 8 years in office, 570 union members were assassinated. To date, only 10 percent of the thousands of killings over the last 25 years have been resolved. The problems here are undeniable. So I appreciate that the U.S. and the Colombia Governments have finally brought labor rights into the equation. They have agreed to a Labor Action Plan requiring Colombia to change some labor laws and to commit more resources to fight the violence and impunity. But that plan is fatally flawed. It only demands results on paper. It does not demand real change. Colombia could have a record year for assassinations and still meet the requirements of the plan. Sure enough, real change is yet to come to Colombia. Since President Santos took office last year, press reports indicate at least 38 trade unionists have been murdered--16 since the Labor Action Plan was announced. In mid-June of this year, I met with a Port Workers Union leader from Colombia in my office about his concerns with the free trade agreement. He told me that he was not provided protection and that the abusive cooperative system was still in place despite commitments made by the Colombian Government to remedy both. In July, I spoke directly to his concerns on the floor of the House. And 2 weeks later, this leader received death threats via text message. The message said, ``If you continue to create problems and denounce things, you will die in a mortuary union.'' It's under these conditions that we are asked to approve this deal. If we approve the deal now, any incentive for Colombia to truly improve will vanish. Now is not the time to reward violence with impunity with the seal of approval from the United States. The deal with Colombia is neither fair nor free. Telling Colombian workers that if they speak out for higher wages, they will die--that's not freedom. Telling American workers to compete with that kind of repression--that's not fair to our workers or our values. Stand for American values, and reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This Friday, October 7, marks the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform have fought valiantly in this war over the last decade at great cost. More than 1,700 American soldiers have lost their lives as they fought to destroy al Qaeda and hunt down Osama bin Laden. Thousands more have come home with very serious life-long injuries. When I'm at home in California and talk with veterans and their families, I can see how much our soldiers have sacrificed. I want to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all of the men and women in uniform who have carried out their duty in Afghanistan. As the anniversary approaches, I am thinking particularly of Army Captain John Hallett III of Concord, California, in my congressional district, and his family. Captain Hallett was killed in action in southern Afghanistan on August 25, 2009. I was honored to have provided him a congressional nomination to the West Point Academy. This week, all of us should honor the tremendous sacrifices our men and women in uniform made for their country in Afghanistan. And our objective in Afghanistan has been achieved--Osama bin Laden has been killed, and few al Qaeda members remain in the country. Yet, unfortunately, our troops in Afghanistan are now bogged down in an unending and deadly war with the Taliban and defending the corrupt Afghan Government. To this day, the government in Kabul, led by President Karzai, has not been able to take charge of its country, even as it has been able to provide enormous favors for the President's cronies and family. In these difficult times, we cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars per month defending a corrupt regime. We cannot afford to continue to provide payments to contractors who turn around and use those payments to pay off the very same Taliban who are killing our troops in Afghanistan. But above all, our soldiers cannot be asked to continue to risk their lives for years and years to come. Instead, it is time to bring all of our troops home and to invest in America instead. By doing so, we can honor the enormous sacrifice that our troops have made, and at the same time ensure that they have a strong and prosperous country to come home to.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on September 23, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 741, final passage of H.R. 2401, which would block two landmark public health regulations under the Clean Air Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, on September 23, 2001, 13 brave miners lost their lives in two mine explosions in the depths of the Jim Walter Resources, JWR, #5 Mine, which is located approximately two miles from Brookwood, Alabama. This mine is located in the deepest and most gas laden coal mine seam in the United States, some 2,100 feet below ground. The miners are represented by the United Mine Worker of America, who conducted a thorough investigation and report on this tragedy. Four miners were building wooden cribs to fix a badly supported mine roof, when the roof collapsed nearby. Shortly thereafter, there was an explosion that injured these four miners. The roof fall occurred on top of a large six-ton, 64-volt scoop battery that was suspended from the mine roof in a track entry. The battery was connected to a battery charger, according to reports. The first explosion was likely caused by the scoop battery, which was damaged and short circuited, igniting methane that had become trapped due to the lack of adequate ventilation caused by the roof fall. A chaotic emergency response followed and miners tried to assist those who were injured. About 55 minutes after the first explosion, a larger and more violent explosion rocked throughout the mine, and 13 miners were killed--12 rescuers and one miner who had been hurt and unable to move after the initial explosion. The second explosion was, according to reports, fueled by methane and float coal dust. This explosion took the lives of Gaston Adams, Jr., Raymond Ashworth, Nelson Banks, David Blevins, Clarence ``Bit'' Boyd, Wendell Johnson, John Knox, Dennis Mobley, Charles Nail, Joe Riggs, Charles Smith, Joe Sorah and Terry Stewart. Rescue and recovery was difficult, since the ventilation controls were destroyed. It took seven weeks--until early November--until teams could recover 12 of the victims. It took eight months to rehabilitate the mine so it was safe enough to resume operations. At the time of this mine disaster, the Nation's attention was focused the events of 9/11, which had occurred only two weeks earlier. As such, no mining law changes followed. Five years after the JWR #5 disaster, a series of tragedies at Sago, Aracoma Alma and Darby spurred enactment of the MINER Act. The law largely focused on improvements to post-accident emergency response, and mandates for operators to provide tracking, communications and shelters. Had Congress acted in a timely way after the JWR #5 disaster, it is likely that other miners' lives could have been saved. Important mine law changes have yet to be mandated by Congress from the JWR #5 disaster that should be acted upon. For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has developed coal dust explosivity meters, which can give miners real time information on the presence of explosive coal dust--a substance ten times as explosive as methane--and can signal whether additional rock dust is needed to prevent mine explosions. The Robert C. Byrd Miner Safety and Health Act, which was introduced in 2010 but was not enacted, mandates that mine operators use coal dust explosivity meters as a way to assure more timely compliance with rock dusting requirements. Independent investigations of major mine tragedies are needed to assure there is no conflict of interest involving questions about the adequacy of mine safety oversight and the performance of state and federal regulators. The Byrd bill contained a requirement for independent investigations. Battery chargers, which ventilate explosive gases such as hydrogen, need to be directly vented to the returns in mines so that they cannot ignite fires. Roof control plans need to assure that areas around battery chargers have robust roof support. As the senior Democratic Member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I strongly urge Congress to follow up on the lessons from the JWR #5 mine disaster, as well as the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, which took the lives of 29 miners on April 5, 2010. Miners' blood should not be spilled in vain. Continued inaction by Congress on matters of the health and safety our Nation's miners is simply inexcusable.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for that nice introduction. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this legislation, H.R. 2587. This special interest bill is a job killer. It is simply a job killer. It was spurred by a particular case involving a Fortune 500 corporation, The Boeing Company. But this bill is not just about Boeing. This bill is really about working Americans all across this country, and they should pay very careful attention to this bill and to this debate because it affects their livelihoods, their ability to support their families, the safety of their jobs at work, the conditions under which they work, and their ability to participate through their increased productivity in higher wages and better conditions. This bill takes those rights away from workers, from all workers, all across the country. This isn't just about whether you belong to a union or not. This is about whether or not your employer can retaliate against you by taking your work away, by sending your work down the road or out of the country. It makes it easier to outsource because you simply, in response to a request by workers that they might share in the profits of the company, they might have higher wages, their work can disappear in an arbitrary fashion. And they have to understand that that's what happens under this legislation. For the first time in 70 years, American workers in the workplace will not be protected. They will not be protected for the right to have a grievance against the employer for their wages or for the benefits that they are paid because the employer, for the first time in 70 years, will have the ability to say: Well, if you need more wages and you want more wages, you know what I'm going to do, I'm going to take your jobs and I'm going to outsource them. I'm going to send them to China. I'm going to send them to India. I'm going to send them to another part of the country because I'm not going to pay higher wages. Today, that's illegal. Under this law, it will not be. They can take your job and your work away from you. We've got to understand what that means. We just saw that wages have taken one of the largest hits in a decade in this country. We have seen, as workers fail to organize in the workplace, wages have continued to go down. And at the same time, we have seen the CEOs and the management of companies take out tens of millions of dollars a year for each and every one of them, but not share it with the workers. They have decided that they'll take the increased productivity of the most productive workers in the world, the American worker, and they'll take that increased productivity and they'll take it for themselves. They won't continue the bargain that we have in this country that if you work hard, you'll be able to improve your lot in life. And so we've seen wages have stagnated in this country. And now this. If you try to get better wages, if you seek to improve your lot in life, if you seek to improve the ability of your kids to go to school, to provide for your family, your work can be taken away. This is a first in America.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This is a first in America. We must repudiate this on behalf of families that are struggling all across the country, those who are fortunate enough to continue to have a job, but they can't have a job living under this threat that they won't be able to better themselves if their employer decides to be selfish, decides to retaliate against them for seeking to organize to do something on their behalf. It's a fundamental part of the contract in America for workers. It doesn't exist in a lot of other parts of the world, but it does here. It has led to the middle class in this country, and it's the middle class that is threatened by this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker. I commend to my colleagues' attention the following statement on the debate over Social Security from John Burton, our former colleague here in the House, the former president of the California State Senate, and the current chair of the California Democratic Party. John has a long and distinguished career in standing up for the economic interests of the middle class and the long-term strength of the American economy. No Social Security Cuts on the Table (By John Burton) Chair, California Democratic Party Member of Congress 1975-1982 California State Assemblyman 1998-1994 California State Senate President 1998-2004 There has been a lot of pressure from Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and newspaper editorials to put everything on the table, including Social Security, in order to deal with the federal deficit. That is a load of baloney. No way in the world should Social Security be put on the table to deal with the deficit. One thing should be abundantly clear--Social Security has nothing to do with the current budget deficit or any budget deficit for that matter. It is a self-funding program that pays for itself. The program has actually lent the government money by purchasing U.S. Treasury notes and bonds. Furthermore, Social Security, as a separate trust fund, was never included in the U.S. budget until President Lyndon Johnson decided to include it to demonstrate that domestic spending had increased even though our military spending went up during the Vietnam War. The social security system is in sound fiscal shape. It has a surplus that will be present until 2037. There is a great deal of fuss about the fact that benefits paid out of the program would exceed the Social Security tax revenue and the fund has to be tapped to make the difference. That is exactly how the social security trust fund is supposed to work. That's why Congress created it. The bonds in the trust fund earn interest. Therefore the total value of the fund will continue to grow after that day. If nothing else changes, the total payout benefit will not exceed tax revenue plus interest on the bonds until 2024. Some claim that the trust fund has constantly been looted. Now it is little more than a pile of worthless paper. They are not telling the truth. That paper is in fact a pile of U.S. Treasury bonds, even now considered to be the safest investment in the world. Under the law, the federal government is obligated to pay the bonds held by the trust fund, just as it has to pay interests on other government bonds. The thought that the government would default on its bonds owed to the social security trust fund is a pipe dream. If there are perceived future problems with the Social Security system, that is a separate issue unrelated to the ``deficit crisis'' and could be solved in an orderly manner. A point of fact is that if the government pays what it owes the fund, it will be solvent for another 26 years. If the Social Security issue is ``to be dealt with,'' the easy solution is to raise the payroll tax ceiling, which is now around $107,000. When the ceiling was set, it was assumed that payroll tax would cover 90% of all wages. When the ceiling was set in 1983, the top 1% of Americans received 11.6% of total income. Today that 1% takes in more than 20% of the total income. If the formula pushes it back up to 90% of all wages envisioned in the 1983 legislation, the ceiling would rise to $180,000. The long-term social security problem would be solved. In the meantime, the fund is safe and solvent through four presidential elections. It is solvent for twelve more years, if not twenty-six more years before there are any problems.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I think one of the intents of this bill and, hopefully, in our reforms of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is to keep our eye on global competition and understand that we must prepare today's students for tomorrow's global economy and the global competition that that suggests. I strongly support and have had long conversations with the gentlewoman on this amendment and agree to it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. I rise today in support of the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Kline, and the subcommittee chair, Mr. Hunter, for all of their cooperation and support in working with the minority on this side of the aisle on this legislation. Both sides of the aisle have strong proponents of this legislation and of the charter school movement in this country. This legislation, because of that cooperation, is the first bipartisan piece of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It passed the Education Committee with bipartisan support, and I'm hopeful that it will receive similar support from the full Congress. This country is facing a severe education crisis. Our schools are simply not meeting the educational needs of our students, and it is a threat to our global competitiveness and to our economic security. Charter schools began 20 years ago as a laboratory for innovation to help tackle the stagnant education system at that time and to give options to parents who felt helpless. These schools have often become the myth busters of what is possible for a demographic of children that have all too often been written off. Currently, they serve about 4 percent of all public school students. In urban areas, that number is much higher. Charter schools are not a silver bullet and will not solve all of the education challenges, but they have become an important part of the education system. We need to update the law to reflect that reality. The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act encourages effective reforms that will help transform schools and communities. First, this bill makes significant improvements to the existing Charter School Program and addresses issues that we have heard from education advocates across the country. It rightfully returns charter schools to their original purpose--public schools that identify and share innovative practices that lead to improvements in academic achievement for all public schools. It requires that charters be brought back into the traditional public school system as opposed to running in a parallel system. And it requires charters to actually serve all student populations and therefore provides more parents with real choices. Second, this bill prioritizes accountability. It puts student achievement first, and it greatly increases the accountability of charter school authorizers and oversight by State education authorities. Third, this bill addresses a recurring problem in charter schools, which is the lack of service to students with disabilities and English language learners. In this bill, we dramatically improve access for underserved populations. We require better recruitment and enrollment practices for underserved populations. Lastly, this bill rightly focuses on our students and what they need to succeed. In many States, high-performing charter schools are a great option for some students. These schools are closing achievement gaps and shattering the low expectations that have stood in the way of student success. Charter schools have been on the forefront of bold ideas and innovation in education. They have shown that, given the right tools, all students can achieve at high levels. We are learning from great charter schools about what works for students and what students need to be able to compete in the global economy. Replicating this success will help our students, our communities, and our economy. With this legislation, we can help ensure that the positive reforms happening at some charter schools will happen at all charter schools, and we can help ensure that best practices are shared throughout that school district. But this legislation is only one piece of the education reform puzzle. Unfortunately, we are not taking up the whole Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but just one part. This country is in the midst of the most dynamic education reform atmosphere that I have seen in my tenure in Congress. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act presents an opportunity to take hold of that momentum and bring our education system into the future. The bill before us today is good, but we need to do much more. It will be a tremendous disservice for our children and our country if we do not provide relief for schools that are struggling under an outdated law. This relief should come in the form of a full, comprehensive reauthorization of ESEA. To do that, we must take on all of the real issues facing all our schools, not just charters. We need to address accountability, data, assessments, and college- and career ready standards and modernizing the teaching profession. We all have to hold true to the reason that the Federal Government has a role in education in the first place: to ensure equal opportunity for every student in this country to access a great education. We know what it will take to fix our schools. It isn't a mystery. But accomplishing that goal isn't easy. It takes real political will to overcome ideology and to stay focused on what's best for kids. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, and I hope that we can get to a much more comprehensive reauthorization of ESEA in the near future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elia Martinez Lineweaver, a loving wife, a caring mother, a longtime medical assistant and translator and, along with her husband, John, the co-founder of the Danny Foundation for Crib and Child Product Safety. Sadly, Rose passed away suddenly on September 3, 2011, after a life dedicated to her family and the causes she championed. Born in Mexico in 1942, Rose came here with her mother and siblings at the age of 5, and in 1961 became a naturalized citizen of the United States. While she was proud of her career as a health care provider, her true passion stemmed from her role as mother to thirteen children. In 1984, a tragic crib accident left Rose and John's 23-month-old son Danny severely disabled. After this tragedy the Lineweavers formed The Danny Foundation for Crib and Child Product Safety. During its 20 years of international activity, The Danny Foundation created and advocated for safety regulations which defined for the very first time how U.S. crib makers should safely manufacture cribs. Additionally, they pursued legal remedies and sought changes from industry and government in the design, advertising, inspection, use, and sale of infant cribs. Their tireless work over the years has saved untold thousands of infants from injury and even death. In 2006, Rose received the Jefferson Award for public service for her life-saving efforts, and over the years was honored by notices in the Congressional Record, the receipt of personal letters of thanks from the White House and many of my colleagues here in Congress, as well as from state legislators from seven states in which infant crib safety legislation was passed thanks to the Danny Foundation's efforts. Those who knew Rose Lineweaver will attest to the fact that her true legacy is in her exceptional family: 12 children, 27 grandchildren and 13 great grandchildren. For those of us who had the privilege of working with Rose and John through the Danny Foundation, we can be thankful for her resilience and determination that created a safer environment for our youngest children. This was truly her gift to all families.