George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Arlette Merritt, Executive Director of West Contra Costa County's Early Childhood Mental Health Program, and congratulate her as she approaches her well-earned retirement. Arlette Merritt's outstanding career in public service was born out of her lifelong commitment to mental health services for the very youngest and most vulnerable children. In focusing on treatment for children ages 0-6, Arlette has made a priceless contribution to her client families and to our community as a whole. Since becoming Executive Director 28 years ago, Arlette has been instrumental in keeping the Early Childhood Mental Health Program accessible to our region's population. Under her leadership, the Early Childhood Mental Health Program has pioneered early-intervention by developing infant/parent home visiting, preschool mental health consultation, and intensive day treatment for preschool children. Further, this agency provides specialized parenting support groups and critical wrap-around services, in both English and Spanish. During her admirable career, Arlette has molded an outstanding team of professionals who in turn bring these services to 400-500 families a year. Arlette's rare and exceptional skills have earned her tremendous respect and the gratitude of her colleagues as well as the public at large. She has been a tireless advocate for the expansion of children's mental health services and is nationally recognized as an expert in her field. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Arlette Merritt as a true hero in our community and to thank her for her dedicated service to the families and especially the children of West Contra Costa County. While I will truly miss our interaction on issues related to supporting children's mental health, I am pleased to join with her family, friends and colleagues in congratulating Arlette Merritt on a long and highly successful career and wish her a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the intellectual architect of all of this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. They're here in spirit. They're not here in person, unfortunately.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. I have one or two other speakers. We've put out a call to them, but they've not responded. I'll see if we can maybe fit them in on the manager's amendment if they want to speak because I'll be very brief on the manager's amendment on this side. So let me just close by again thanking everyone on the committee for their support. I certainly want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle but particularly the staff on this side of the aisle, and the members of our committee, for helping me with this legislation. I want to recognize Jamie Fasteau, Ruth Friedman, Kara Marchione, Laura Schifter, Daniel Brown, Megan O'Reilly, and Adam Schaefer for all of their contributions to this successful bipartisan effort. Finally, I would just like to say, as many speakers have said, all charter schools aren't perfect; this isn't a silver bullet. What we hope to be able to do is to really continue to grow the entrepreneurial spirit of young people across the board looking at our education system, thinking how it can be done better, what are the best practices, what are the indicators of successful schools, of successful learning environments, of successful teaching environments for teachers, for students, and focusing on the academic achievement and the benefits to the students. And then to be able to share those models across the charter school spectrum, across the traditional public school spectrum so that all of us can learn and benefit from that, and most importantly so we can create those environments where America's children will have the opportunity to have access to a first-class education that will serve them the rest of their lives. I believe that that effort is facilitated by the charter school movement. I believe that this legislation is a substantial improvement on the original authorization for charter schools to participate in this area, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation. With that, I've danced as long as I can. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I will be brief here because I want to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, but I want to point out that the manager's amendment again was a lot of hard work by the staff to put together the various ideas from the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, but I think they have done a spectacular job, and the chairman and myself both support this legislation. I am very supportive of the efforts in the manager's amendment to make sure that parent and community input is a priority in the implementation of the charter school improvement and the operation of those charter schools. We require that, as you consider the beginning of a charter school, you take into consideration, and the State entities take into consideration, the input of parents and the community. I think this is very important. We know that there are many, many parents that want to be involved in creating charter schools, sustaining a charter school, thinking about what they want to do with the schools in their neighborhood. I think this is an important component that I hope to see in the reauthorization of the ESEA, that more consideration is given to community and to parents about how we turn schools around so that they have some skin in the game, they have some interest in the game, and they have a stake in the outcome of that. The manager's amendment also requires that each charter school in the State make publicly available information on the educational program, the student support services, teachers, and annual performance enrollment data for all students by the subgroups, and it strengthens the application process that includes application and description of how schools will consider the transportation needs of their students, and also on how the schools and entities will support diverse charter school models, including those serving rural areas. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado to talk about the replication of high-quality charters.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, thank him for offering the amendment, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I know Ms. Moore has reserved her time so she can respond to this, but I just want to say I think we tried to work this out in this legislation in the fashion that if a Governor makes application, he must do this in conjunction with the SEA. And the idea that the Governor would do this on his own, or whatever, we forced that working together simply because, as you point out, most Governors' offices would not have the internal capacity to carry out the responsibilities under the grant. But to deny the Governor the opportunity seems to me doesn't make sense when it's required that the SEA be involved. I will just say I know why you're offering the amendment, and I am obviously reluctant to oppose it, but I think we have addressed this concern in the legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is very important for all the reasons the gentleman from New Jersey cited. In terms of the savings, we are seeing more and more schools taking economic liabilities, if you will, such as parking lots and vacant land around the school, turning them into economic assets, and saving the kind of money--it has been recorded now for a number of years the money that is actually saved in these design practices in the schools that free up those resources for other educational purposes. I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa. We should be very clear about this amendment, what it would do and why it would be incredibly detrimental to our students, our schools, and to our country. In this bill, we require the performance of poor and minority students and students with disabilities to be considered when measuring the success of charter schools. That's as we chose to do when we passed No Child Left Behind, not a perfect education act by any means. But a very important component was the disaggregation of the data so that the parents of each and every one of those children, so the community leaders representing each and every one of those children would know how those children were doing. We used to have the day when we asked how these students are doing, how this school is doing and all we got were the averages, and everybody said, oh, it's better. The fact of the matter is this is to assure that we understand how those children who have access to these schools, how, in fact, they're individually doing. These are Title I public schools. They happen to be charter schools. And the point of that is to make sure that poor and minority children, English learners, students with disabilities have the full access to an appropriate education. And to go back to a time when we start to hide those results or we don't hold schools accountable for that is to rip away the fabric of accountability that parents and communities and taxpayers are asking for from those schools. The idea that you would be held accountable for English learners if you had no English learners in your school is simply hokum. It just isn't what the law says. This would be an absolute disservice to parents, to the students, and to our communities. It takes us back to the time prior to No Child Left Behind when schools would participate in hiding their failures and champion what they were trying to present to the community as their successes, and that's why we have the charter school movement. That's why we have accountability now that we never had before. That's why this amendment is opposed by so many people who are involved in the promotion of the educational opportunities for these populations: the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the Center for American Progress, the Children's Defense Fund, and many others on the list that I would ask to be put into the Record. The National Counsel of La Raza, the National Disability Rights Network. List of Groups Against King Amendment The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; 50CAN; Center for American Progress; Children's Defense Fund; Democrats for Education Reform; Education Equality Project; KIPP; Massachusetts Charter Public School Association; National Counsel of LaRaza; National Disability Rights Network; NewSchools Venture Fund; Council for Exceptional Children; National Center for Learning Disabilities; Easter Seals Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has urged the American people to call, email and tweet their members of Congress to let them know they want a bi-partisan compromise solution to the dangerous impasse over the debt ceiling that the Republican leadership has engineered. I used my Facebook page to ask my constituents and others who follow my page what a bi-partisan compromise would look like to them. I wanted to share with my colleagues the responses I have received so far. As you can see, the answers are very thoughtful. And the majority, not all, but clearly the majority, of responses are in favor of a balanced approach, one that combines new tax revenues with serious spending cuts. That's the approach I personally favor and that President Obama and congressional Democrats have been trying to achieve. Regrettably, we have been met with a stone wall of opposition from the Republican Congress to a balanced compromise. They are pushing for a short-term bill that would make seniors, children, and the middle class pay the burden of our fiscal problems, and that would force us to have this reckless and damaging debate again just months from now. I want to thank the people who took the time to share their views on my page and I encourage all Americans to continue to make their views known to the Congress about this important issue. I hope my colleagues find these comments, from people who follow me on Facebook, informative. Kay: ``come now, let us reason together'' Praying for reasoning and that people will realize what they are doing. We must live in the solution--we know what the problem is. I'm glad you're there, George Miller! Brian: I think you know what needs to be done. I hope your colleagues do too. Sue: The right won't compromise and the President has already given away far too much. He needs to take a stand for the American people and sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment. Felix: Well, what do we hold that they want? Settle on the debt in exchange for, say, national CCW reciprocity? KeKe: I'm concerned with the health bill as well as curving the expenses for colleges and bringing jobs into our states! Gayle: Bipartisan compromise would look like the Congress has finally restored some semblance of sanity to the process of government. It would include finally taxing corporations and the rich as they should be taxed, and it would NOT include cutting Social Security programs and other services to the elderly and most at-risk populations. Is that too much to ask? I think not . . . Gail: Very unwillingly I opt for a `compromise' but NOT touching either social security or Medicare.. .and, in addition, pushing for closing those tax loop holes for the rich. It amazes me how little conscience the Republicans (both moderate and TPers) have with regard to a patriotic generosity towards those who have less . . . Pamela: First of all, social security, etc., are NOT entitlements. We've paid in to them. We're not asking for a hand out, we want the money we put into the system. Stop them treating us like children looking for a handout. And I don't see why the President has to be so PC about how we got into this! Lay it right at Bush's doorstep. Nick: It would close the tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, it would reform the tax code to a graduated flat tax, would end the income caps on SSI, and would modify Medicare by extending the age of eligibility to 67, adding small ($20) co-pays for medical services, and would extend the debt limit until 2014. Nick: It would also close any and all tax benefits that U.S. Corporations receive by using overseas labor. Anne: Quite honestly I think we need to reverse Bushs tax cuts and get out of three wars as quickly as possible. Daniel: The President should use the 14th Amendment option and stop trying to exploit this ``debate'' for an opening to cut the social safety net. Anyone who votes for a bill--and both the Reid and Boehner plans have these things in them--that puts huge spending cuts in place during the longest unemployment crisis since the Great Depression is not getting my money, time, or vote in 2012. Anyone who votes for a bill that contains provisions for a ``super congress'' panel that could, say, force through massive spending cuts to SS, Medicare, or Medicaid too quickly for the public to notice is not getting my money, time, or vote in 2012. Any Democrat who attacks the New Deal or Great Society policy template in any way is not getting my money, time, or vote in 2012. Ideals and principles matter. People who think so aren't ``sanctimonious,'' they think what we say and do matters. Karen: Tax the rich. Close the loopholes. Mega-corps & financiers need to pay their fair share. Reinvest in the United Stated and their people. Or they will not reinvest their trust in a Congress that has forgotten `by the People, of the People, for the People. Tell them they are close to committing treason, against the true government of these United States: We the People. We will not be distracted or forget this time. We are awake & We expect Action! Pamela: There is no compromise at this time. Nor should there be. The full faith and credit of the US should not be held hostage to the budget. Simply raise the debt ceiling and then consider the budget as a separate issue . . . which it is. And THEN eliminate the Bush tax cuts. Clark: As in the past, a REAL compromise would be a clean debt limit bill, and then the parties can slog it out over the deficit reduction later. The biggest help would be putting most of the unemployed and underemployed back to work, that will whittle down the problem nicely! Robert: Cut enough to get the deal done . . . there is plenty that could be reduced in our bloated budget. Deal with tax overhauls separately, you don't have enough time to broadly revamp that end of the business in a few days. The Pres needs to drop his politically motivated insistence that the ceiling is raised high enough to avoid dealing with this again until after the election. And would someone please read the 14th Amendment and set clear there is nothing to invoke? It is sad to hear ``CNN sound bite'' educated numbskulls calling for something they have never read and have no context about how it originally came to be, or what it was trying to address (Civil War era history is apparently not a deeply taught subject in this country . . .). GET 'ER DONE George! Ulrich: Stop the WARs! Nic: Social Security should be self-sustaining and not redistribute wealth. The average American should recieve benefits equal to their inflation adjusted contributions, regardless of income. Same with Medicare. The tax code should be simplified. Annual budgets should not run deficits. And don't raise taxes--cut non-essencial services. That's it. Ted: Save money and lives get out of the wars now!! I don't understand the Republicans, they won a huge victory in this debate, no new taxes, no shared responsibility. The Tea party Republicans, are making a mess of this. The President has been very reasonable and willing to comromise. I hope he will use the 14th amendment, section 4 to save our economy and raise the debt c. That's my opinion!! Maureen: The President is trying to deal with people who do not know or respect the meaning of the word ``compromise.'' For the moment, use the 14th Amendment option. For the long term, raise upper income tax rates, close corporate tax loopholes, decrease defense budget (reduce our overseas presence and military ops). Social Security (insurance, not entitlement!) is not a part of this equation, but what is the big deal about simply raising the ceiling on the FICA-taxable compensation? Tyson: It's obvious we have a revenue problem as well as a spending problem. Put out a message and scream it louder than the GOP. You have the facts to back it up. Toni: A bi-partisan compromise. Raise taxes on the wealthiest. Cut what we have to, a bit from everywhere, raise the debt ceiling as there is no alternative apparently. How about for a year rather than six months or two years? In other words, give for the greater good. Rick: It's time for the Democrats to show some courage in this . . . time for a compromise and to ignore the fundamentalist purity of the freshman Republicans. Lori: I'm tired of the rhetoric. The solution is: A one page bill that will increase the debt limit. Then . . . a bi-partisan committee to review where Government waste is. I'm sick of the lobbying of the special interests that pay into the superpacs for their agendas. The people understand this and are tired of being condescended to. No elected representative . . . should be enticed with money and perks for their own purposes. George . . . I have LOTS of ideas . . . and you have probably received them all. Sorry you're not my Congressman anymore. Dave: The president has already given away TOO MUCH, in the name of bi-partisanship! Any and all giveaways end up as bigger tax breaks for Republicans' Corporate friends anyway. Enough with ``compromising!'' Invoke the 14th and be done with it! James: A bipartisan compromise on the debt ceiling would be a simple increase in it WITHOUT ANY STRINGS ATTACHED, just like the nearly trillion dollar bailout of the financial system in October of 2008! Tom: Simplifying the tax code by eliminating some tax breaks might be good for the country. That might be part of a bill that both parties could accept. You're not really raising taxes that way, in some sense. Another problem is that large corporations that own a lot of land that they can sit on for a century are getting a free ride on some property taxes, due to assessed values lagging behind inflation, which is unsustainable in the long run. Cutting foreign aid when it isn't really in American interests might help reduce spending a little. We really don't get much appreciation from foreigners for all the help we give them, instead they seem to resent us. Probably we should disentangle ourselves from involvement in foreign affairs to some extent. Keynes should be read in the original, it's perfectly clear from his books that government needs to be lender of last resort in an economic crisis, which he proved in the 1930s. There is some value in the Austrian school of economics, but their doctrines can lead to disaster, as proved by the Hoover policies that led to the Great Depression in the 1930s. Keynes showed the way out of that mess. Government spending on American infrastructure is absolutely necessary to get us out of the current crisis, even if we have to borrow money to do it. Carol: A clean Debt Ceiling increase. A one pager. Cathy: Compromise is what statesmen and stateswomen do! We must move forward with balanced cuts and revenue building that does not stop job growth or hurt the poor, elderly, our youth or our vets . . . it must be modest over decades--this is what makes sense. Close the IRS loopholes, cut waste, reform entitlements so they are healthy--these things can not be done overnight--there is no silver bullet--we must be adults and rebuild our economy intelligently and calmly. Bonnie: I trust that you will represent us well on this issue! I'm so worried for those in our country who have the weakest voice. Mike: Clean debt ceiling bill. Negotiate the rest in appropriations with an eye toward balancing cuts and revenue increases. No raising eligibility requirements. No benefit reductions. Means testing, possibly. Perhaps raise SS cap beyond $106,000 . . . . Jean: Perhaps it would simply raise the debt ceiling, as has been done so many times in the past, without including the other crap that the Tea Party idiots are so against. Then work on THAT compromise, which will cut spending AND raise taxes . . . especially on the rich to add to their fair share. Or is that too easy? Deborah: after the reports of multi billion dollar profits from big oil this week it is time to share with the government across the board . . . The timing of these earnings is not exactly ideal for the Republicans in Congress. Debbie: What is the big deal on the debt ceiling, really? Why can't it be taken care of as it has been in the past? Yes, I know we are swimming in debt and yes, I know it has to be reined in, but please, please, please not on the backs of our elderly citizens. Does no one in the Tea Party have a mother or father who have social security and medicare as their only source of income and health care? I find the Tea Party's newly elected House members to be arrogant, self-serving and short-sighted. Also, is every wealthy American a job producer? The Republican party seems to think so, because to hear them tell it, raising taxes on the wealthy will limit job growth; there are so many loopholes for the wealthy, that they pay only a fraction of their assessed taxes as it is. Washington is broken and seems beyond fixing, short of ditching everybody up there and starting over again, and I know that's not a fix either. Jane: There are not enough taxes that could possibly be collected to pay off our debt! Just stop the spending! Obama is running this country into the ground! Wake up people unless you like the idea of losing everything. Not hard to figure out. Stacey: A bipartisan balanced budget would: (1) pass a clean increase to the debt ceiling (NO riders or deals attached). (2) Increase in revenues by increasing the tax brackets to pre-Reagan levels. OR by making a 9% flat tax for all Americans, no deductions. (3) Reduce spending by scaling back on foreign wars. (4) Reducing Washington waste, Senators and Representatives pay own way after leaving office like ordinary citizens (they'll collect SS and Medicare too. (5) Keep Social Security and Medicare intact, stop Gov't from borrowing from these programs. The Gov't MUST REPAY, all monies borrowed from SS since Reagan's tenure. (6) Stop subsidizing Big Oil or other conglomerates. (7) Follow California's lead and Congress and Senate does not get paid unless a balanced budget is passed into law by June 30th. Otherwise they work for free until the job is done. No back pay if budget passed after June 30th.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and strong opposition to this bill. The Interior appropriations bill that is before us today is a radical assault on public health, on clean air and clean water, and on our environment. This bill wouldn't create a single job. Instead of creating jobs and protecting the public health, this bill gives polluters and other special interests license to do just about anything that they want. This might be the single worst bill in this House for our public health and the environment since the days of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. In this bill, the House Republicans are undermining the Clean Water Act, creating loopholes in the Clean Air Act, and gutting the Endangered Species Act. But that's not all. This legislation makes it harder for our States and cities to improve their crumbling water and wastewater systems through the State clean water and drinking water revolving funds. The legislation blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting us from mercury, soot, and power plant pollution. Under this bill, the EPA will hardly be allowed to do anything about dangerous pollution that threatens our public health. The legislation blocks the new vehicle standards that will save consumers at the gas pump and would reduce the amount of oil that we import as a Nation. If that wasn't bad enough, the bill decides to prohibit the State of California from setting its own clean vehicle standards. The legislation also includes an ``extinction rider,'' one of the most aggressive threats to the Endangered Species Act in my career here that would freeze all of the efforts to protect imperiled species across the country. One of the most offensive aspects of this bill, out of a very long list, is the 80 percent cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For nearly 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has taken oil and gas drilling fields, a finite resource, to invest them in a continuing protection of our resources on land, not taxpayer dollars-- these are taken from the oil companies that drill in the offshore--and they use that money to preserve the national parks, the wildlife habitat, trails, and working ranches and forests. With this cut, Republicans are breaking the decades-long promise that has been a bipartisan consensus across this country, the promise that we will use these oil and gas royalties to protect important American places for future generations. Outside of the Republican Conference in the House of Representatives, I don't know anyone in this country who wants to end our commitment to use these fees on Big Oil to protect our parks and recreation areas. These are our public lands. These are the lands that America's families use every summer, use at different seasons and different parts of the country all of the time. These are the public spaces that make us the envy of the rest of the world. These are the public systems that countries from all over the world send people to understand how did we save them, how do we protect them, how do we manage them. We set the standard for the world. As it was said earlier, one of America's best ideas. But now all of that is threatened under the cut to these funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Mr. Chairman, these are a few of my reasons; but there are many, many more why I would strongly oppose this legislation and the very bad, bad ideas that it contains. I would hope that this Congress would reject this legislation out of hand. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, very shortly the United States Congress is likely to consider three ill-conceived and ill-timed trade agreements that will do nothing to create jobs in this country. One of these agreements is with the nation of Colombia. One of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote and protect American jobs and American values. We do this by ensuring that those who receive trade preferences respect essential democratic rights. These are important rights: the right to speak out and protest, the right to organize unions and bargain collectively, and the right of citizens to support political efforts to improve their economic condition without reprisals. Unfortunately, we see what happens when union members in Colombia try exercise their rights. Death squads are unleashed against union activists and human rights defenders; labor leaders are gunned down in broad daylight. This isn't yesterday's news. The intimidation and violence continue to this day. There have been 17 confirmed killings of unionists in Colombia this year, according to a human rights group. Last year, 90 unionists were murdered worldwide, 49 of them in Colombia. Colombia unionists face the highest rates of murder anywhere in the world. To overcome longstanding objections to passage of the Colombia free trade agreement, President Santos of Colombia and President Obama signed a Labor Action Plan on April 7. The plan includes deadlines for new laws that could enable workers to form unions as a means to advance social progress in Colombia. This plan has deadlines to restrict the use of cooperatives that allow employers to evade bargaining directly with their workers. It calls for new labor enforcement agencies and the hiring of additional inspectors. On the one hand, the labor action plan has important elements that are necessary and valuable, and President Santos is to be commended for advancing this initiative; however, there are major gaps in the action plan. There are no benchmarks to show whether or not the new laws on paper have translated into laws on the ground. Will workers have greater ability to exercise their rights, to organize, to bargain collectively, and to negotiate contracts directly with their employers? Will levels of violence and murders against trade unionists be substantially reduced? Will employers and companies that violate the rights of workers be punished, as prescribed under the new laws? We don't know if these are merely gains on paper or if they are real. And based upon the accelerated schedule, it appears we won't be given a chance to learn if there will be real change on the ground before we consider the trade agreement with Colombia. Any trade agreement with Colombia must produce a verifiable reduction in the violence. It must protect human rights. It must end the impunity enjoyed by death squads and paramilitaries. Due to the lack of benchmarks for progress, Colombia could still have a record year of assassinations and the action plan would be declared a success. Under the plan, the Colombian Government is supposed to be providing expanded physical protections for union activists. I met with regional and national union leaders last month who told me that little has changed on the ground. They told me they haven't received protection. The action plan calls for hiring additional labor inspectors over the next 4 years to enforce these new laws. There's a program to relocate teachers who have received death threats. There is a program to address the backlog of thousands of union homicide cases that have yet to be prosecuted. And there is no assurance that the actions will be carried out. Last week, the Ways and Means Republicans opposed efforts to require Colombia to meet its obligations under the action plan as of the date the free trade agreement goes into force. Without this provision, the U.S. has no leverage to assure implementation of the labor action plan. Maybe that is what the multinational corporations pushing this deal want. And since the agreement is being brought to the floor under fast track, Congress will not be able to consider amendments to make the action plan enforceable. Given this predicament, the least the administration can do is to stand behind its own action plan. The implementing legislation should require Colombia to fully comply with the plan before the agreement takes effect. The administration should confirm that compliance through on-the-ground consultations with labor and human rights organizations. Without real change on the ground, this trade agreement is not fair to Colombian workers. They deserve their basic right not to be subjected to threats and murder because they demand a better life. This agreement does not fairly represent our Nation's values, and it's fundamentally unfair to America's workers. They can't compete with workers who face death squads for wanting better working conditions. They can't compete with a country that continues to allow thousands of assassins to operate with impunity. It's past time that we, as a Nation, stand up for American values and American workers.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the votes on July 7, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 503, the Lee amendment to reduce funding for combat operations in Afghanistan.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the votes on July 11, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 534, the Tierney amendment to restore funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts, and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 535, 536, 537, and 538.