George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, American children have already been the victims of the Republicans' inaction and spending cuts, and now the Republicans are specifically targeting the children of military families. The Flake Amendment to H.R. 2219 cuts $250 million of critical funding for public schools on military installations. These schools and families are already in dire need of support. Impact aid is provided to these schools as compensation for the federal activities that render them unable to collect property or other taxes to fund these schools. This is one of the oldest education programs administered in the United States, and these schools and families depend on these funds. The men and women of our armed services make great sacrifices to keep our country safe. They deserve better from this Congress. They do not deserve to have their children's education sacrificed as well. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment to cut impact aid.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the effort to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East does not lend itself to a simple up or down vote on a resolution in Congress, and so I rise to offer my thoughts on the resolution before us today. While I voted in favor of H. Res. 268, because it reinforces the importance of direct talks for a two-state solution, I was disappointed with the resolution regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was brought to the floor today. The fact is that this resolution was made possible because of the absence of a viable peace process. I am disappointed with the resolution not so much because of the general contents of the resolution, but because this resolution does not treat the issue with the serious and careful consideration that it deserves. It is simply one in a series of votes in the House that fail to address the entirety of the conflict and take instead political shots at one side of the conflict. Israel is and has always been a close friend and ally of the United States, and rightfully so. We share many goals and values, including a strong commitment to a vibrant democracy and diverse economy. Too often, however, Congress uses resolutions regarding the Middle East as referenda on whether or not a particular Member supports or does not support Israel, even though such support is not in question. That is unfortunate and does a disservice to the effort to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The Obama Administration, like its predecessors, has been working to keep the two parties at the table and to try to ensure that they can make the necessary compromises to ensure that type of lasting peace. Here in Congress, we should be supporting these important efforts, rather than playing political games, given the real-life consequences that this conflict is having on millions of people's lives and on our own country's security interests. I am glad to see that today's resolution encouraged the formation of a two-state solution through the process of direct negotiations. I am also glad to see that it acknowledges the work that President Obama has done to try and ward off unilateral attempts to break out of the negotiating process. This resolution also importantly notes the violent and harmful actions of Hamas. Yet I am disappointed that the resolution specifically criticizes the Palestinians for their actions but does not acknowledge that the Israeli government has also not always moved productively toward peace--in particular, through the ongoing construction of new settlements in the West Bank. Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the failure of the peace talks has provided the opening for an alliance between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and, in their view, a reason for them to go before the United Nations, rather than continue direct talks. I support the continuation of direct talks and do not believe this issue should be resolved before the U.N. But make no mistake that the failure to achieve sufficient progress in talks has provided momentum to this latest effort to seek the U.N.'s involvement. That is all the more reason why Congress should prioritize real progress over political games. I am further disappointed that the resolution misstates U.S. law, incorrectly claiming that current law precludes the United States from providing aid to the Palestinian Authority if it agrees to share power with Hamas. Current law rightfully provides an exception to the prohibition in order to enhance border security and the peace process. In addition, I do not believe it would be beneficial to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. This aid provides Fatah with negotiating leverage among their fellow Palestinians against Hamas. Security experts, including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and others, have warned against such a cutoff, since it could destabilize the security situation on the West Bank. Fortunately, the language of the resolution only asks that the Administration consider withholding such aid, yet this is still unwise. Congress could--and Congress should--take the peace process in the Middle East more seriously than it has with this resolution and similar resolutions before it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during two rollcall votes on June 16, 2011 and was unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 445, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 447.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 394 on June 2, 2011, I inadvertently cast a ``no'' vote on an amendment offered by Mr. Sherman of California, prohibiting the use of funds made available in the underlying bill from being used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember my friend Byron Leydecker, who passed away on May 12, 2011. Byron was a good friend, and he was a true champion on behalf of the rivers and fisheries of California. Thanks to Byron's passion and determined advocacy, the Trinity River is today in better shape than at any time since the 1960s. Byron lived his life with passion. Passion for what he believed and for his friends. He expected a lot of those of us in public service: he would let you know of his gratitude when you met his expectations and his disappointment when we disappointed him. At the end of the day, Byron was fun. He will be missed by all his friends in California and across the country, and generations of Californians will benefit from his dedication to the Trinity and his tireless belief in the fundamental and lasting value of a healthy river. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record this San Francisco Chronicle article about Byron Leydecker's life and many accomplishments, and I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Byron and in expressing our condolences to his children and grandchildren. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, May 26, 2011] Byron Leydecker, Former Marin Supervisor, Dies (By Peter Fimrite) Byron Waite Leydecker, a former bank executive and Marin County supervisor who helped stop development in the Marin Headlands and, for nearly two decades, drove the restoration and protection of his beloved Trinity River, died May 12 in his home in Mill Valley. Mr. Leydecker, who was 83, had been battling lung and liver cancer. Mr. Leydecker was born in Oakland on Aug. 28, 1927. He served briefly on the battleship Iowa at the end of World War II before enrolling in Stanford University, where he graduated in 1950 with a degree in economics. During the Korean War, he served as a public information officer in the U.S. Army in Washington. He worked briefly as a securities analyst and in 1953 got a job at Chico's Anglo National Bank, which later became Crocker Bank. By the time he left, he had become the bank's youngest-ever vice president. In 1962 he helped found Redwood Bank, where he was chairman of the board and chief executive officer until the bank was sold in 1981. In 1963, Gov. Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown appointed Mr. Leydecker to the Marin County Board of Supervisors. He won re-election in 1964. As a supervisor he fought a proposed development known as Marincello, which would have allowed construction of 20,000 homes in the Marin Headlands. Never shy about speaking his mind, Mr. Leydecker could be a gruff taskmaster. He may have sometimes lacked diplomacy, but he was amazingly adept at getting what he wanted, said his friends and colleagues. He started racing cars in the 1970s and, driving a modified Porsche, won the 1977 Northern California championship of the prestigious Sports Car Club of America circuit. The construction of Trinity Dam and Lewiston Dam in the 1960s and diversions of water as part of the Central Valley Project were sore spots to Mr. Leydecker, who had fished the Trinity in the 1930s when it was nearly pristine. He decided to take action in 1991, when a channel improvement project by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation choked the Trinity River with silt. It was so bad that Mr. Leydecker got stuck in the mud on a side channel while he was fly fishing. ``He was madder than a wet hen,'' said his friend Tom Stokely, the water policy analyst for the California Water Impact Network. ``He called me up and he must have yelled at me for a half hour. Then he said, 'I've got money. I can hire a lawyer.' It was the beginning of a long and wonderful relationship.'' Mr. Leydecker forced the bureau to stop digging along the river and in 1992 founded the nonprofit Friends of the Trinity River. The group fought to establish minimum annual water flows, improve fish habitat and enhance the riparian ecosystem. ``He was an authentic champion for rivers and fish, but especially the Trinity River,'' said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, who chairs the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. Mr. Leydecker, who always wore a pressed button-down shirt with blue jeans and cowboy boots, fought until the very end for Trinity River improvements and against water diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. ``He gave so much of his time and effort that it would be remiss as his friend for me not to continue that effort,'' said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who once spent several days hiking and rafting the river with Mr. Leydecker. ``He had a sense of romance about big rivers and what they bring to a society.'' He is survived by sons John Leydecker of San Rafael and Mark Leydecker of Aspen, Colo.; daughters Caroline ``Lama Palden'' Alioto of San Rafael and Criss Troast of Nantucket, Mass.; and eight grandchildren. A memorial service will be held June 5 at 3 p.m. at Marin Art & Garden Center, 30 Sir Francis Drake Blvd., in Ross. Donations may be sent to the California Water Impact Network, 808 Romero Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, regarding H. Con. Res. 51 and H. Res. 292, both resolutions have imperfections. I strongly support the sentiment behind the Kucinich resolution but do not think it would be responsible to compel action in such a short time period. Regrettably, the Boehner resolution accomplishes little. However, it makes a clear statement that I agree with, which is that American troops should not be on the ground in Libya.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for the votes on June 3, 2011 due to a family obligation. Had I been present I would have voted against H. Con. Res. 51, and in favor of H. Res. 292.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize and thank Nancy Jones upon her retirement from the Congressional Research Service after 36 years of service to Congress. Ms. Jones has worked with issues regarding the rights of individuals with disabilities since she began her career at CRS in 1975, the same year the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was enacted. She has been part of every reauthorization of IDEA, working on issues relating to attorneys fees, the provision of services to infants and toddlers, and even the change in the name of the statute. In addition to work during reauthorizations, Ms. Jones has worked with congressional staff to provide insight regarding the implications of other statutes on the education of children with disabilities. For example, she analyzed the implications of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for these students, especially regarding the maintenance of effort provisions in IDEA, and she has been a part of bicameral, bipartisan briefings in preparation for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization. In addition to education issues, Ms. Jones worked on the enactment of the first major civil rights act for individuals with disabilities, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and in the more recent ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). Prior to the 1990 enactment of the ADA, she participated in regular meetings with bipartisan staff thinking through how the ADA could be structured to best protect the rights of individuals with disabilities while not unduly burdening private entities. Because of her work, she was thanked in the Congressional Record and was privileged to attend the White House ADA signing ceremony. Following enactment, she continued to inform Congress on the Supreme Court decisions about the ADA, and the regulatory and enforcement issues under the ADA. She wrote numerous reports and memoranda and assisted staff in understanding the Supreme Court decisions which were the impetus for the ADAAA and the implications of proposed legislative language. After Hurricane Katrina, Ms. Jones worked extensively with staff on the question of emergency protections for individuals with disabilities. During another emergency, the H1N1 influenza pandemic, she analyzed the implications of the pandemic on employment issues for individuals with disabilities as well as issues regarding the provision of scarce medical resources. Ms. Jones has also worked extensively on issues relating to genetic discrimination which ultimately resulted in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). She analyzed whether ADA protections extended to genetic disorders, especially those that have not manifested, and addressed other issues unique to GINA. This June, Nancy Jones will retire from CRS after 36 years of service. I commend Ms. Jones for her distinguished career and her dedication to ensuring a fully-informed legislative process, especially in matters involving the rights of individuals with disabilities. In any area where she was involved, the development of Federal law and the effectiveness of congressional oversight were well-served.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, a little more than a year ago, 29 coal miners lost their lives in the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia. Our Nation watched with sadness as a small community felt the lash of the worst coal mining tragedy in this country in four decades. Shortly after the tragedy, our Nation promised these families to get to the bottom of what happened and we promised to make sure that something like this would never happen again. The good news is that we learned a lot about what caused this tragedy in the last year. Last month, an independent panel of experts appointed by the Governor of West Virginia released the results of a 13-month- long investigation. They concluded that the explosion was preventable. The panel said that the warning signs about dangerous conditions in the mine were ignored leading up to the tragedy. They found that the Massey Energy Company ignored basic safety precautions that the mining industry has recognized for more than a century. Repeated violations had become business as usual, something which the investigation called ``a normalization of deviance,'' where unsafe behavior and conditions became normal at Upper Big Branch mine. The report lays out how this tragedy unfolded. It may have ended with a sudden explosion, but it was a slow-motion disaster. The company's inadequate ventilation system allowed explosive gases to build up. Workers were slogging in neck-deep water that obstructed the air currents needed to ventilate methane gas. The mine's owners routinely illegally changed ventilation plans and used faulty engineering. In the months before the explosion, miners asked Massey management 561 times to quench the explosive potential of coal dust by applying rock dust, yet Massey only took action 65 times, or 11 percent of the time they were requested to do so. Water sprays on a mining machine were not properly maintained and failed to extinguish sparks, which allowed a fire to ignite. Coal dust provided the fuel that allowed a localized fire to trigger a massive explosion that ripped through miles of underground tunnels where miners were working. Finally, the report found intimidation. Miners were afraid to speak out about their safety concerns. They dared not stop coal production. Anyone who challenged management was considered a nuisance or a threat and their jobs were on the line. These conclusions are chilling. This report makes it clear that the failure to effectively deal with a reckless operator occurred at many levels: Our Nation's health and safety protections failed these 29 miners because of the many loopholes in the law that were exploited by the mine industry. Regulators allowed the mine to operate in a badly engineered ventilation system and failed to force operators to use modern technology to prevent coal dust explosions. And the mining industry failed these workers because they repeatedly refused to speak out against some of the worst actors within their industry, and have opposed legislation to curtail their misconduct. The State investigation is also a call to action. The panel urges Congress to enact reforms to modernize mine safety technology, give regulators better tools, strengthen criminal provisions, and improve the rights of miners. Mr. Speaker, with this report and its recommendations, Congress has been warned. We cannot abide by the status quo any longer. We cannot let Washington's pay-to-play politics paralyze legislative action once again. Congress has been warned. We cannot let mine operators game mine safety enforcement by paying lawyers instead of fixing chronic safety problems. Congress has been warned. We cannot let miners live in fear of being fired for speaking out on behalf of their safety. Their voices save lives. Congress has been warned. We cannot let decisions made in the boardrooms to put production over safety go unchallenged any longer. There are responsible mining companies that operate without an avalanche of violations. There are operators who do not make deviant behavior a part of their corporate culture. We want these mine operators to join us to rework the rules that govern this industry. In the end, though, getting mine reform done depends upon Congress. The responsibility rests squarely here. These disasters are preventable. This report is a very clear warning. We should not--we must not--wait for another tragedy before Congress owns up to its responsibility.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for the vote on May 26, 2011, to temporarily reauthorize expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Had I been present I would have voted against S. 990, the legislative vehicle for the PATRIOT Act, because I believe that law fails to provide for the adequate protection of our freedoms and liberties.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman Dan Lungren and Congressman John Garamendi to recognize the sixty-fifth anniversary of the founding of Solano Community College. The College has provided generations of Solano County residents with high quality education programs that prepare a diverse student population to participate in today's local and global communities. Solano College had its inception in 1945 when the California State Department of Education authorized the Governing Board of the Vallejo Unified School District to establish a junior college on the campus of Vallejo Senior High School. Classes for junior college students started in the fall of 1945 with fewer than 100 students. In the fall of 1957, the Governing Board of the Vallejo Unified School District voted to separate the junior college completely from the high school. Vallejo Junior College began offering summer classes in 1964, and enrollment increased to 1,000 students that year. In 1965, the voters of Solano County voted overwhelmingly to establish a separate community college district. At the same time, seven trustees were elected to the new governing board, representing the committees of the district. In the short span of a year, the new board selected a new Superintendent/President, Dr. N. Dallas Evans, and then proceeded to name a committee of fourteen members to select a site for the new campus. An architectural firm, Johnson, Poole, Storm, Lillis and Smith, Architects Associated, was engaged early in 1967 to draw plans for the new campus. In mid-1967, the board approved plans for a $12.6 million bond issue to be placed before the electorate of the county on October 17, 1967, which passed with an 84 percent yes margin. The committee recommended purchasing 192 acres on Suisun Valley Road in Fairfield. Student enrollment at the new location was over 3000 when it was dedicated in April of 1971. By 1990, the student population had increased to 10,000, and it became clear that the District needed to expand to the residents of the South County, Vallejo/Benicia, and the North County, Vacaville/Dixon/ Winters. In 1984, the District leased space at the Vallejo Library to provide South County residents with five classrooms for instruction of college courses. By 1992, the student population had grown to over 12,000. In 1996, the District leased space on North Village Parkway in Vacaville, eight classrooms. In 2002, the College Governing Board authorized a bond issue to acquire a permanent location on 10 acres for its Vallejo Center and build a center in Vacaville as part of a master plan to eventually build a campus on 60 acres of land. The Measure G Bond was passed by voters in November 2002 for $125 million and included renovation of the Fairfield campus. The bond measure work is scheduled to be completed by 2012. Since becoming the Solano Community College District in 1965, the college has had 15 Superintendent/Presidents, including Interims, Acting and Administrator-in-Charge. The current Superintendent/ President is Dr. Jowel Laguerre. Today, we invite our colleagues to join us in honoring Solano Community College, its board and staff for sixty-five years of outstanding service to our students and wish it continued success.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This Congress is entering its fifth month without bringing a single jobs bill to the House floor, and there are no jobs bills in sight. But we do hear calls for a series of trade agreements, including ones with Colombia and Korea. At a time when millions of Americans are still looking for work, the House will be spending time protecting corporate investments in foreign countries and not jobs here at home. At a time when multinational corporations have fired 2.9 million American workers, they will be hiring 2.4 million workers overseas. The House will be spending time shoring up corporate overseas investments rather than encouraging investments here at home. And at a time when so many in the Middle East are rising up for democracy and human rights and are receiving support from the United States for those efforts, the House is taking up trade agreements with Colombia that fails to live up to those very values. One of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote and to protect American jobs. We do this by trying to ensure that American workers do not face unfair competition with countries that keep wages low by repressing essential democratic rights. These are important rights, the right to speak out, the right to protest, the right to organize unions, the right to bargain collectively and directly with their employers, and to support political efforts to improve their economic conditions without reprisals. But reprisals are what you get in China. Thousands of strikes last year were met not by their employers but by the police and the army, beating up on the workers who were seeking better wages and better working conditions in plants all across China. What do you get when you protest your rights in Colombia? You get assassinations. You get death squads against union members, union leaders, members of union families all across the country. The American worker can compete; but you can't compete against the Colombian Army, the Colombian death squads, the Chinese Army. That's not fair competition. But that's what's protected in these trade agreements. Tragically, Colombia stands out as a country where wages are kept low and workers are repressed through widespread violence and other human rights violations. Colombia has earned the reputation as the most dangerous country on Earth for workers trying to build a better life. During the last Colombian President's 8 years in office, 570 union members were assassinated--149 in the last 3 years--and the violence hasn't stopped with the election of the new President. Reports of assassinations against union members and leaders keep coming. The two most recent ones include the April 8 assassination of Ramiro Sanchez. He was shot repeatedly as he left a union meeting. Mr. Sanchez had received death threats after organizing workers to demand local hiring at an oil company. And the March 30 assassination of Hector Orozco, who was an official with the peasant farmers' union. He and his colleague Gildardo Garcia were found murdered. Days earlier, Mr. Orozco reported that he and other peasants were threatened by an army officer. On top of the violence is the problem of impunity. Authorities have only investigated a quarter of the union killings since 1986. No one has been held accountable for 98 percent of the crimes against unionists. The violence and impunity came together in another recent case. A few weeks ago, Judge Gloria Gaono was shot in the head in broad daylight. At the time, she was presiding over a politically sensitive case of a military officer accused of murdering three children, one of whom he apparently admitted to raping. Now Colombia has a new President who says he wants to turn the page on Colombia's past. But these murders and human rights violations are not the past. They are happening today. Before we consider any agreement with Colombia on free trade, real changes must come to Colombia. That is why I have joined with colleagues to lay out a series of benchmarks that should be met by Colombia before the Obama administration sends Congress any trade agreement with that country. These benchmarks are designed to reduce the violence, to protect human rights, and to end the impunity of the death squads and the army, and the actions they take against these families. They require on-the-ground results and verification. The administration, however, has adopted an action plan for Colombia that does not demand the results on the ground. I appreciate that U.S. and Colombia finally are bringing labor rights into the equation, but their plan only demands results on paper. Under their plan, nothing really needs to actually change in Colombia. Colombia could have a record year of assassinations and still meet the requirements of the plan. Indeed, before the action plan has been fully implemented, the administration is already preparing the way with Congress to implement this trade agreement. If this action plan were made fully enforceable under the agreement and into the future, we could have something more than just results on paper. Unless it is enforceable, this is less than a serious commitment. It is not fair to Colombians, and it's not fair to the American workers, and it's not fair to our national values and does not reflect our national values. The American worker can compete with any worker in the world. They're rated time and again the most productive workers in the world. But they cannot compete against currency manipulation in China. They cannot compete against the Chinese Army that breaks up the rights of workers to protest, and they cannot compete against the death squads that have been assigned to assassinate union members, union leaders, and union families.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Fred Davis Jackson of Richmond, California, for his lifetime commitment to serving his community. Fred Jackson has lived and worked in my congressional district since 1950, a veteran, having moved to Richmond from his home in Mississippi. He was born on February 6, 1938 as the eldest son of devoted and hard working parents, the late Leo Marvis Jackson, who was a seasonal construction and shipyard worker, and the late Idella Villon Jackson. Mrs. Jackson would eventually become single and took on domestic jobs to care for Fred and his three sisters and five brothers. Fred Jackson is a peacemaker, an educator, a song writer and a true community- builder, and each and every day since arriving in the Bay Area, Fred has made a decided difference in the lives of our residents. Early on in his life, Fred Jackson recognized and celebrated the personal dignity in each individual. His work crossed all race and ethnic lines, all faiths and all ages. As a peace and social justice activist, Fred sat in at lunch counters in the South during the 1960's Civil Rights Movement and worked for peace even as he served our country in combat duty during the Vietnam War. Fred Jackson is known throughout Contra Costa County as a dedicated advocate for our families and children. He participated in the walk from San Pablo to Sacramento with the March4Education and then fasted for 19 days with Fast4Education for more equitable school funding. Fred has been a constant anti-death penalty advocate and his work in the community on violence prevention resulted in being awarded the 2000 Peacemaker Award in Contra Costa County. Fred has also taken an active and very personal role in bettering the lives of our senior citizens. He formed critical partnerships in the community, and personally donated the land that allowed the City of Richmond to build the Trinity Plaza Housing complex for low income senior citizens. Fred Jackson's passion for writing and poetry has led him to express his personal philosophy through the arts. As a writer, he wrote, directed and produced the play Brother Dap at the Richmond auditorium in 1994, wrote a novel An Evolution in Black and White, wrote his soon to be published reflections, Thoughts Set Free on the Wings of Expression, and has written and performed numerous songs, including ``One Step at a Time,'' ``Too Early Too Young,'' and ``When the Ozone is Gone.'' As an educator, Fred Jackson has worked for many years at Neighborhood House of North Richmond on lead abatement, HIV education, the (Healthy Eating Active Living HEAL) collaborative. Fred volunteered as a trainer of the Peace Empowerment Process for the World Wall for Peace at Helms Middle School, Crescent Park Multicultural Center, and Chris Adams Center and this year introduced a Health Covenant uniting the community and church in a fight against diabetes. Therefore, it was without hesitation that because of Fred Jackson's commitment to social justice, I selected him to cast the December 2008 electoral vote for the 7th Congressional District certifying the election of Barack Obama as president. He was also nominated for the Sergeant Shriver Achievement Award in 2010 for his work on behalf of low income residents in North Richmond. Fred Davis Jackson has spent his life making life better for others and he has called on us all to do the same. I invite my colleagues to stand with me and salute the work of a quiet man working tirelessly for justice and thank him for the change he has brought to our community.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman John Garamendi, to recognize the tremendous work of the Contra Costa Child Care Council as the organization celebrates its 35th anniversary of invaluable service to our communities. With its inception on August 11, 1976, the Contra Costa Child Care Council began to develop and promote quality child care through a multitude of nonprofit programs and services. Over the years, the Council has increased public awareness of the benefits and significant impact of early care and education to the success of our children, the economic vitality and well being of families and neighborhoods, and the future promise for California. This organization reflects the well known fact that early childhood education and quality run child care are important and integral parts of Contra Costa's economy, contributing at least $2.66 billion value added to the gross product of the County and generating $225 million in direct tax revenues, as well as supporting 35,600 jobs. This service has also been proven to be an essential component of the infrastructure of the entire State of California. Since its inception, the Child Care Council has been true to its mission to ``Help Parents Put the Pieces Together''. Over 265,000 parents have accessed the free referral service of the Council to find care that meets the specific needs of their families and tens of thousands of Contra Costa early educators and child care providers have received free training, technical assistance and support through the Council's many programs. Throughout the county, thousands of low income families have received financial assistance from the Council to pay for child care so parents can work, knowing their children are not only in good hands but are truly thriving. We salute the tireless work of the members of the Council's Board of Directors, Administration, and staff, both past and present and thank them for the enormous contribution to our community their efforts have made. Today, we invite our colleagues to join us in honoring the Contra Costa Child Care Council on its 35th anniversary and on behalf of our children, families and communities, wish all continued success.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1230. It appears to me that the Republican energy plan is higher gas prices and lower safety standards. This fits nicely with their overall agenda for the 111th Congress: end Medicare to pay for tax breaks for Big Oil. Yesterday, the Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked my amendment that would require oil and gas companies to publicly disclose their environmental and worker safety record before drilling on the Outer continental shelf. Earlier this year, Republicans voted to gut the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--the consumer watchdog agency charged with overseeing oil speculators. And earlier today, even though BP is now reporting $7.1 billion in quarterly profits--17 percent increase--every Republican in the House voted to block consideration of our Democratic bill, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2011, to stop the billions of dollars in tax giveaways to the biggest oil companies who don't need taxpayer help to get their job done. Under the Republican budget that the House approved earlier this year, people in their 40s and 50s now will be forced to pay more for health care when they retire than under current law--at least $6,400 per year more. But consider this: in the past three months, the top five oil companies made $30 billion in profits and Republicans in Congress want to give them billions more in tax benefits and subsidies. The same Republicans who voted to end Medicare are now refusing to hold a vote on repealing the generous tax breaks for the largest and most profitable corporations in world history. Make no mistake about it. Their bill on the floor today won't bring down the price at the pump. It won't end the massive taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil. It won't lead to more fuel-efficient cars. It won't crack down on oil speculators. And it won't improve the safety of offshore drilling--and in fact it will require the Interior Department to accept the very same flawed NEPA documents that helped lead to the BP spill in the Gulf. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1230 because it ignores the lessons of the BP spill and it does nothing to help families or consumers. I don't think Americans want Congress to take money away from seniors only to give that very same money to oil giants.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by joining my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in praising President Obama and our military and our intelligence teams for their extraordinary work in the culmination of the killing of Osama bin Laden. His death is a very positive step for U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Bin Laden's death will not erase the pain he caused by his evil acts, nor does it mean that Americans are not still the targets of others bent on doing us harm, but hopefully his elimination will offer some comfort to the grieving families all over the world who have suffered at his hand and will diminish the capacity of his network to do us harm. Mr. Speaker, while Americans are expressing their appreciation over the death of bin Laden, they remain deeply anxious about our economy. They are suffering from high unemployment and high gas prices and they expect and need relief. That is why Americans must be really scratching their heads in disbelief over the choices being made here in the House of Representatives. While Americans remain focused on jobs and the economy, the tea party Republican majority has voted to end Medicare and to cut taxes for the richest Americans and the largest oil companies. And this week they will vote to make it harder for students and low-income workers across the country to have access to health care by bringing up two bills to end the funding for new school-based health care centers and for State- based exchanges where workers and small business employees who cannot get insurance through their jobs will be able to look for health care benefits. Mr. Speaker, they are also bringing up a third bill, a sweeping measure that would, in effect, make abortion inaccessible to most women, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that women in the United States of America have a constitutional right to receive an abortion if they so choose. With sky-high gas prices and continued high unemployment, the Republicans must wake up in the morning and think the most important thing to do today is to take away health care from kids and hardworking Americans and trample on women's rights. Really? Time out, America. Time out. This Congress, under the control of the tea party, is making the wrong choices for our economy and for our future. They have accomplished nothing for the American people in more than 3 months that they have been in charge. No bill to help create jobs. Not one. Instead, what have they done? They voted to end Medicare. That is right. They voted to end Medicare and shift the cost of health care of current and future seniors onto seniors themselves, in some cases adding nearly $7,000 more in costs per senior starting in the year 2022. They voted to reduce nursing home care for seniors and for the disabled. And they voted to make prescription drugs for senior citizens more expensive. To make it all worse, at the same time they voted to end Medicare, they voted to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires and give tax breaks to the largest oil companies and to extend tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas and in fact pay no taxes to the American people, no sense of patriotism for the benefit these companies receive by being American corporations. They chose to give them additional tax breaks, even though they pay no taxes under current law. Their choices are clear--dangerously clear. End Medicare and make seniors pay more for health care, but give giant oil companies and the wealthiest in our country more tax breaks. One of the bills that they will bring up this week will eliminate the ability of Americans without insurance, including small business employees, to shop and to compare health plans in the State-based exchanges. They have determined to pursue policies to harm working families in order to cater to their insurance industry friends and radical right-wing supporters. They don't believe that every American should have access to affordable health coverage. Health exchanges are one of the most popular and important provisions of the health care law. They are vital for families and small businesses to be able to have access to affordable health care. These exchanges are market based, they foster competition, they reduce costs, and they provide access to health insurance for millions of Americans. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Americans must scratch their heads every day and wonder why the priorities of the tea party Republicans are not consistent with the needs of their families, their children, their job opportunities, their small businesses' vitality. They must wonder every day: Why can't this Congress start serving the American public?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What is it about the Republican Party that insists that its mandate in Washington, D.C. is to keep the American public away from affordable health care? First, they start by ending Medicare so that senior citizens who retire will have to pay much more for their health care than they would otherwise. Those on Medicare, because they'll be closed in, an aging population, their health care costs will continue to go up in the future far beyond their ability to pay. They have decided that they're going to raise the price of prescription drugs to senior citizens. They have decided that they're going to decrease the access of young people to health care by not providing for school-based clinics, health care clinics. They've decided they'll roll back preexisting conditions to prevent women from getting coverage of health care, young children from getting coverage of health care from life-threatening diseases that they were born with. What is it about the Republican Party that they don't want people to have access to health care in this country that's affordable? They don't mind them being in the lottery. If they can find it and afford it, maybe they can have it. But if they can't, it's tough. So now we come to a time when they said they don't want one-size- fits-all in Washington. The States should have a right to set up the exchanges. The States have an option: they can set up an exchange or not set up an exchange. Some 49 States have stepped forward and said, We want a right to customize the exchange for the purposes of the people we represent, the nature of our State, the economy of our State, the age of our State. We want to do this. And now they're saying, well, that's good, but we're not going to give you any money to plan to do that. So what are they doing, according to CBO? They're now threatening, once again, the access to affordable health care for 50,000 or more Americans. So they've threatened the access to health care for women. They've threatened the access to health care for children. They've threatened the access to health care for seniors. They've threatened the access to health care for those who are about to become seniors. They just can't stop doing this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. They want to say they're just repealing the health care bill that was passed. They're just repealing that. No, what they are doing is they're standing in the way, the very same rights that they have as Members of Congress to have a federally setup exchange for Federal employees where policies pass muster, that you get real value if you buy one. Whether you buy a health savings account or whether you buy a plan for your family or for an individual, you get real value. You get access. The rights they have as Members of Congress, once again they're stepping into the breach to make sure that their constituents won't have that right at the State level because when there are no State exchanges, they won't have that right. It's a really strange view of their obligations to the American public, to working families, to children, and to seniors. And it's a real strange view about their position of privilege that they would have all of this for themselves but not for their constituents.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1214 and its impact on our Nation's schoolchildren. School-based health centers have enjoyed wide bipartisan support because they ensure students are healthy. Healthy students are ready to learn, and in these centers, children can get health services when they need them. Children can't learn when they're chronically sick, when they have a toothache, when they suffer from other dental diseases or when they suffer from chronic health problems. For too many children, a school-based health center may be the only opportunity to receive needed care. This is particularly the case with oral health. Tooth decay is the most common disease among schoolchildren, and 80 percent of the time this disease occurs in children who have problems accessing care. That's why school-based health programs are so important, and that's why the American Dental Association is a strong supporter of this program. States also believe that these centers are critically needed. Indiana's Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction recently testified before the Education and the Workforce Committee that districts are prioritizing school-based health centers because ``they have made a difference in the lives of those children.'' Schools in Indiana are not alone in realizing the need and value of school- based health centers. In my district, West Contra Costa Unified has two operational school- based health centers and four in development. The legislation before us today could essentially halt the development of these health centers by repealing the critical construction and renovation funding made available by the Affordable Health Care Act. This funding is critically important to these schools so that they can provide these centers. The Federal Government shouldn't randomly yank the support for school-based health centers. It should be letting the school districts make the decisions based upon their identified needs. This bill is nothing more than a continuation of the attack against the beneficiaries of the Affordable Health Care Act. Whether the beneficiaries are senior citizens or whether they're young children, we ought not to support this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform my colleagues that Abraham Breehey, Director of Legislative Affairs and Special Assistant to the International President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, passed away yesterday, Thursday, April 14, 2011 at INOVA Fairfax Hospital, in Falls Church, Virginia, from complications related to a brain tumor and subsequent stroke. Abe, only 34 years old, was born in 1976 in Binghamton, New York. He is survived by his wife, Sonya and beloved young daughter, Abigail, his father Ray, his mother Carol, his sister Rachel, 3 nieces, a nephew and, of course, his dog Kesey. His death is a tragedy for his family and a loss for the working men and women of America on whose behalf he was so deeply committed. Abe received his Bachelor's Degree from Sienna College in Loudonville, NY and Master's Degree in Public Policy from the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany. Prior to joining the Boilermakers in 2004, he served as Legislative Assistant for Representative Lloyd Doggett (TX-25). Abe was a leading voice in the labor movement, representing the Boilermakers on issues related to energy policy and climate change, and their impact on workers. He was widely respected for his passion, intellect, and ability to build consensus across ideological and political lines. Abe has testified in front of multiple U.S. Senate Committees and represented the Boilermakers in international negotiations regarding the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Abe also advised the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department as Chairman of the Department's Legislative Task Force. And Abe is a graduate of the Trade Union Program at Harvard Law School. A staunch advocate on behalf of every Boilermaker member, Abe was a colleague and a friend to each of us. My thoughts and prayers are with the entire Breehey family. I hope they receive a small degree of comfort in knowing that Abe was so well liked and so well respected in his professional world.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we've been hearing for days about how the House Republican budget is courageous and bold. But this budget is neither courageous nor bold. It's not courageous to throw poor kids out of their Head Start classrooms but continue subsidies to Big Oil and their record profits. It's not bold to slash Pell Grant scholarships to millions of students and to keep the incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas. It's not bold nor smart to slash funds for new clean energy research and make future generations of Americans more dependent, not less, on dictators and dangerous fossil fuels. And it's neither bold nor courageous to end Medicare for seniors, shifting thousands of dollars of costs onto the backs of the elderly to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. For 45 years, seniors have relied on Medicare to provide health care during their retirement years. The Republican budget would end that guarantee. Seniors would no longer be guaranteed the coverage for basic health services like diabetes and cancer screenings. Instead, seniors would have to scrounge to find higher cost private health policies. What insurance company is going to write an individual policy for a 70- year-old that is even remotely affordable? Because of these high costs, more and more seniors will go into debt under this plan. They will be forced to sell their homes and rely on their children to pay for basic medical costs. That is not a dignified retirement. That is not America. Yes, we need to ensure that Medicare is sustainable for seniors and sustainable for the taxpayers. But one thing is certain--the Republican budget does not save Medicare; it ends it. Mr. Chairman, this budget is not bold, and it's not courageous. It might be easy for the Republicans to make cuts on the backs of those who can't afford high-priced lobbyists. But it is not easy for the middle class working people and seniors on whose back the burden is being placed. The Democratic budget is a fair and balanced approach, and it asks all Americans to share in the burdens in reducing the deficit and the debt and strengthening our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote down the Republican budget to end Medicare and to vote for the Democratic budget that is fair and balanced.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this House overwhelmingly passed bipartisan legislation that would have prevented children from being abused in classrooms; but, unfortunately, it never became the law. In the year since then, children have suffered and have been abused in school, and parents have felt completely helpless. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office told our committee of the shocking wave of abuse by untrained school staff who were misusing emergency interventions. Most of these victims were children with disabilities. Some were 3 and 4 years old. In some cases, children died. Restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort and by trained professionals, but the GAO found that was not the case. This is unacceptable, and yet it is a reality for too many children across the country. A media report out yesterday highlights that these horrific abuses continued through this past year. In Chicago, a 4-year-old boy's wrists were taped together with painter's tape and then duct tape because he refused to take a nap and he didn't wash his hands. In Fayetteville, North Carolina, a 5-year-old student's arm was broken when a teacher held him down. In New Orleans, a teacher handcuffed a male student by his ankle to a chair because he didn't follow the teacher's instructions. This abuse of children and the death of children has got to stop.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, a massive explosion ripped through the 2-mile area of the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia. The explosion bent railroad tracks like pretzels and killed 29 miners. This disaster laid bare the loopholes that riddle our mine safety laws. These loopholes allowed dubious mine operators, like Massey Energy, to violate mine safety rules repeatedly and with impunity. In fact, the Upper Big Branch Mine was allowed to remain open even though it had been ordered to stop operations 51 times in the previous year because of severe safety hazards. After the disaster, there were proclamations made from both sides of the aisle about taking meaningful action to honor the victims so that something like this would never happen again. However, standing here a year later, miners still face many of the same dangers as they did the morning before the tragedy in West Virginia. Unscrupulous mine operators are still gaming the system by clogging it with thousands of appeals as a way to avoid paying strong penalties. Miners are still paralyzed with the fear of being fired for speaking out because of weak whistleblower protections. Decisions made in the boardrooms to maximize coal production at the expense of miners' safety remain unchallenged. Management practices of illegally giving advance warning of pending inspections are still a mere misdemeanor. Shortly after the Upper Big Branch tragedy, the Education and Labor Committee held the only hearings where Congress heard from families and miners affected by this tragedy. Many were reluctant to testify because they feared retaliation. For others, there was a strong desire to tell their stories to prevent another tragedy in the coal mines of America. Eddie Cook told us about the dangerous practices he heard from the miners at the Upper Big Branch Mine after the explosion. He lost his 21-year-old nephew, Adam Morgan. Adam's father, Steve Morgan, said that when he spoke to his son about the unsafe conditions, management told him that he might just have to find another job. They did nothing about the unsafe conditions. Gary Quarles lost his only son at Upper Big Branch. Gary asked us to make a commitment to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Alice Peters testified about how her son-in-law, Dean Jones, was afraid to work in the mine because of the ventilation problems, but Dean needed the job in order to keep health insurance coverage for his special-needs son. Clay Mullins lost his brother Rex at Upper Big Branch. Clay testified how the management would give advance warning of an impending mine safety inspection so that they could quickly cover up any violations before the Federal inspectors got to that part of the mine. And Stanley ``Goose'' Stewart was working at the Upper Big Branch Mine the day it exploded. He testified twice before the committee about the persistent fear and intimidation faced by workers from Massey management. Every mine law has been written with the blood of miners; and savvy political interests know that, as attention to the tragedy fades, so does the willingness of the Congress to act decisively. Families and miners also expressed their concern about this skepticism. Looking back now, a year later, their skepticism was entirely justified. Congress has utterly failed to respond to the real problems that miners, themselves, have identified as safety hazards in their workplace. A toxic political environment has failed these families. The pay-to-play nature of our politics has failed these families. While congressional action was stymied, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has been working hard to make adjustments in the limited ways it can to help prevent rogue mine operators from recklessly putting lives at risk; but even with these measures, we are hearing the familiar cries from Big Coal to maintain the status quo while they continue to game a legal system designed to protect the miners who go to work in those mines every day. They cry about their so-called ``due process''; but what about the due process for the 29 miners who died in the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion--and their families? What about the miners who went to work today in the coal mines of America--and their families? Is Congress just going to sit here and simply wait for the next explosion? the next tragedy? the next loss of life? Are we going to let the special interests continue to paralyze this institution? These should not be hard questions for the Congress of the United States. Our ability to respond goes to the heart of who we are as a Nation. There are things that Congress can and must do right now--and that only Congress can do--to better ensure that every coal miner who goes to work is able to return safely to their families at the end of their shifts. Congress has an obligation to make sure that that is the case. It is long overdue to honor our promises to the families of the 29 miners who perished a year ago for doing the job that our Nation relies on to provide its energy, and it is also long overdue to give the rest of our Nation's miners modern health and safety protections.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment really restores democracy to the American workplace, and it restores the American principle of majority vote and majority rule. The decision by the National Mediation Board to begin recognizing election results based upon who actually votes in the election is correct and a long time coming. It was a fair and open process that included a 60-day comment period and public hearing with 34 witnesses, and their actions were upheld in court. Think of this in our committee. Our rules are a majority of those present and voting. No committee in this Congress would operate under these rules because they would not be able to prevail on any of the votes because people could just stay away and they would be counted ``no.'' No PTA would operate under these rules. They may have a very large membership. So we ought to restore democracy, protect American workers and vote for this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his discussion of this legislation on the floor. I rise in opposition to this legislation because I don't believe that we can afford to spend $100 million on a program that in fact, in spite of what has been said on the other side, has been proven time and again to be ineffective and inefficient. Supporting our students, especially in poor minority communities, is the right thing to do, and particularly in this economy it is absolutely essential. But that is not what this bill does. If you really care about school reform, you want to help our students, our future, you do it in a sustainable and systematic way. You can't arbitrarily throw money at a small group of students and just hope against overwhelming evidence that your ideology somehow will work this time. You can't decide that only a handful of students deserve special attention. You can't ask Congress to vote for programs that the citizens of D.C. and the elected officials and the Mayor have not asked for. You certainly can't decide to continue a program that does not help students succeed. There are a number of concerns about this bill. First and most importantly, the program does not help the students succeed. Just 2 weeks ago, the Republicans made harmful cuts in proven programs based upon purported standards of inefficiency, seeking to get rid of inefficient programs. If this is the standard, the D.C. voucher program fails the test. The D.C. voucher program does not increase student achievement or graduate students so they are prepared to go on to college or careers. In fact, four Department of Education studies over both administrations found that the voucher program has had no effect on the academic achievement of the voucher students. These findings are consistent with other private school voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland. Just yesterday, the State test results showed that voucher students in Milwaukee's 20-year voucher program are actually performing similar or worse than other poor Milwaukee students. The study mandated by Congress about the D.C. voucher program says very clearly that the use of vouchers had no statistically significant impact on the overall student achievement in math or reading. So what is the purpose of the expenditure of this money, other than to prop up an inefficient, an ineffective, ideological point of view about how these students might learn? These students are not going to the schools that will change the outcomes. These students are not graduating with a set of skills that will allow them to succeed in college or a career. But the fact of the matter is there are many public schools in the District of Columbia that are in fact achieving those goals that are working for those parents and for those students. The District of Columbia has open choice. Parents can go wherever. But we simply decided to take these Federal dollars and put it into a program on the belief that it works in spite of all of the evidence that it's not working for these students. So why are we paying a premium of another $100 million in taxpayers' money to pursue this effort when on its face it's not working? Yes, you've done telephone surveys of parents and they said, I think I made a good choice. Okay. You do telephone surveys of the students, Are you any safer? The answer is: No, we don't feel any safer.