George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman did not embarrass himself.

Mr. MILLER of California. Do not speak for me. Do not speak for me.

Mr. MILLER of California. That is right.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Tennessee who have worked hard on this, and they have removed my opposition, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my concern is public institutions. Pell grants, as I understand it in California, are used mainly at the community college level much more so than the loan program. But you could have a limited number of students who have loans and they default on them, and then that spills over to the students who want to get an education and are qualified for a grant and need the grant to go to school. Can you help me with that?

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, and so is this law out of order.

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is in order.

Mr. MILLER of California. I will tell you what is perverse. It is the gentlemen on this side trying to equate the fat-cat lobbyists sitting in their offices and the office of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and office of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] writing the regulatory reform act and gutting the Clean Water Act and to equate that with people in the Red Cross and equating that with people who are helping citizens who are dying of cancer and helping hospices and helping our kids stay drug free. The gentleman did not think they were on the dole when the Mississippi River overflowed its banks and you wanted the Red Cross' help. They did not think they were on the dole when the hurricane came through Florida last night and you wanted their help. But you think they are on the dole if they want to comment on emergency regulations or FEMA, if they want to comment and tell us how to do it better. You do not think they are on the dole when they run a hospice and a member of your family is dying of cancer, but if they want to comment on a regulatory action you think they are on the dole. That is perverse. That is what is perverse. Because the fat-cat lobbyists are not these people. The fat-cat lobbyists are sitting in your office and they are contributing to your campaigns and the Peace and Freedom whatever-it-is Foundation, Arianna Huffington, was started with staff money from the Speaker's Office, and the wallet you took out of your pockets was paid for by the taxpayers. That is perverse. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] says this is a glorious day. Let me explain something to you. [[Page H 8394]]

Mr. MILLER of California. This is regular order with me when I get angry. Yes.

Mr. MILLER of California. It it a glorious day.

Mr. MILLER of California. It is a glorious day. If you are a fascist, it is a glorious day. That is what it is about.

Mr. MILLER of California. Come on, give me a prayer now. Talk to me now. Help me now. Give me a prayer. Let us go. It is tough out there, ladies and gentlemen. It is hard down there.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and for adding to my resume here. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, these cuts in education are deep, and they are serious, and they are real, and they are going to have an impact in each and every one of our districts. Because let us understand something, they are not cutting this money to give it back to the schools at the local level. They are cutting this money to provide for a tax cut, the overwhelming benefit of which goes to people earning in excess of $200,000 a year. So they are gathering up money from poor schools, from poor children, from handicapped children, from all of the school districts in the country and transferring that to the wealthiest people in the country. That is simply not fair, and it does not make sense. Let us understand that these Federal dollars are what allows these school districts to engage in teacher training, to provide inservice training for teachers, to move toward 21st century technologies for many of our school districts that have no ability to do that. They do not have the financial capability of doing that. These Federal dollars are what allows school districts to take care of the neediest, the poorest children in our society, because they do not have the capability of doing it without these dollars. Let us understand something. We hear time and time again about the inability of the local school board and the local school district. Let me explain to you that many of those school districts are bringing you today the abysmal education that America's children are reaching. And why? Because they do not do these activities without Federal help. They were not educating the poorest children in this country without Federal help. They were not educating handicapped children without Federal help. They were not providing teacher training without Federal help, and it is very likely they will not again if the Federal Government does not help them out. So understand the Federal Government is a catalyst for education programs. Goals 2000 is a catalyst to make the States, and to help them, finance world-class standards for our children so that our children can compete with the children of any country in the world in the future. Today they cannot. They cannot compete in math. They cannot compete in language skills. They cannot compete in critical thinking. It is a national disgrace, and these few Federal dollars, very, very important to meeting those goals, because in fact in my own district and many other districts, without these moneys, those efforts will go by the wayside and we will continue to see children graduated who cannot read their diploma. We will continue to see children passed on to the next grade who cannot read at grade level. This is that opportunity. But this is the opportunity that the Republican budget cuts would deny our school districts. This is a disinvestment, a disinvestment in the children of this Nation, in the education of this Nation and their ability to participate in the world economy of the future.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the Medicare trustees report. They make it very clear that unless changes are made, Medicare will be insolvent. They also make a series of recommendations of minor extensions of current law that will make it solvent to the year 2010. What the Medicare trustees do not recommend in this report is raiding the Medicare account to give tax breaks to the wealthy. The Medicare trustees do not recommend, as the Republicans plan to do, to take $270 billion out of Medicare and give it to the wealthiest people in this country. What the Medicare trustees recommend is that we reform the Medicare system to extend its life, not raid the system to give a handout to the wealthiest people in this country. However, that is what the Republican plan is; not fixing Medicare, not reforming Medicare, but raiding Medicare, using the trustees' report as cover so that they can pass on a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country. We are fully prepared to reform Medicare. We are not prepared to raid Medicare.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we can argue over the size of the budget cuts, but we also know that very often a budget cut of not a tremendous amount can cripple an agency, and that is unfortunately what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle intended to do when they sought the cuts against the National Labor Relations Board. This is the arbiter of America's workplace. This is where employers and employees go to get a resolution to the conflicts that erupt in the workplace. This is where employers go to get issues resolved, and employees go so they can go back to work, they can go about their business, they can provide for their families, they can provide for their businesses and get on with life. But what has happened is that they now seek to attack the National Labor Relations Act both through the budget and legislative language that would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from seeking an injunction if they find activities, by both unions and employers, which are so egregious that they prevent a fair election from taking place. They want to enjoin those actions. The National Labor Relations Board does not enjoin those actions; they go to the district court and they make a case. Now they are changing the number of votes you will need on the board to go and get that injunction. Why? Because one of our colleagues is upset with the rendering of an injunction against Overnight Transportation Co., whose actions were so egregious that in 19 regions, action after action was sought against them because of what they were doing to their employees, withholding wage increases and promotions and the job opportunities of anybody who wanted to organize that workplace. They made a determination that a fair election could not be conducted unless the injunction was offered. What did our colleagues from Arkansas do? They wrote a letter and threatened the National Labor Relations Board and they said, ``If you issue this injunction, we have the ability to take action against you,'' and they did. They cut their budget by 30 percent to cripple the agency. Mr. Chairman, this means that businesses and worker organizations will be stymied in their efforts to reconcile the differences that exist in the workplace, but it also means that the National Labor Relations Board that uses injunctions in only 6 percent of the cases against unions and 2 percent of the cases against employees, but egregious cases they are, will now be rendered ineffective from doing that. That is the goal. That is what is wrong with this legislation. Time and again, we see private agendas coming into appropriations bills to undermine the laws of this country. If you have a problem with the National Labor Relations Board, we have an Education and Labor Committee. We will deal with that just as we are dealing with OSHA. But that is not what is going on in this legislation, Mr. Chairman. There is a private agenda, and there are campaign contributions, and threatening letters by Members of Congress to an agency. When that does not work, because they are an independent agency, we now see them being punished in the legislative process. It is unconscionable that a nationwide independent agency like the National Labor Relations Board would be threatened and then stricken with these kinds of budget cuts and this kind of punitive action against them, when in fact they provide the basis on which workers and employers can get a fair shake about the terms and the conditions of working in that place of employment. Mr. Chairman, we now believe we have the most productive workers in the world in any industry we point to, but what we do here is a deliberate attempt to go after those workers to stymie their ability, to get a decision rendered on a timely basis so that they can get on with providing for their families. This legislation, time and again, strikes, through legislative language, on an appropriation against the protections that workers need, against the protection that employers need, so that they can conduct productive workplaces. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we should support the Obey amendment because this legislation is just such an incredibly comprehensive raid on the rights of American workers. Whether those American workers seek to have a bargaining position with their employer over their working hours, terms, wages and conditions, where that right is taken away because of the attempt here to overturn the President's Executive order; whether those workers seek to work in a safe workplace, where we see as serious a problem as the ergonomic standards being set aside in this bill; going even further, not letting OSHA collect the data. Apparently, the Republicans on this side do not know this when they see it. Let me tell my colleagues, we see it every time we get on an airplane. We see a flight attendant with their hands in the braces; people that cannot do the job on the airplane, because their hands are in braces. We see it on the assembly line and we also see it when almost 3 million claims are paid for the injuries that are suffered for this. Mr. Chairman, the question is, do we stick our heads in the sand, as the Republican amendment would have us do, or do we go out and try to meet this problem? This is about whether or not our workers get to continue to be able to work without disability or whether they are sent home from the workplace and they are put on disability and they see that their ability to support their families is dramatically reduced. This is about our families. This is about Americans. This is about people who go to work every day and do not want to be hurt, yet 2.7 million of them file claims and were paid. Mr. Chairman, we know the kind of workplace loss that that takes. We see it in our own offices. There are people walking around this Capitol with braces on their hands, on their elbows and shoulders from that kind of work. Do we not owe it to them? Mr. Chairman, we also know that employers and insurance companies recognize it. They are trying to develop a safer workplace. They are redesigning machine tools and redesigning the assets to the people working on the assembly lines. Somehow the Republicans have just lost sight that these are people; these are families; these are bread winners; these are spouses; these are mothers; these are fathers; these are sons or daughters who are out there working. Do they not deserve a safe workplace? The answer in this legislation is ``no'' from the Republican side of the aisle. I think we have got to understand it extends even further in terms of the workers, where there is disagreement in the workplace between employer and employee. They make it much more difficult to go and get those conflicts resolved. What does that mean? That means it costs business more money, it costs workers wages and we do not get on doing what this country does very well, and that is produce goods and services, not only for this country, but for the international economy. Mr. Chairman, why is this necessary? Because they will not deal with this through the authorization process as opposed to the appropriations process.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having on the Labor HHS Appropriations bill is about people, not government programs. It is about the extremes to which Republicans will go to protect special interests. There is a very striking, specific example of how this bill sacrifices working families for the ignoble cause of catering to special interest. This bill punishes an independent agency on behalf of an unscrupulous employer, the Overnight Transportation Co. Let's be clear about one thing, this has nothing to do with reducing the budget deficit. It has everything to do with eliminating the independence and impartiality of the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is a judicial body. It is not supposed to respond to thinly- veiled threats from Members of this Congress. But certain Members have written to the judges of the NLRB that if they did not decide an issue in favor of the Overnight Co., the agency will be targeted for severe cuts. And when the judges used their independent judgment, Republicans went looking for blood. The cuts in this bill for NLRB are severe: 30 percent, while most other agencies were cut only 7.5 percent. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported recently that an Overnight lobbyist worked closely with a Republican congressman to insure that NLRB be issued a dramatic cut and that its judicial procedures be tied up. This unprecedented interference by Republicans in the duties of judges was not on behalf of the workers. Let me repeat, Republicans are going to extremes not on behalf of workers, but on behalf of an unscrupulous employer, the Overnight Co. The management of Overnight, from the CEO on down, has been violating the rights of employees all across this Nation. Since 1994, Overnight has mounted an illegal national campaign to prevent employees from exercising their right to come together for better wages and working conditions. Overnight's actions have resulted in literally hundreds of employee complaints. These complaints include all of the gross violations of worker protections law: firing employee leaders; threatening to close facilities if employees unionize; withholding pay increases for employees that vote to organize, while granting pay increases to others; and promising better benefits if employees do not exercise their right to unionize. The people who were subject to this treatment are just like you and me--they have families, they are struggling to make ends meet, and they are trying to play by the rules. Yet, Overnight, with the support it seems of Republicans, is denying those people their rights. Obviously, Overnight believed it was above the law. Under the laws of this Nation, it is illegal for an employer ``to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization * * *'' After NLRB authorized the request of an injunction against the flagrant violations of Overnight, Republicans sprang into action to prevent the injunction from actually being sought and to influence the settlement. But Republicans are not stopping there. They hope to exact punishment and revenge on a judicial body that decided cases against Republican special interest. Even some Members on the other side of the aisle were shocked by the catering to special interest. Republican Representative John Porter was quoted as saying ``To my way of thinking, you don't cut judicial bodies because they make decisions you don't like.'' I could not agree with my colleague more. To my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, we were not elected to disregard the interest of the people in favor of special interest. This bill is extreme and will hurt working families only to help special interests. This bill should be resoundingly rejected.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later this week the House will be considering the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill, and this bill will have provisions in it that really punish working Americans and working families in this country. We now believe that when we send a member of our family out into the workplace in this country, that they have a reasonable expectation, and we have a reasonable expectation, that our children or our spouse will go to work in a relatively safe workplace, and that that workplace will meet certain standards as to its obligations to members of our family as they go to work. Mr. Speaker, that is because of OSHA and the laws of general duty and obligations that says, an employer has an obligation to provide a safe workplace, but also because of the many standards that OSHA has developed to make the construction trades safer; that make the mining industry, in the case of MSHA, safer; that make the chemical industry safer, and it has made the petroleum industry safer, throughout the American economy. We have done this all at the same time that productivity has increased dramatically in this country. So it is not to suggest that OSHA, as others have, that somehow they have to be curtailed because they curtail productivity, because there is just no evidence that that is in fact the case. [[Page H 8005]] In fact, American corporations are experiencing some of the greatest increased in productivity at the same time that they have continued to work under workplace safety standards as promulgated by OSHA. Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that in the same bill, while most of the other agencies are subjected to budget cuts of around 7.5 percent, we see that OSHA, that agency which protects our families when they go to work, to make sure that when they leave the house they will come back to the House in the same condition when they left, we see that the enforcement for OSHA is cut by almost 33 percent. A third of its budget is taken away from this agency that is given the obligation to protect American workers. Mr. Speaker, this is simply unacceptable. We cannot go back to the days when American workers were chewed up in the mines in this country, in the factories in this country, in the places of manufacturing in this country. We still, even with the tremendous successes that OSHA has had in bringing down the injury rate and the loss of life in the American workplace, we still see that each day, some 6,000 Americans are injured on the job, and this costs American businesses billions of dollars a year, and that is unacceptable. But to now take off, to take off the ability of OSHA to enforce the laws, is to suggest that industries and businesses and manufacturers can engage in a race to the bottom where they can decide that they can cut the cost of doing business by having an unsafe workplace. That is not acceptable to America's workers, and it is not acceptable to America's families. Mr. Speaker, the bill also goes on to say that OSHA cannot even promulgate regulations to try and protect workers who suffer from repetitive motion disorders because of the increased use in computers and some jobs in the assembly segment of American manufacturing. All of us are aware, we see people in the supermarket, we see people standing in line to go to the show, members of our own families, as they wear harnesses on their hands, they wear harnesses on their elbow, they go to therapy because they are trying to stay on the job. At the same time that this Congress is asking for more erogonomic- sensitive furniture, components, machinery to protect their workers in the U.S. Congress, we are suggesting that we cannot promulgate the regulations to provide that same kind of protection to American workers in the American workplace. Yet we find that millions of Americans suffer from these kinds of disabilities that limit their ability to earn a living, to provide for their families. That is what OSHA is about. It is about Americans being able to go to work in a safe workplace, to earn a wage, to provide for their families. To the extent that they are disabled, to the extent that they are injured, to the extent that they suffer these kinds of accidents, their capabilities of providing for their families are reduced. This budget cut in this bill is simply an attack on working families in this country and it should not be allowed to stand. The Republicans are wrongheaded in this effort and they should not be allowed to take this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for taking his time in pointing out what is an incredible amendment to the bill that we will be asked to vote on. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman from Colorado a question. As the gentleman just described it, as I understand it, if you are a big farmer in the central valley of California and you are receiving a water subsidy, or you are a timber company and you are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in road building or water subsidies, or if you are a mining company and you have received land under a grant from the Federal Government, or if you are an oil company and you are receiving royalty subsidies or tax subsidies, you can come here and lobby all you want to increase those subsidies, to reduce them or to change the law. But if you are a public interest group and you have received any Federal money, you then have a limitation on money that you have privately raised or the private sector has participated with you; is that correct?

Mr. MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment to defund TV-Marti. I think it is very important that this amendment passes. I think it is time that we recognize that that program is an anachronism from the past, that what we ought to do is engage in a modern policy with the people of Cuba to engage them both in trade, and personal communications, and travel and tourism, and start to bring our values to their island, and to let them expand the values that they hold, and they can do that by greater contact with this country, greater contact with the rest of the world, and I think the notion that somehow we are going to provide some kind of meaningful engagement through the use of this process is simply ridiculous. We ought to understand that we ought to get out of the business of the embargoes, we ought to get out of all these old policies from the cold war, and start out fresh with the people of Cuba, and this program has never worked. It has been an incredible waste of money. It has not reached the population for which it was designed. Mr. Chairman, we ought to stop this program, but, once this program is stopped, we ought to move on to a new relationship.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, these leases are developed. This bill responds to a problem that existed in 1988, 1989; not the economics of the oil industry worldwide today and not the economics of the American oil industry.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say, it is interesting, but the fact is the CBO analysis has already been disproved, because the leases are being developed. The rigs are on site. The oil is being pumped. It is being sent to market. As the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have pointed out, it is being sent to market now in record volume from the gulf. So CBO says if these leases were never developed, yes, we would never get any revenue. However, the leases are being developed because the development is being driven by the economics of the oil industry, not governmental policy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].