George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, this committee, the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, does a lot of great work; and in this legislation there are a lot of very good provisions. Unfortunately, this bill, which does so much for native Americans, which does so much for the natural resources of our country, is being held hostage by the Senator from Alaska and by those who seek to have special privilege in the Tongass National Forest, the only temperate rain forest in North America, the only one that belongs to the American people. What they are seeking to do is to go back in time. In 1990 we passed a Tongass reform bill. They seek now to nullify that even though the Alaska delegation at that time said that they would agree to it if they could have 10 years of peace under the requirements of that bill. What they seek to do now is to go back to a plan which received thousands and thousands of comments about its inadequacy for sustainability, about its inadequacy for Native rights, about its inadequacy for the environment; and they seek to legislate that plan in this bill. Why? Because the Pacific Timber Co. wants it that way; there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The reason the Washington Monument is closed and the reason the Liberty Bell is seeking private donations, and the reason you cannot go snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park is because of the Louisiana Pacific and this legislation. This is the worst of special-interest legislation. You cannot do what they want to do under this bill unless you waive the environmental laws of this Nation. You cannot do what they want to do under this bill unless you put in sufficient language to protect this corporation from a lawsuit that they have already lost in court. We are here doing that in this legislation, and we are holding Indian children hostage. We are holding the health of Indian natives of this country hostage. We are holding the tourism economies of Yosemite National Park, Mariposa County, hostage, because Louisiana Pacific wants to do legislatively what they are afraid to do and come before our committee, the Committee on Natural Resources, and debate this openly about the Tongass. The gentleman from Alaska previously said the Tongass is 90 percent wilderness. No, it is not. And when he says he only wants to cut 10 percent, he has to recognize this. The vast majority of Tongass is ice, rocks, lakes, and other things. The timber base is a very small business. When you want to clear-cut 10 percent of that timber base and you want to do it without regard to the environmental laws of this country and without regard to the public planning process, you do great devastation to the remaining land base and the timber base in that area. That is why the Governor of Alaska is opposed to this process. That is why the Anchorage Daily News is opposed to this process. That is why the Alaska Outdoor Council, some 10,000 members, hunters, and fishermen, are opposed to this process. That is why the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association is opposed to this process, because you are legislating on them a single use for a great natural resource that is in fact increasing the economy of Alaska. It is diversifying the economy of Alaska. The reason the logging economy went down in Alaska is because of a Japanese-owned mill that cannot get more Federal dollars and subsidies, for the taxpayers quit. They went out of business because they just could not get enough subsidies. Well, excuse me. Try the marketplace. Now what we have is a struggle to try to get those lands that they have locked up under an old 50-year contract without environmental reviews, they are trying to bring that into the land base for this. So what? So they can get pulp and send it to Japan; so they can get logs and cant them and send them to Japan. There is no value added here for the American economy. But there is $102 million in the last 3 years lost in preparing these sales and cutting these roads. So without $102 million of subsidies, these logs would never leave. These logs would continue to be trees. They would be vertical instead of horizontal. That is why. That is why. That is why we must sustain the veto. We cannot have the special interests come into the Halls of Congress and dictate and say that we must set aside the laws so that they can have the special privilege of not having to put up with public input and public debate and a public planning process, so they do not have to suffer the indignities of losing a court case, so they do not have to suffer the scrutiny of the public subsidies to their private corporations. That is what is holding hostage the National Park System, the Indian health system, the endangered species system in this country, the special interests of Louisiana Pacific and their associates. The people of Alaska oppose this legislation; their newspapers oppose this, their tourism association and the Governor of the State oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this effort to override the President's veto. President Clinton stood up for the environment and the taxpayers. We should support him. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know what's going on here. There's a hidden agenda in this bill that the Republicans do not like to highlight. Why are our national parks closed and thousands of loyal employees out of work? It is because the Republican leadership allowed this spending bill to become a grab bag of legislative gifts for special interests who want to exploit our natural resources at taxpayer expense. The Republicans apparently believe that it is more important to dictate a forest plan that will increase Federal spending to cut down 400-year-old trees in the Alaska rainforest than it is to reopen the national parks and put people back to work. But the Republicans just can't say no to Louisiana Pacific. That's what this fight is about-- more taxpayer dollars to subsidize Louisiana Pacific and increase logging in the Tongass National Forest by over 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no valid reason to hold Federal workers, private sector contractors, and the rest of the public hostage to the Alaskan pulp mill barons. This Tongass rider doesn't belong on any appropriations bill. It hasn't been the subject of a single day of public hearings in the Resources Committee. The only thing the chairman from Alaska has pending in committee is his bill to give away the entire 17-million acre Tongass National Forest, abolishing the wilderness areas and national monuments in the process. It's no wonder that the Governor of Alaska is joined by so many other Alaskans in opposing this Tongass rider. This bill is full of other antienvironmental legislative riders that wouldn't see the light of day if considered in the normal process. It guts the California Desert Protection Act. It stops progress in improving land management in the Columbia River Basin. It undercuts the Endangered Species Act. The list goes on. Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that we learned a lesson from the timber salvage rider that passed on the rescissions bill earlier this Congress. There were no hearings on that legislative rider either. We were assured by proponents that it applied only to dead trees and burned trees. But what we later found out is that language was included to cut healthy forests in the Pacific Northwest. We found out that exempting the timber industry from the environmental laws of this country leads only to disaster. Mr. Speaker, the President has made clear from the outset that the Tongass and the other legislative riders on this bill were unacceptable. Yet Republicans made only cosmetic changes in response. They alone share the blame by producing an Interior appropriations bill that tries to legislate bad policy rather than allocate public funds. They just can't say no to the special interests. I urge my colleagues to vote against the veto override. Let the Republican majority instead get to work on producing a clean bill that is in the public interest. Let's get on with the business of governing and reopen the parks, monuments, refuges, and forests that are so important to the American people.

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, of course it is not.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the budget discussions are about fundamentally important issues. For instance, nearly 50 Democratic Members of the House who are prepared to make tough budget choices are asking corporate leaders, who have called for fiscal discipline, to declare the sacrifices they are prepared to make for deficit reduction. After all, we are talking about some of the richest people in the country, paid millions of dollars a year. And the Republican budget bill will make them richer still, thanks to reduction of the alternative minimum tax, lower capital gains taxes and extended tax loopholes. Some, like ASARCO and Chevron, stand to gain billions from royalty-free giveaways of public resources. Are they prepared to pay a fair share of corporate taxes, which are just one-third the level in 1954 despite a 14 fold increase in profits? Will they pay their employees wages and benefits that support a family, so that the taxpayers can stop subsidizing their corporations through welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and tax credits--all targeted for big cuts in the Republican budget? There is something unseemly about some of the richest people in America demanding a budget that preserves their perks and penalize the poor--many of whom they employ. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 22, 1995. Dear Sir: We have seen the recent advertisement which you signed with 90 other CEOs. I am glad to know that we share a common goal of cutting federal budget deficits. You and the other cosigners of the letter make it clear that as corporate leaders you would like entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps which affect the nation's poor and elderly be put on the table. Believe us, those items are on the table and are almost certain to take a major hit in any likely resolution of the current impasse. While it appears you are willing to offer up substantial sacrifice on the part of the nation's poor and elderly, it is not clear what you are willing to put on the table. We would like to know if Corporate America in general and your corporation in particular are willing to play a role beyond offering sacrifice on the part of others. These are some questions which illustrate the possible contributions which corporate America might consider. Corporate Tax Burden During the 1950s Corporate America paid a much bigger share of the cost of government. In 1954, corporate taxes accounted for 30% of all federal revenues. Corporations will pay only 11% of the taxes collected by the federal government this year despite the fact that corporate profits have increased 14 fold in the intervening years. If the same share of profits were paid in taxes this year as in 1954, the federal deficit would be eliminated in one year with no cuts required in Medicare or any other program. Are you willing to accept a larger share of the federal tax burden, a share more in line with that which corporations bore in the 1950s (a period remembered as a time of growth and prosperity for rich and poor alike)? Accepting a Minimum Tax (Regardless of Loopholes) A central proposal in the House Republican budget is to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations such as yours. This would allow numerous large and profitable corporations to exploit tax loopholes and pay no federal taxes whatsoever. Would you commit your corporation to continue to pay the current minimum tax level regardless of the loopholes, deductions and exemptions that the Republicans promise to enact? worker health benefits A major cost to the Medicare and Medicaid programs is the additional payments that they and other payers in the health care system must make in order to cover the cost that hospitals, clinics and physicians incur treating the more than 30 million Americans who have no health benefits. Most of these uninsured patients are either employed or are dependents of Americans who have jobs but not health care coverage. How many of your employees do not have full health care coverage? Are you willing to extend coverage to those employees so that the federal government, private individuals and corporations don't have to continue picking up the tab? payment of living wages Millions of Americans who have full time jobs, earn too little money to support their families. As a result, many workers qualify for Food Stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit and numerous other federal programs. How much do your lowest paid workers make? How many of your workers are a drain on the federal treasury because they are being paid less than the amount required to feed, clothe and provide minimal shelter to their family? What is the current multiple of the salary and benefits received by your lowest paid workers and that paid to you and your senior executives? How has that multiple changed over time? If your company would return to the multiple that it maintained during the 1950s, how much would it allow lower rung wages to rise and how much would that reduce the drain that your employees place on federal programs? Paying your fair share to local governments The federal government has attempted to improve the quality of local schools by making direct federal payments to local school districts so that they can hire more qualified teachers, reduce classroom size and toughen academic requirements. Those efforts are now facing substantial cutbacks as the result of various budget balancing proposals. At the same time American corporations are forcing local communities to bid against each other, offering up huge tax concessions to persuade you to locate facilities in their area. Many of those tax concessions come directly out of the budgets of local school districts. Is your company willing to cease such practices and is it further willing to pay the appropriate level of taxes in communities where it is now located without respect to earlier tax concessions made by those communities? That would do a great deal to help build a better trained and educated workforce that in the end would be a real boon to corporate America. Further, it would help offset the decline in federal funds that the schools are likely to experience if this budget package is adopted. helping employees be better parents The federal government provides grants to local communities to provide child care simply because many employers refuse to do so despite indications that on site day care improves productivity, employee retention and loyalty. In addition, it helps workers be better parents and that results in a better, stronger society in which corporations can expect to be more profitable. Would you be willing to reduce the need for federal grants for daycare assistance by extending daycare services to a larger share of your employees. Cease Budget Busting Lobbying Activities Many corporations hire lobbyists that actually encourage the federal government to spend more--not less--money, provided that the money will flow into corporate coffers. This year for example corporate lobbyists succeeded in persuading the Congress to spend $7 billion more at the Department of Defense than the Department had requested. Much of this went for new procurement of fancy new weapon systems which the military had not asked for but which will produce fat contracts and subcontracts for many of the Fortune 500. It might help to balance the budget if Corporate executives such as yourself made a commitment not to send lobbyists to Washington to ask Congress to spend money that the Pentagon and other portions of the Executive Branch are not asking for. Would you make that commitment? A Fairer Distribution of the Individual Tax Burden Most senior executives in America's largest corporations benefit from not only the highest salaries of corporate leaders anywhere in the world, but stock option and benefit packages which are worth in many instances millions of dollars a year and have become increasingly generous in recent years. The value of these packages has increased even further as a result of the tremendous run up in stock valuations in recent years. The stock of many companies can attribute their spectacular growth to the wage concessions of their employees. As Business Week pointed out this spring ``the combination of high productivity and tepid wages increases is pushing corporate profits through the roof'' and as every investor or stock option beneficiary knows stock prices move in direct multiples to profits. The Republican budget includes a big cut in capital gains taxation which makes the windfall for corporate leaders such as yourself even greater. But there is another policy option. Since events of the last decade have allowed you and your cosigners to grow far richer than earlier generations of corporate managers at the same time that the lot of most of your countrymen has declined, you could offer to pay more tax rather than less. You probably won't want to help out in all of the respects listed above. But perhaps some of these items could be put on the table. Whether or not they are adopted, it would at least make the elderly couple who has to pay more of their Social Security check for Medicare coverage or the working family that has had to assume the nursing home costs of an elderly aunt feel that the decision that they should sacrifice was not made before other possible options were explored. Sincerely, George Miller. David R. Obey. Richard A. Gephardt. P.S.--Another option that you might consider in examining what you might do to help with the budget deficit would be to refrain from deducting from your corporate federal tax payment the advertising cost associated with these ads. Some taxpayers might feel that the advice you are providing on the sacrifices that they might make should be paid entirely by you rather than billing 35% of those costs to Uncle Sam.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman very much for taking the well. He expresses all of our feelings who are devastated by Anne's death, and we share in the tragedy that Vic and his family are going through today, and we wish them the very, very best. I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks and for bringing this before the House.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier today we had an opportunity to open the Government in its entirety and put people back to work and to make sure that the taxpayers were getting the services for which they are paying. That opportunity was denied us when the Chair failed to recognize the privileged resolution of the minority leader of the House of Representatives. That opportunity continues to be denied us because 20 Republicans cannot find their way to come forward and vote to open the Government. One hundred ninety-eight Democrats are prepared to vote. What we need are 20 good Republicans who put the interests of this Nation ahead of the interests of partisan politics, just 20 good Republicans out of the entire Republican caucus to come forward and let us open up this Government, and the negotiations at the White House can continue. Everybody who is a party to those negotiations seems to believe one another is negotiating in good faith. There is no reason to hold the Government of the United States hostage, to hold small business hostage, to hold veterans hostage, and to hold other segments of this Government and its population hostage.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in closing, that the reason the integrity is called into question and the dignity of the House is called into question and the reason this motion should be granted privilege is that the popular will of the people and the belief of the people is that this body is not carrying out that will, and yet they believe the votes exist. The only way we can find that out is for the Chair to rule this is a matter of privilege and let the votes commence and we can open up the Government this afternoon.

Mr. MILLER of California. I am giving the Chair a reason to rule for privilege, because the power of the Chair is the power of recognition, and the Chair is now willing to recognize any Member for this purpose. Therefore, the minority leader must bring a matter before the House under the rules of privilege. We know that there are 198 votes to open up the Government on this side. So if we can find 20 votes on that side, the people's will can be carried out.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reason this goes to that privilege is because in fact when the will of the people is thwarted, the integrity of the House, the dignity of this House is called into question. The only way that that can currently be remedied is through this motion that rises to privilege. That dignity and that integrity is called into question when the popular will is thwarted, and we see it very often, when Members know that the votes exist to do something and yet the matter cannot be brought to the floor. That is why a motion of privilege is laid before the Chair because there is no other way. That goes exactly to the heart of the privilege. The privilege in this case that the minority leader is asserting is the privilege to bring a matter to the floor by which now there is no other way to get that matter to the floor. That is because the power of the Chair, the power of the Chair and the rules----

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, to address the issue of privilege, I do believe that under rule IX this does rise to the occasion of privilege, the resolution offered by the minority leader. It does so because clearly the collective integrity of this House and the dignity of this House is being called into question, is being called into question in every commentary throughout the country about the closedown of the Government. The dignity and the integrity of this House is being called into question by our individual constituents, by the interviews on every nightly news program in every one of our districts. That goes to the collective integrity and to the collective dignity.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and tragically, both for this institution and for the American public, every now and then we are presented with the task of confronting the activities of those who have sought to exploit the rules of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, this Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has struggled long and hard, as have previous Committees on Standards of Official Conduct, with these problems. The recommendation of this committee is that they believe, and I cite from the report that, ``The existing House rule must be changed to clearly restrict the income Members may derive from writing books. As recent events demonstrate, existing rules permit a Member to reap significant and immediate financial benefits appearing to be based primarily on his or her position. At a minimum, this creates an impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain.'' This institution and none of its Members can withstand that impression, nor should they accept it. If Members vote for the Solomon amendment, they cannot get to the recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to the membership of this House for its approval. We must vote against the Solomon amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California., Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to exchange special order times with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested the last couple of days that the shutdown of the Federal Government by the Republicans is a matter of high principle, but apparently that is not so, because if you have the strength of the veterans' lobbies and you have the concerns of this Congress that we have for veterans, you can escape that. But if you are trying to refinance your home or you are trying to buy your first home or you are trying to provide for your family, you will be out of luck. This is not a matter of high principle; this is again another temper tantrum. The first temper tantrum was thrown by the Speaker; the second is now by the Republican caucus that insists that if they do not get their way at the outset of the talks, then the Government must be shut down. Mr. Speaker, we are here rewarding veterans for their service to this country to protect a democracy. Dictating the terms at the outset of negotiations is not in keeping with the democratic spirit or principles of this Government. So I think we ought to understand why we are here. The President had the courage to veto a very bad bill; the Republicans do not have the courage to face the consequences, and yet they want to dictate the terms of the shutdown of the Federal Government.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that this was not about ruining the holidays for the families of Federal employees; that that really was not important and what was important was a balanced budget. I think that that shows such incredible lack of respect for those families, for their relationships with their children at a time of the holidays, for their religious beliefs. I think it shows such an incredible lack of respect for our families and our religious beliefs. This is more than shopping days. This is a religious holiday. It is a time when we gather with our families and we think of our fortunes and our misfortunes, and we take stock of the year we have and the year we look forward to and we pay respect to our God. The suggestion somehow is that that can all be held ransom, that can be held ransom and somehow that will make the negotiations more serious; that, apparently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is incapable of negotiating unless he has a hostage. He shut down the Government a month ago because the President of the United States would not talk to him. Now he is shutting down the Government because the President is talking to him. Last night the President agreed to sit down with Senator Dole and with Speaker Gingrich, they would roll up their sleeves and they would negotiate a balanced budget that would be scored, the numbers would be guaranteed so it truly came into balance by the Congressional Budget Office. They walked out of that office with that agreement: and, apparently, the Speaker brought that back to the Hill and the freshmen Republicans told him, no; that that was not good enough to release the Federal hostages; that that was not good enough to let people enjoy Christmas; and that was not good enough to put people back to work. Maybe we were wrong. I assume that the President assumed that when the Speaker said he wanted to negotiate vis-a-vis the President, that he assumed he had the authority to negotiate. The President was speaking for the Presidency, the executive branch and the people he represents. Senator Dole seemed to think he was representing the people in the Senate from the Republican Party. Apparently, the Speaker did not have negotiating authority from the freshmen in the House of Representatives. So apparently, the Government will remain shut down through Christmas. We will or will not be here through Christmas, and families will have to go through that kind of trauma. It is terribly unfortunate, but it shows such a basic flaw in all of the rhetoric and all of the debate and all of the hot air from the Republicans about family values, about the importance of families, about how this was going to be a Congress that took that into consideration when we recognize the importance of the Christmas season to our families. Now, what is the debate about? The debate, apparently, is that the freshmen Republicans told the Speaker there will be no give on the $245 billion tax cut; that that was sacred to their sense of a balanced budget. So at the time that we are cutting the seniors' health care benefits, at a time that we are limiting the amount of money to be made available for the elderly in nursing homes, at a time that we are cutting back on health care benefits and abolishing the Medicaid Program for children, for poor women in this country, the first time that we have put children back into poverty instead of lifting them out of poverty, at a time that we are cutting back on access to student loans and increasing the cost of education, at a time that we are making those fundamental changes and cutbacks that affect every family in America, the bottom line for the Republicans is that if they do not get the tax cut for the wealthy in this country, if they do not get that, then there can be no negotiations. To hold on to that position, they have decided, for the second time, to take hostages from the Federal work force. This is a little bit like a family that sits down, as we must do to balance a budget, and decides that they will only go to the show once a week, they will not eat out any longer, they will drive the car for a longer period of time, they will not buy a new house, they will take an extra job, maybe the kids will have to work, but then, all of a sudden, they turn around and say, but we are going to give the children a raise in their allowance. We do not have the money for this tax cut. We do not have the $245 billion when we are cutting $270 billion out of seniors' health care and $180 billion out of Medicaid. I think the freshmen Republicans ought to quit being so selfish and start thinking about America's families and families that need their help.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is exactly right.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker in the well said that the most important thing we can do for our children is to give them this balanced budget. It is a strange notion of Christmas, as you gather your children around, and you say you gave them a balanced budget. But when your children ask you what is the price to other children, you tell them the children in foster care will not be able to receive placement, children who are abused are likely not to receive placement in a safe home away from the abuse, children that need health care because their parents lost their jobs will find that not there because of your cuts in Medicaid. They always say the children are not as cruel as adults, but they will find out how cruel it was. When you tell them the price for the other children in this Nation, they are going to say, ``Shame on you, Daddy. Shame on you, that you did that to the children of this Nation.'' Because children do not desire to see their colleagues hurt, to see their colleagues suffer that kind of pain, but that is what your budget does and that is why it should not be accepted. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy .

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to join my colleagues in this tribute and thank the gentleman for naming this Federal post office facility for our former colleague, Ed Madigan. I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] has touched upon what many of us felt about Congressman Madigan, and that was his wisdom. And he was wise. He would offer some advice sometimes when he thought maybe you had gone a little too far one way or another. I happened to share an area in the House gymnasium, and, even when he was Secretary of Agriculture, he would come in late at night. We would talk about what it was like to be Secretary of Agriculture and about the House. He was a Member's Member. He had a great sense of individuals, of personalities, of the needs of people. Maybe sometimes when this place got a little off track, Ed Madigan was one of the people that would try to bring us back and to be a little bit more civil and understanding of one another. I just wanted to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and thank him.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for raising this point because when we look at the Medicaid Program, and we see an ad here that is signed by corporate leaders, who have laid off tens of thousands of Americans, and the children in many cases of low-paid workers, those children of those workers have lost their health insurance. Three million children are without health insurance. And what the Speaker is saying is we have to dismantle Medicaid rather than give those children health care coverage.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here talking about a Republican proposal that they want to pretend is the President's budget is because what the Republicans do not want to talk about is their budget, because this may be the most unpopular budget in the history of this country because the American people have discovered over the last several months that the Republicans are set on a course which is to devastate the Medicare Program of this Nation, to remove that health care protection from our seniors, to devastate the Medicaid and abolish the Medicaid Program that provides health care to poor women and poor children of this Nation, to people who have lost their jobs, and that devastates the environment of this country by removing the environmental protections, and it devastates the education programs of this country by savaging the cuts and the support for education. This is not the President's budget. But, again, the Republicans would rather talk about this than talk about what is in their budget. They do not want to talk about the fact that they have not kept the agreement with the President, that the budget that would come from that agreement would protect Medicare, would protect Medicaid, would protect education, and would protect the environment. They have not met that test. So what did they do? They shut down the Government because they do not want to discuss the fact that they have failed the test to protect Medicare and Medicaid. They have not met that test. What are they going to talk about today? They have decided they would try and talk about the President of the United States, as opposed to their budget. They should not be let off the hook so cheaply. The fact of the matter is that not only do the Democrats reject this Republican budget, but overwhelming numbers of the American citizenry reject this budget. Why? Because they know now what it means to their families. They know what it means to the health security of their parents and their grandparents. They know what it means to their family's health security should they lose their job. It is the Republican budget that devastates those programs, and the Republicans do not want to talk about it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2111, my legislation to rename the Federal building in Richmond, CA after the late Frank J. Hagel. Mr. Hagel started as a file clerk for the Social Security Administration in Kansas 25 years ago. During those years, his hard work and talent resulted in numerous promotions through the technical and managerial ranks. He came to the Western Program Service Center in Richmond in 1986, and was promoted to the assistant regional commissioner for processing center operations. In 1991, he once again showed exceptional leadership during the Legionnaire's Disease outbreak among the center's staff and received his second Social Security Commissioner's Citation. Finally, in 1994, Mr. Hagel was appointed the assistant regional commissioner for management and budget, Region IX. When Mr. Hagel passed away in January of this year, in appreciation of his leadership and in recognition of his dedicated and tireless service to the nation and his community, the employees of the Western Program Service Center and the city of Richmond expressed their wish to name the building after him with a resolution calling for the name change. This resolution already has passed the Senate as well, under the leadership of Senator Barbara Boxer and the minor differences between our two bills should be resolved with great ease. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support for this bill, in particular Representative Wayne Gilchrest, the chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, and Representative James Traficant, the ranking minority member of that subcommittee. I appreciate their willingness to move this legislation forward. I am honored to have been able to aid the city and the employees of the Western Regional Office and the constituents to whom Frank Hagel dedicated his life.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman makes an important point, in the concern with what now the delaying of the recommendations of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is. point of order