George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. In 40 years. To restore the purchasing power to where people who have----

Mr. MILLER of California. I will not yield. We have our time. We are here to make a point.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, may we have regular order?

Mr. MILLER of California. The point is that what we are talking about is taking people who have continued to lose purchasing power, who have continued to lose their ability to support their families, to purchase the very basics, the very basics of the American economy, health care, put away money for a pension, put away money in savings, to be able to have decent housing for themselves and their children. Those basics are now not afforded to people who go to work and work 8 hours a day, work 52 weeks a year, in many instances find that they have to try to work overtime, all of those things simply to try to reach the poverty line. That is what we are here for and that is what the gentlewoman has talked about restoring. That is what the President of the United States has talked about restoring, and it is absolutely fundamental and important that it be done.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, when we see all of this concern all of a sudden about whether or not an increase in the minimum wage is going to contribute to inflation, when in fact at best what we would be doing is allowing people to partially catch up for purchasing power that they have lost, but I do not see that echoed when we see all of these other indices that are raising way ahead of inflation, CEO salaries, increased values in stock, stock options provided to people, apparently none of that contributes to inflation. The fact that people, that people have increased their earning power thousands of times.

Mr. MILLER of California. So these people can escape taxation; they can have all of their deductions. But what we said was at the end of the day, you pay something for the privileges of living in America. They have tried to repeal that. So even the wealthiest of people and corporations do not have to pay. But all of a sudden we are worried about whether somebody making $4.25, $4.30, $5 an hour, whether these people are going to be those who spark inflation. I think there is something wrong with the priorities of the people who suggest that, that somehow the culprits in this fight, these low income people who are doing in many instances some of the most difficult jobs in our society, in some cases some of the dirtiest jobs, some of those thankless jobs, some of the most tiring jobs, and we have all been in business institutions where we have looked at people who are much older than we are, who are still out there pounding, trying to stay equal in our society, working at the minimum wage, working there, trying to support their own children, trying to support themselves, and very often I am sure we have said, boy, I am a lot more fortunate than they are. But now all of sudden they are the bad people. They are the bad people in the war against inflation, somebody who is trying to catch up because they have lost their purchasing power, that that is going to ignite it. I think the gentlewoman is right. It is fundamentally a different set of values about human beings, about the values of their work, about the value of their families, about the needs that these people have and the dignity that they are entitled to when they work as hard as they do and yet they still end up poor at the end of the year. We owe them better than that. I thank the gentlewoman for taking this time.

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentlewoman would yield to me.

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentlewoman is not going to yield.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the Chair, am I correct in my understanding that the gentleman has the right to close and I have the right to reserve my time? I have no pending requests at this moment. He has additional speakers. I obviously at some point will yield back my time, when the gentleman is ready to close.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have pending no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time. The gentleman wants to close, I assume. I will yield back the balance of my time to allow the gentleman to close.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to salute the contributions of Chevron USA and particularly their dedicated employee Don Nicolai, manager of business products and services, to Olympic High School in Concord, CA. Mr. Nicolai first became involved with Olympic High School when he served as ``principal for a day'' in 1994 through a local schools and business partnership initiative. That service for a day turned into much, much more, prompting the Olympic staff and students to vote to rename their guest principal ``hero of the year.'' The expanse of Mr. Nicolai's contributions includes a donated van for transporting students, numerous pieces of equipment and furniture, work experience and summer employment opportunities for Olympic students and sponsorship of ongoing employability skills training seminars. Additionally, Mr. Nicolai has made it possible for several other Chevron employees to be present in the classrooms, working directly with students to share their professional expertise and personal talents. Don Nicolai and Chevron USA have formed a substantive, long-term partnership with Olympic High School that goes far beyond the rhetoric of school-business partnerships or school-to-work transition. They see the value in a well-prepared work force and recognize that changing the social and economic conditions that plague our communities today must be addressed by individuals and businesses which can lend a helping hand. I am pleased to rise today to recognize Mr. Don Nicolai, and I am confident that my colleagues join me in this tribute.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska is one of the jewels of the American forest system. It is America's only temperate rain forest that is intact, that can be protected and that can be preserved. It is also the subject of a rider on the appropriations bill to do great damage to the Tongass, contrary to the law that was passed a couple of years ago to reform the forest practices on this forest. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, has asserted that the provision that is now in that legislation in fact is a decrease in the number of board feet eligible for cutting from 450 million board feet to 418 million board feet. The fact of the matter is that that is not accurate. The Tongass Reform Act of 1990 eliminated the 450 million board feet mandate for these lands and protected over 1 million acres from the forests for logging, reducing the amount of old growth timber that is eligible for harvesting by 51 million feet annually. The number of board feet eligible for cutting is currently 399 million board feet. The rider would increase that by 19 million, to 418, which is over 100 million board feet above the average cut in the last decade. The fact of the matter is that the rider is very detrimental to the future of the Tongass forest. It asks for cutting that is not sustainable, that will ruin this forest, that will put it into history, and far exceeds what the Forest Service just came out with today in terms of its preferred plan. In fact, what it is, the Forest Service preferred plan, after going through the planning documents and how to sustain this forest for future generations and continue to be able to timber it, is 172 million board feet less than the 418 that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is talking about. That is because the rider is proposed to circumvent the public planning process, the public input into this process, and have the legislation dictate that cutting no matter whether it ruins the forest or not. They say they are green, they say they honor the environment, they say they want to protect it, but do not look at what they say, look at what they do. This is another example. The law does not do what they say. In fact, it is very detrimental in this case to one of our prized national forests. That is why today earlier Minority Leader Gephardt and many of my colleagues issued a warning, warning the American people to beware of Republican candidates coming to your hometown between now and election day saying that they support environmental protection, but who in fact have voted repeatedly in this Congress against environmental protection. These are Republicans practicing ecofraud. The only thing green about these Republican candidates is the camouflage they are using to mask their antienvironmental record and the money they take from special interests to gut environmental measures of this Nation. To the Republican leadership and to those who follow them in this Congress, today we issue the following challenge: Stop your assault you are leading on the environment, stop the masquerade you are playing out on Earth Day to appear environmentally friendly, and work with us to protect those environmental laws that protect this Nation and to improve those that do not. But do not pretend that because you bring to the House floor two minor bills that everybody supports, when you have voted in the past to destroy the basic environmental laws of this country, that somehow you are now pro-environment. You are not. Do not pretend that planting trees or cosponsoring a trails bill or a 1-day cleanup of the beach, as your campaign advisers have told you to do, makes you an environmentalist. It does not. You cannot vote day in and day out, as you have in the Congress of the United States, to gut the Clean Water Act, to gut the Clean Air Act, to bankrupt the Environmental Protection Agency, to destroy the national parks and the public lands, and the forests of this Nation, and to give away those resources that belong to the taxpayers and the people of this Nation to the special interests. You cannot do that and then for 1 day dress up and pose as an environmentalist. The fact is you will not get away with it. You will not do well on Earth Day. and you certainly cannot come to the well using the Republican Environmental Task Force to provide you cover, when the average environmental vote of the members of that task force is only 18 percent. That is the average vote. Think of how low you had to start at the top to get down to there. The people will judge you by what you do and not what you say, and what you have done so far to lead the most comprehensive assault on environmental protection. The American people hold these values dear. They hold the protection of our air and our water to be very important. They will not give it away to a 1-day masquerade on Earth Day by the same forces who have gutted the essential environmental protection laws of this Nation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, after a year of the most comprehensive and concentrated attack on the basic environmental laws of this country, the Speaker of this House and the majority leader of the Republican Party believe that they can turn around a record and con the American people into believing that all of a sudden the Republican caucus in the House is in favor of environmental protection. It simply will not wash. After a year of voting against clean air and clean water, voting against Superfund liability, voting against the Endangered Species Act, voting to eviscerate wilderness areas of this country, you will not turn around America's image of the Republican caucus in this House by recycling batteries or reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act. It takes more than that to protect the environment, and it takes more than that to turn around the image the American public have of the Republicans and the environment. They have tired to destroy the laws, and now they are trying to hide the record because they are reading the polls and the election results in November.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a House concurrent resolution to recognize the work of the Rotarians Against Substance Abuse Foundation, the First Presbyterian Church of Concord, CA, and the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council of Contra Costa County, CA. These organizations came together in 1983 to promote the idea of engaging teenagers in positive activities and having fun without using alcohol and drugs. Through programs such as Friday Night Live, Club Live, and Rotary Life Club #1, teenagers participate in on-campus peer counseling, community services, Kidfest, and other fun and worthwhile activities. Today, with the success of these programs, this idea is being promoted all across our Nation and throughout the world. These organizations deserve our commendation for their concern for children's well-being, community service, private initiative, and international promotion. Their work in providing positive activities for teenagers deserves the recognition and support of this House. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment on taxes is a cynical, back door attempt by Newt Gingrich and his followers to appear to favor cutting taxes for average Americans while actually preserving tax breaks for their special interest and big business supporters. Were it to become law--which all of us know it will not--average Americans will continue to pay a high price for tax loopholes and special interest giveaways. Despite their rhetoric, Republicans under Newt Gingrich have been working against family interests since they took over the Congress. If they were serious about helping America's families, Gingrich and his followers would not have voted to raise taxes on the working poor by cutting the earned income tax credit. They would not have voted to cut funds for education. If Republicans were serious about helping American families they would stop blocking a vote to increase the minimum wage, and they would not allow companies to raid the pensions of hardworking Americans. But they are not serious about helping American families get ahead. They are cynical, and I think it is safe to say that one thing we don't need more of in this country is cynicism. Today's vote is a transparent gimmick intended to shield Republicans from their lengthy antifamily record. We all understand how it works. The Republicans say this vote will make it harder to raise your taxes, and if you vote against them, they will say you voted to raise taxes. Pretty neat. But wrong on all accounts. In fact, if you vote for this amendment, you will make it harder to balance the budget. You will make it harder to resolve the crisis in Medicare and Social Security. You will make it harder, if not impossible, to make responsible budget choices for the future. By making it nearly impossible to vote to end a tax loophole--because the Republicans will say it is a tax increase--this amendment will preserve the fundamentally unfair tax structure we have today. Consider this: In 1952 corporate income taxes were 32 percent of Federal revenues. By 1992, corporate income taxes had fallen to just 9 percent of Federal revenues because of tax loopholes and favorable, but unjustified treatment. This amendment will protect those special interest tax breaks, such as the tax shelter for money hidden in foreign subsidiaries, or the ability of businesses to deduct today capital depreciation that occurs in the far off future. It is tax loopholes like these and many others that allowed at least 130 large companies in the 1980's to avoid paying any Federal taxes at all even though they had large profits. The Democratic majority in the 1980's enacted the alternative minimum tax to require these large profitable corporations to pay Federal taxes. Well guess what? Not only does the Republican majority want to preserve tax loopholes, they want to repeal the alternative minimum tax too. They want to help profitable corporations pay no taxes. Think about that as you file your own tax returns. So this amendment is really about locking in an unfair tax system-- not making the tax system more fair. It is about preserving what is wrong with America and making the middle class and low-income Americans pay the price. It is about selling the Constitution for a short-term and short-sighted political gain. Well, Mr. Speaker, guess what? The constitution is not for sale. And I have enough faith in the intelligence of the American voters that they will see that you are trying to sell a piece of the Constitution that you swore to uphold to buy a little air time for the November election. My colleagues, clear your eyes. Summon your courage. Cast the right vote tonight against this amendment and know that in doing so you are standing up for what's right. Isn't that what the American people sent us here to do? Vote no tonight on the latest and most cynical ploy by the most cynical man in American politics today.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Benicia Middle School, in Benicia, CA, for receiving the National Blue Ribbon Award for excellence from the U.S. Department of Education. This is the highest honor that a public or private school can receive in recognition of academic excellence and attaining national educational goals. Benicia Middle School was chosen from among 500 nominations nationwide, and is only one of 87 middle schools honored with this prestigious award. I would like to commend the hard work and dedication of the parents, teachers, and students of Benicia Middle School and the Benicia community for their efforts in attaining national, State, and local educational goals. Benicia Middle School started on the blue ribbon path in 1994 when the California Department of Education recognized them as a California distinguished school. This marked them as the top 2 percent of all middle schools and high schools in the State of California. In 1995, the California Department of Education nominated Benicia Middle School for the National Blue Ribbon School Award. The school underwent an intensive application and interview process before being selected for this honor. Benicia Middle School can now proudly say that they are among the best in the Nation. They can attribute their success to team effort and a commitment to excellence that they have demonstrated in their academic program. They educate the students at Benicia Middle School as strong leaders in a safe, supportive, and drug-free environment. I am proud of the commitment of the Benicia community toward preparing our youth for the future. I would like to share with my colleagues the attached article from the Solano Times, Thursday, February 22, 1996: ``School Is a Blue Ribbon Winner.'' [From the Solano Times, Feb. 22, 1996] School Is a Blue Ribbon Winner (By Catherine D. Jacobson) Benicia Middle School is one of the best schools in the nation. Recently named a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education, the school received the announcement 17 months after the initial application. ``We are honored and we are proud,'' said Carole Hiltman, Benicia Middle School principal. ``To earn this kind of prestigious recognition from a national review is exciting and validates our hard work. These schools become models.'' The blue ribbon status recognizes both public and private schools based on their effectiveness in meeting national education goals and standards of quality. Each school's success in furthering intellectual, social, physical and moral growth of all students, including those with disabilities, is emphasized. Through a 30-page application and a site visit, Benicia Middle School administrators presented evidence to Department of Education officials that students are developing a solid foundation of reading, writing and math, in addition to reasoning and problem-solving skills. Hiltman said hundreds of hours were spent in researching, writing and assembling the application, submitted in September 1994. ``This has been a long effort, and it's nice to see the uplifting spirit,'' she said, noting the honor is especially rewarding given the disruption of the campus during major construction renovations. Benicia Middle School will be rewarded with a bronzed plaque to be placed at the campus. It is one of 87 middle schools across the nation to receive the prestigious honor this year. The road to the National Blue Ribbon award started in 1994, with Benicia Middle School being named a California Distinguished School. State officials then nominated the school for the national award. Benicia Middle School was one of 27 middle schools and 17 high schools nominated in the state, representing the upper 2 percent of all junior and senior high schools in California. Jim Krouscas, a physical education teacher and president of the site council at the middle school, attributed the blue ribbon award to the community and parental support, students, and, particularly, veteran teachers. ``This award started 20 years ago when these teachers decided Benicia Middle School would be a school of excellence and not mediocrity,'' said Krouscas. Superintendent Annette O'Connor said, ``Everyone contributed to making Benicia Middle School the fine institution of learning it has become. ``I am proud of the whole staff and pleased to show the community that we are recognized as exemplary wherever we are reviewed.'' Mayrene Bates of the Solano County Office of Education said the blue ribbon selection is due to the people behind the scenes. ``Things like this don't just happen,'' she said. Hiltman hopes the honor leads to an even stronger support for the school, through financial or technical assistance. ``We'd like to attract a large corporation to form a blue ribbon partnership to support the school,'' she said. The entire middle school staff participated in the application, although principal writers were Hiltman, Linda Cole, district director of instructional services, and teachers Russell Ho, Sherry Knight, Kathy Maloney, Rami Muth, Greg Reed, and Kathy Wright.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, when the last workers leave Mare Island Naval Shipyard as it closes March 31, 1996, they will leave behind a facility rich with history and echoing with the voices of welders, painter, and engineers who built and serviced everything from copper-bottomed wooden ships to nuclear submarines. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked at or passed through the shipyard, from the first dozen shipwrights who arrived in 1892 to Mare Island's high point in World War II, when the shipyard population reached 46,000. These are the workers that made Mare Island the best naval shipyard in the country. During its tenure as the Navy's oldest base on the west coast, Mare Island built 512 ships and repaired hundreds more. Those ships, both great and obscure, fought in every conflict since. Mare Island's first ship, the paddle-wheeled gunboat Saginaw, was launched before the Civil War, in 1859, and its last ship, the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Drum, was launched in 1970 when our country was divided over the Vietnam war. These vessels also included the small ferryboat Pinafore, which chugged between Mare Island and Vallejo for 30 years starting in the 1890's, and the battleship U.S.S. California, the only battleship built on the west coast. It was during World War II that the shipyard quickly set a record that was never broken, building the destroyer U.S.S. Ward, in 17\1/2\ days. In addition to the Ward, Mare Island built 17 submarines, 4 subtenders, 31 destroyer escorts, 33 small craft, and more than 300 landing craft. In the 1960's the decision was made to build nuclear submarines at Mare Island. The U.S.S. Sargo was the first, with 16 more following, ending with the launch of the U.S.S. Drum in 1970. To all of the workers over the generation that are a part of this proud history who have made so many significant contributions to the defense of the United States, I offer my thanks and that of this country.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, Inc. [CAPC] will be celebrating its 20th year of providing critical services to children and families in my congressional district. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate CAPC and its staff and volunteers for their dedication, perseverance and significant contribution to the community. They truly have helped to make a difference in the lives of children and their families. Founded in 1976 as part of an umbrella organization and incorporated in 1984 as an independent nonprofit corporation, the council serves as the county's clearinghouse for child abuse prevention information and referral, public education, and advocacy services. The Council's message to ``Stop Child Abuse'' reaches over 70,000 county residents each year. As the only agency in Contra Costa County solely dedicated to child abuse prevention, the council provides a number of programs and services designed to educate, inform, and involve the general public in preventing child abuse. Also, by connecting victims, abusers and those at-risk for abuse with much- needed services, the council serves a critical function in stopping the vicious cycle of child abuse in our society at large. The council recruits, trains and maintains an active roster of over 30 volunteers who participate in our Partnership for Prevention Program. This program is designed to provide educational presentations to colleges, schools, daycare and Headstart centers, shelters, community groups, professionals serving children, service clubs, churches, community service agencies, firefighters, and corporate employees. Its trained volunteers provide over 100 presentations throughout the county to over 5,000 people annually. The council coordinates public and private agencies involved in the prevention, intervention and treatment of child abuse in Contra Costa County. In 1982, by order of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, CAPC was designated as the coordinating agency of the Interagency Child Abuse Systems Review Committee, an ongoing committee which identifies problems in the county's service delivery system and makes recommendations to the board of supervisors. In 1988, the council was also named as the coordinating agency for the Contra Costa County Child Death Review Multidisciplinary Team, which reviews deaths of children under the age of 18 years. In 1992, the Council established the countywide Multidisciplinary Interview Advisory Committee for the purpose of providing planning for a future Multidisciplinary Interview Center in Contra Costa County. This center would provide a one-stop interviewing for child sexual abuse victims, and streamline investigation, and prosecution processes for child sexual abuse cases. In 1982, the CAPC special needs fund was established--with assistance from the Oakland Tribune--to provide small cash grants to help meet the special needs of families in which childen may be in jeopardy and/or need. Each year the council disburses approximately 15 grants to families in Contra Costa County. In 1985, an interagency task force was convened by the council to develop a comprehensive resources directory of primary prevention and support services available to residents of Contra Costa County. The directory, ``Surviving Parenthood,'' is now in its 5th edition and has been established as the leading resource for families in crisis. More recently, CAPC developed a ``Kids: Instruction for Care'' campaign which includes the distribution of T-shirts and bookmarks designed to highlight basic parenting skills. The bookmarks are distributed in daycare facilities, schools, and libraries throughout the county, and the T-shirts and now in more than 25 States and 11 countries. Next month, the council will celebrate its 20th anniversary, and I am pleased to see that the council has as much energy today as when it first began. The council is expanding its programs to meet the growing needs of the county. This year the child abuse prevention council will be opening a second office in Richmond, CA, to provide more accessible services to families and children in west Contra Costa County. Again, Mr. Speaker, I salute CAPC on its 20th anniversary and hope that they not only continue their important efforts but can serve as a model for other communities in their efforts to combat the scourge of child abuse.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I just want to clear up a point. The gentleman from New York who was in the well was saying that the Tongass provisions, the rape and ruin of America's only temperate rain forest, have not been corrected. In fact, what they have done under this legislation is put in place a harvest plan for that forest that has already been found to be flawed scientifically, that is unsustainable and will lead to the overcutting of that rain forest, and then they put hurdles in the place of replacing that. So, in fact, they have gone from having a plan for 2 years to having a plan that essentially is in perpetuity that will lead to the overharvesting and the stripping of that forest and its resources. It is the only temperate rain forest that we have in North America, and it ought to be protected, and it ought to be harvested in a scientifically acceptable and understandable fashion. Mr. Speaker, that is not what this legislation does. It overrides the scientists, puts in place a plan that was rejected already by the scientists, and then says that is the method by which we will harvest the Tongass Forest. That is why it continues to be unacceptable to the administration, to the American people, and to those of us who care about reasonable forest practices.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, once again today we are going to have a continuing resolution. What is continuing about this resolution is the resolution of the Republicans to continue to attack the American education system. In this continuing resolution, once again the Republican Party will put forth the largest cuts to education in the history of this country. They will put forth cuts in programs of title I to put in jeopardy those children in our school systems that most need an education. They will put forth cuts in the DARE Program, the program that brings our community police, our young children, and the campaign against drugs in schools and drugs in young people's lives together. They will cut that program. Over $3 billion in cuts will be in this continuing resolution, which continues their assault on our education system. They do this at a time when more and more parents are revaluing education because they now understand how terribly important it is to the future of their children's success and our economic existence. The Republicans should stop this attack on the American education system.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment must be rejected because it simply is ludicrous on its face. The American public watching this debate must wonder if we have lost our minds. We spend a day-and-a-half trying to decrease illegal immigration into the country. We have spent months trying to reform the welfare system. The entire country is worried by wage anxiety and their jobs. Now we have an amendment on the floor that allows you to drive down wages of American workers, allows you not to employ American workers who are desperately looking for jobs, and undermines the idea of taking able-bodied Americans and putting them to work and taking them off of welfare. That is what this Pombo amendment does. For the employer, they self-certify. They say, ``I cannot find anybody; bring my workers from Mexico or some other country.'' We know in a highly regulated program that those people overstay their visa six times what tourist or education visas overstay. We are asking for illegal immigrants. The notion that somehow you are going to say to people, ``Well, just go home,'' we have people now who risk their life, pay thousands of dollars to come here, with no job. Now we bring them here with a job for 10 months, we pay them, and we say, ``By the way, would you mind going home?'' Have you lost your mind? Have you simply lost your mind with respect to what is a concern of the American public? Are you so deep into the agribusiness corporations of this country that you cannot see what bothers Americans when they see unemployment rates of 19 percent? Our Central Valley runs double digit unemployment rates around the year, and you want to bring in people to take away their jobs? We have people in the gentleman's district and Mr. Dooley's district and my district and Mr. Condit's district sitting on the streets looking for work. Your answer is to say open the borders, to say, ``Come here, we will pay your way, and we will hope you go home?'' ``We hope you go home?'' No, this is unacceptable.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what is extreme about today's action is that once again the House Republicans are turning their back on America's children. Today the House Republicans are taking a hike on America's education for its children, because today the House Republicans are confirming their position against that of the Senate, where a bipartisan coalition has determined that America's children deserve this support for education. It is one thing to get up here and read off all these programs of cosmetology. There are no title I children enrolled in those schools. Why are you cutting the title I children? There are no high school children enrolled in those schools. Why are you cutting those children from this program? That is what is extreme. You talk about one thing and you do another. You ought to go back to your schools, as I do every Monday, and visit with the title I children, visit with the school programs and talk to them. Then you will understand how extreme your position is, how you are playing Russian roulette every 7 days with the education of our children, with our teachers, with our parents and with our communities. Every 7 days you threaten to shut down the Government. That is what is extreme.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentlewoman from Connecticut mentioned that our Republican colleagues and sometimes the editorial boards get mad at us when we talk about the cuts to children that were scheduled in the school lunch program or in student loans or in title I or Medicare and Medicaid cuts. We say they are taking from the neediest people in this country to provide this tax cut, and yet here is the graphic example. Here are children that are identified as economically disadvantaged, as educationally disadvantaged, and we try to target some resources into the schoolrooms where those children reside, and yet we find out that as we read down the impacts in the State of California, district after district, school after school, 150 students, 170 students, 694 students, 1,000 students, 131 students, it goes on and on and on, these children. This is not abstract. I have been teaching the last several Monday mornings at a continuation high school, and I visited with the teachers at Olympic High School after I was done with my class period, and they said, here is the impact of the cuts. This woman, who is helping these young people with business subjects and is here as a student assistant, she is gone if we lose this. In their budget, they had some upgrades for the computers. They thought maybe they were going to get hooked up to the net. That is not going to happen now. Those children are losing those kinds of resources and that kind of access. These are among some of the most disadvantaged children in our society, and we have decided that we would rather cut them than ask if the wealthy could just wait until there is a balanced budget, just wait until there is a dividend, and let us see if that is what the country wants to do. But here we are whacking up the education budget on an arbitrary manner, and the job opportunity budget, the AmeriCorps budget that is trying to send a message to young people in this country that they care, that they matter, that they are a resource, that they can make a difference in our communities. The brilliance of AmeriCorps, like Vista that was before it, is not what that individual does, but they become a catalyst for other resources in the community. They attract somewhere between $10 and $25 for every dollar they get in in-kind services and help from other organizations. That is the message we want to send young people. We keep blaming young people. We keep getting mad at young people. We blame the education establishment after we withdraw the resources. The next thing what will become is the same people who cut these budgets are going to tell us, they could not educate the kids, so give them a voucher and send them down the road. They will be cutting the vouchers once that is accomplished. As Major Owens said, people better wake up and understand the kind of systematic, comprehensive assault that public education is under in this Congress by the Republicans. This is not an accident. We say it is arbitrary. It was not arbitrary in their minds. They made the decision that this is where they were going to cut the budget, not in the waste in the CIA, not in the waste in other programs, programs that you cannot even debate on this floor. This is systematic. This is intentional, and it is about the destruction of the public education system in this country and certainly the Federal contribution to that effort. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut, for taking this time. I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] makes an important point. It would be one thing if what we were considering was a well- thought-out proposal about the reform of one of these programs, if we were trying to better target the money, if we were trying to put it into a reducing the class size where we have students who are educationally handicapped or economically disadvantaged, some of the intensive title I. It would be different if we were asking people to refocus on a path that we thought would bring these young people a better education. But this is simply the crass withdrawal of resources, and the gentleman from New York is so right. We have in the private sector, in the nonprofit sector, and in the public sector under the leadership of Presidents of both parties, we have tried to continue to develop the means by which we can improve the Nation's schools for all of our students, for those going to college and for those who are going to work and maybe to continuing education in connection with their employment. But this is the first time where we just see the radical withdrawal of resources and say that is it, you take care of it, but with less resources. You know, in the district that I represent in the San Francisco Bay area of California the school districts that are going to lose this money, the West Contra Costa School District, is going to lose $837,000. It has no ability to go out and to replace that money. So, as I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed out, this program is simply going to be withdrawn wholesale from schools as they start to retrench. That does not mean that children in that school are not deserving or needing of the additional resources that title I brings to that school, but they simply will be cut out of that because you are retrenching and trying to serve these. The same is true of the Mount Diablo School District. They have no ability to make up $324,000 of this, or--I see the gentlewoman from San Francisco here--$2 million. Here is a school district that just took an initiative on its own to try and reduce class size in the first 3 years of school because of the returns that they believe they will get with these children, and now they are going to withdraw $2 million from the school district. This is not just about title I students, or title I classrooms, or title I schools. It is the entire drawdown on education resources that this kind of arbitrary and capricious decision--because this decision is simply a number picked out of a hat. It is not related to education reform, it is not related to educational preference. The gentleman from New York is exactly right. This is a dramatic and historic reversal of what has been a bipartisan trend to try and to improve and to upgrade the education and resources of this Nation so that the children can be gainfully employed, so they can go on to higher education, so they can take their place in the American economy. And all of a sudden what we see is the wrecking crew comes in, and the wrecking crew says we are going to cut your resources by 17 percent. They do not ask you whether or not this is going to interrupt their reforms, they do not ask you whether or not this means our children are going to go without research. They just picked this number out of a hat. Now fortunately, as you both mentioned, the Senate maybe sees it another way and maybe wants to continue the notion of the reforming of our schools. And I just want to say this. You know, if people had been visiting their schools and visiting with the parents, and we had the President in for Nut Day in the Mount Diablo School District in my district, and a number of parents showed up with their children in tow, excited about the expanded educational opportunities that being on the Internet would mean for their children. People again, because of the economy, because of this problem of sliding wages and living standards, are revaluing, revaluing education, and they know that they need more out of it, that their children need more out of it, and at the exact same time of course the Republicans have been out of step with the public on most of their agenda, but at the exact same time where America is revaluing education and the teachers of education, the Republicans walk in with the wrecking ball and just knock it all down and remind you. This is a lesser of the cuts. The House Republicans, these cuts would have been much deeper. They were looking for deeper cuts than this. And I think the gentleman from New York just makes an excellent point, that this is not a strategy to improve or reform our schools. This is just the wholesale withdrawal of resources, and we should reject it, if we get a second chance in the House. Hopefully maybe the Senate provision will hold, and we will stop this just arbitrary playing of politics with the future of our Nation's children. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and the gentleman from New York.