George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding this time, and I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1035, which honors the life of Stewart L. Udall, a selfless public servant, by making improvements to the Morris K. Udall Foundation's programs and operations, and also adds his name to that of the name of his brother, Morris Udall, on the Foundation. Stewart Udall was born and raised in St. John's, Arizona, along with his brother Morris, and as a young man, Stewart left his studies at the University of Arizona to pursue 2 years of work as a Mormon missionary in both New York and Pennsylvania. He also served his country in World War II as a gunner in Europe, and he traveled back to Tucson to acquire a law degree and open a successful law firm with his brother. As was recounted already by my colleagues, he was elected to Congress in 1954 and served both on the Interior Committee and on the Committee on Education and Labor. During the 85th Congress, Stewart also served on the Joint Committee on the Navajo-Hopi Indian Administration, a conflict that lasted much longer than his term in the Congress of the United States. I don't want to recount all of the things that my colleagues have said, but clearly during his time in Congress he was very active on these committees, and President Kennedy recognized his leadership on the issues of the environment and stewardship of our public lands and nominated him to be Secretary of the Interior, as Mr. Grijalva pointed out. He was one of our most successful Secretaries of the Interior, not just in leadership, but also in what he was able to accomplish in working with the Congress in the establishment of seashores and national monuments and lakeshores and recreational areas across our country that are so valuable to our local communities and to our local economies. And after leaving Congress, he continued and continues today to be actively involved in public policy around environmental issues and working very hard, as does the Foundation, on environmental conflict resolution. This is an effort by the Congress, and I think a wonderful effort by the Congress, to recognize the contributions of Stewart Udall and his brother, Morris Udall--who I served with in the Congress, was my chairman on the Resources Committee. And really, the recognition of a family that has contributed so much to public service. And I would hope that my colleagues would give this resolution resounding support on behalf of Mo Udall, Stewart Udall, and the Udall family--and what public service means to all of us in this country. I thank the gentleman (Mr. Grijalva) for yielding me this time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation to help restore fiscal responsibility, and I salute President Obama and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership on this important issue. Listening to this debate might leave the American people confused about Republican values. Republicans regularly declare their fidelity to controlling Federal spending, and they claim also that they want to fix our broken health care system. And yet Republicans oppose our commonsense pay-as-you-go legislation, and Republicans oppose our historic health care reform bill. My question to the Republicans is simple: when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, all of our government, for 8 long years, why didn't they control Federal spending? Why didn't you reform the health care system? But what you did when you got power for the first time was you made your highest priority your tax cut to the richest people in this country without paying for it. The rest of us have been paying for it forever. In 2001, you did it, and in 2002 you did it, turning the budget surpluses into massive deficits. Why is it they added a record number of earmarks to the appropriations bill, running the deficit up even further? And why is it that in 8 years, they never ever made health care reform a priority? Not ever. Not ever in those 8 years. Meanwhile, Americans' health care bills keep rising, the insurance companies continue denials of care, and the number of the uninsured have continued to grow. Eight years of all-Republican government, spending the taxpayers' money like a drunken sailor, and, as Ronald Reagan said, with full apologies to the sailor, raising deficits to historic levels and inaction on health care of any kind of reform. But they have made rhetoric a priority. And they have made politics as usual a priority. Now that they are out of power, they speak about controlling deficits and reforming health care, but they openly state that they hope our President fails. Their hope for our Nation is that our President fails. I have been a supporter for pay-as-you-go budgeting since 1982, when I introduced the first pay-as-you-go bill. When liberals and conservatives worked together with President Clinton to adopt the PAYGO rules, the Democrats reined in and erased the historic budget deficits that were left over from President Reagan and President Bush from the 1980s and the 1990s. And we recorded record budget surpluses. We ran surpluses a number of years in a row. President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, when they gained power, they erased it. They repealed the law. And now what we see is the interest payments on that debt crowding out the national priorities. In 2007, Democrats made PAYGO part of our rules again. Our legislation today strengthens those rules by making it part of the law so the Senate and the House will have to abide by it. Our bill says Congress could neither cut taxes nor increase entitlement spending without first deciding how you can afford to pay for these new costs. PAYGO requires difficult decisions about national priorities and how to afford them. If we can't pay for new tax cuts or entitlement spending, we can't have them. It's simple, it's common sense, and it helps reduce the deficit. PAYGO will strengthen the economy by helping to reduce interest payments on our debt and by helping to address health care reform, modernizing energy policy and college affordability. Our health care bill, for example, will not increase the deficit one dime. It is paid for. Our new college affordability bill is not only paid for, it returns $10 billion in deficit reduction to the American people. The Democrats are working hard to ensure that, going forward, we can exercise fiscal discipline that hardworking Americans need and expect from this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on PAYGO.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the concurrent resolution to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The Food and Nutrition Service has administered the Nation's nutrition assistance programs since 1969 and is the lead agency in charge of supporting the fundamental nutritional needs of children, low-income individuals, families, and communities. Mr. Speaker, in the United States no one should face hunger, especially children. Over the past forty years, the Food and Nutrition Service has been critical to ensuring that children have access to healthful foods and nutritious meals at school, in childcare settings, and during the summer months that support their ability to succeed in and out of the classroom. The services provided by the Food and Nutrition Service encourage good nutrition and well-being that are necessary to ensure a healthy future for the country. Through its programs, FNS actively promotes individual health and well-being for a strong and productive workforce. Through coordination with State and local governments, community organizations, and many partners, the Food and Nutrition Service provides access to healthful food, nutrition services, and education to 1 in 5 individuals at risk of hunger in the United States each day. The programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service are designed to respond to fluctuations in the economy and work to ensure all eligible children, individuals, and households can access nutrition benefits when they need it the most. Together, these programs form the Nation's nutrition safety net. As families, communities, and the Nation face significant economic challenges, these programs play an increasingly important role in supporting good nutrition and reducing the risk of hunger. As the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor with jurisdiction for many nutrition programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service, the Committee on Education and Labor recognizes the critical food assistance and nutrition services that these programs provide to children and families. And, we are committed to ensuring that these programs have a strong foundation, so that all eligible children and individuals can access high quality nutrition assistance with dignity and respect. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee on the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs later this year to further strengthen the Nation's nutrition safety net and the services that these programs provide. I commend the Food and Nutrition Service for 40 years of important service to the Nation and support the Agency's continued effort to promote food security through access to nutritious foods, to improve diet quality, and to educate individuals on the benefits of and strategies for living a healthy lifestyle.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman and chair of the subcommittee for yielding me this time and for bringing this bill to the floor at this time. I rise in strong support of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2009. It is fitting that we are taking up this legislation today, as this week marks the 65th anniversary of the munitions explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine facility in California, a disaster that killed more than 300 people and wounded hundreds more. Port Chicago was the site of the worst home front disaster of World War II, and it was a turning point in American history. When sailors were ordered to resume work a few weeks, or even sooner, after the deadly explosion, white sailors were given time off to grieve and to deal with the aftermath of the explosion. Black sailors were ordered to go back to work immediately, and most of them refused to return to work to their dangerous assignments until such time as supervision, training, and working conditions could be improved and they could be told why that explosion took place. In response, the Navy charged 50 men with conspiring to mutiny. All were convicted. The majority of the men killed at Port Chicago and all those convicted of mutiny were African Americans. The injustice and the legal battles that followed strongly influenced the Navy's move toward desegregation in 1945, and President Truman's 1948 executive order desegregating the Armed Forces and guaranteeing ``equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.'' When this bill becomes law, the National Park Service will be able to budget for the memorial's needs, and an interpretive center authorized here will allow veterans, students, and other visitors to learn about Port Chicago even if they can't access the site all of the time, which is located currently within the Concord Naval Weapons Station. This legislation was approved by the House last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this year, and I want to thank the Committees on Natural Resources and Armed Services for helping to expedite its consideration again today. In particular, I want to recognize Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo for managing this legislation here today; Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee for its timely consideration and presentation to the floor; Doc Hastings, ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee; Chairman Raul Grijalva of the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, Rob Bishop, ranking member of that subcommittee; Chairman Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee; John McHugh, former member of Armed Services; and Buck McKeon, who now holds that position on the Armed Services Committee. I also want to thank the staff for the two committees, including Leslie Duncan, David Watkins, and David Sienicki, and Ben Miller, my legislative director. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1044. Again, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mr. Pope Barrow, a man with a distinguished record of service in the House Office of the Legislative Counsel. After more than 40 years, we gather here to celebrate Pope's career and wish him well in retirement. Pope joined Legislative Counsel in 1968 as a Law Assistant after graduating from Harvard Law School. Over the years he advanced within the Office, working as Assistant Counsel and Deputy Legislative Counsel. In 1993, then Speaker Newt Gingrich appointed Pope as the sixth Legislative Counsel, where he continued under Speaker Hastert and our current Speaker. Drawing on his broad legislative experience, Pope has led the House Office of the Legislative Counsel in fulfilling, and exceeding its mission to provide impartial and confidential assistance in legislative drafting. Legislative Counsel has consistently provided dedicated service to the Committee on Education and Labor. Whether we required help drafting a bill or amendment, Pope and his staff has always conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism. For almost 40 years, Pope Barrow has worked with tireless dedication drafting legislation and providing impartial advice and analysis on numerous issues. During his tenure as Legislative Counsel he has remained actively involved in legislative activities, demonstrating time and again, his commitment to the House. In fact, he himself undertook the drafting of the recently passed Head Start bill when one of his staff attorneys faced a family emergency. Without such efforts, our Committee would not have been able to have put forth such high quality of legislation. The achievements of the House Office of the Legislative Counsel under the leadership of Pope are numerous. His presence and expertise will be sorely missed, but I have no doubt that the Office will continue its record or high quality work. Madam Speaker, I commend the many years of service of Mr. Barrow and wish him nothing but the best in retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. At this funding level, the bill supports more than $585 million in increases for counterterrorism and intelligence programs. At the same time, the bill makes long overdue reinvestments in traditional Department of Justice missions like drug and firearms enforcement, regulation of the marketplace, protection of civil rights and liberties, support of the judicial process and State and local assistance. Specific initiatives include: $63 million for new funding to address white collar crime; $24 million in new funds to reinvigorate and expand civil rights enforcement; $71 million to improve the safety and security of inmates and guards in Federal prisons; $345 million in new funds to safeguard the Southwest border, address the Mexican cartel violence, and support activities of the Department of Homeland Security; and $3.4 billion in grant funding for State and local enforcement assistance, including $298 million to put additional police on the beat, $100 million for prisoner reentry initiatives, and $94 million for tribal law enforcement. These investments are absolutely necessary, unlike what the gentleman has suggested that somehow they're unnecessary, that somehow this is change that can be found, and these programs can be cut. In fact, what we are doing is reinvesting in the law enforcement infrastructure of this country on the border, in our cities, and in the issues of white- collar crime. I would hope that he would understand that this is an essential part of this legislation and that this was carefully crafted as we consulted with people across the various jurisdictions within these institutions to make sure that we could, in fact, provide them to be secure and to serve the needs of this Nation. I think this has been a good-faith effort to do that, and I would hope that we would reject this amendment. I ask for a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the chairman for yielding. I would hope that Members would oppose this amendment. This amendment makes nothing better. I appreciate the frustration of my friends who live in the Valley and are undergoing very serious economic times. But the fact of the matter is, to suggest now to throw out this biological opinion makes nothing better. Now you have a situation where the Bureau of Reclamation is trying to deal with these problems. We would lose this consultive agency and the Marine Fisheries Agency; and as a result of that, they could not go forward with another biological opinion, which you may or may not want. But what we would be is we would be stymied, as was suggested in this opinion and by the court, in the ability to look for other mechanisms that we could use instead of just turning to the idea that you're going to reduce the pumping. But that goes out the door now because you will not have the scientific credibility enabling the bureau to go forward. So the bureau will fumble around now for a number of months, trying to figure out how to handle this problem. And eventually, for legal reasons, they're going to have to go back to the Marine Fisheries, and the Marine Fisheries are going to tell them that Congress barred them from consultations. The consultations will not take place; and as a result of that, we have lost a year, 18 months, 2 years, whatever time it takes instead of going forward on this biological opinion which allow for some additional alternatives, some additional investigations within the delta and elsewhere in this system. This builds on a whole series of reports that have come out by the past administration's Office of Management and Budget, saying that the failure here is not to look at the water system, the CVP, on a system- wide basis. We keep chopping it up in little increments. We chop it up based upon the Valley, based upon the south, based upon the north, based upon the delta. We thought that with good science, we would have the opportunity to start to overcome that and to broaden this discussion. But this amendment will collapse it all back again, we'll start all over again, and we'll just waste a lot of time. And the problems in the Central Valley will get worse for agriculture; they will get worse for the economy; they'll get worse in Southern California; they'll get worse in the delta; we'll have more endangered species lawsuits; and we'll have more complications. And we'll accomplish nothing. It's bold in its approach. It's destructive in its results.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, you know we're here in this situation because a court ruled after the last administration trampled through the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Ocean Service, and altered scientific findings, studies, and opinions that we could no longer conduct the business of the Central Valley Project. I didn't see my friends on the other side of the aisle raise one objection at the time that those actions were taking place, at the time that criminal behavior was taking place. I didn't see them raise one objection when the northern rivers were destroyed and fishery seasons have been closed for years and families have lost their businesses, lost their livelihood--whether they were going to seed the fish or they were small businesses on the north coast or small businesses on the Oregon border--and those political decisions were made, and they devastated the salmon runs. I didn't see that happen. We have seen now, as the environment has deteriorated in the San Francisco Delta and bay area, small businesses have closed up, many people have lost their livelihoods; and, yes, it's very intense in the Central Valley. But I don't see some of my colleagues on the other side who represent areas that have a hundred percent of the water. In fact, some of the valley farmers have 70 percent of their allocation in this drought year. Somehow to blame this on this moment, this administration that's been in office for 5 or 6 months, when in fact for 8 years there was a design to exploit this system by opening up the pumps, devastate the system, and now those chickens have come home to roost and those illegalities have been found out. The court has asked for direction. This administration put together a biological opinion. It was peer reviewed, and they've offered that up to begin the discussions of how we settle some of these problems in the delta, south of the delta, and north of the delta. That now is going to be thrown into chaos if this amendment succeeds to become law because then we will not have those tools available to us. So we'll go into another year that may be a drought and we will not have the system-wide approach to dealing with that to help the families in the Central Valley, in southern California, in northern California. These are all of the same families. These are all the same people who are looking for work, looking for jobs. But the fact of the matter is, if you devastate this water system, they all pay the price. So now we're trying to recover from 8 years of mismanagement, from 8 years of illegal activity, from 8 years of throwing science out the door, and now we're left with that wreckage. There's a lot of cleanup to do after this Bush administration, and this is one of those projects. And this project now has to be rehabilitated, this project has to be brought together so that the Central Valley Project can serve its clients, can serve the needs of the whole State of California. And if it doesn't happen that way, it's not going to work politically, it's not going to work environmentally, it's not going to work scientifically, and it's not going to work economically. We've just been through 8 years where people tried to segment this state-wide project into little bits of pieces for their advantages, and if they had enough politics on their side, they took that advantage whether it was supported by the law or not. And this is the carnage that has been left behind because we missed 8 years of opportunity to rebuild this system so that it could serve the needs for which it was designed. That's the tragedy of what has taken place here. That's the tragedy that we're trying to overcome. That's the tragedy that will be compounded by the Nunes amendment if it's adopted because it will set all of this back many, many months--if not years--in this effort to rebuild the Central Valley Project of California so it can meet the demands of which are put upon it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 8, 2009, I was unavoidably absent for three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted for the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009, and H. Res. 420--Celebrating the symbol of the United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Albin Gruhn of San Anselmo, California, who passed away March 18 at the age of 94. Mr. Gruhn was a respected and beloved labor leader and consumer rights activist whose calling was the welfare of the working people of California. His 36 years as president of the California Labor Federation and his role as a founder of the Association of California Consumers were at the heart of a remarkable career. Mr. Gruhn was born in Eureka, California, in 1915. At the age of 19 he began working for the Hammond Lumber Co. where he joined the Sawmill and Loggers Federal Union. A strike shortly afterwards resulted in the deaths of three union picketers and deeply affected him, resulting in a life-long commitment to the labor movement. He was also blacklisted as a result of his participation in the strike but soon found employment in construction, joining the Laborers Local where his membership continued for over 60 years. At the age of 22, he became secretary of the Central Labor Council of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties and led that council for over 20 years. In 1940 Mr. Gruhn was first elected to what is now the California Labor Federation as district vice president and became its president in 1960. He led with skill, enthusiasm, and passion until his retirement in 1996. He helped build the organization into a strong and effective advocacy group for the rights of workers, inspiring several generations of political and labor leaders along the way. During the 1960s, Mr. Gruhn was also a founder of the Association of California Consumers, California's first consumer group, and later became a founding officer and then president emeritus of the Consumer Federation of California. He also devoted some of his considerable energies to the California Apprenticeship Council and the California Constitution Revision Commission as well as serving on various state commissions. These were appointments over the decades by five California governors and covered a variety of issues from fair housing to air pollution. One of the commissions dealt with children and youth, reflecting his deep involvement in the annual scholarship program established by the California Labor Federation. Mr. Gruhn was always politically active as a means of supporting the causes he believed in. From campaigning for Franklin Roosevelt at the age of 17 to serving as an Adlai Stevenson delegate in 1956, he stayed engaged in the process. In 1944, he founded the Northern California AFL Political League. Mr. Gruhn was married to the former Dorothy Coon for over 37 years. Dorothy predeceased him in 2005, and the couple are survived by a large family of eight children, 14 grandchildren, and 17 great grandchildren. Madam Speaker, Albin Gruhn was proud to fight for working people, and all those with whom he came in contact--from family and friends to political leaders and co-workers--drew inspiration from his commitment. It is fitting in honoring him today to remember the remarks he always used to conclude his labor speeches: ``In unity there is strength. United we stand, divided we fall. An injury to one is an injury to all.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this legislation last year had bipartisan support as it passed this House overwhelmingly. Why did it have that support? Because this legislation enabled the Federal Government to partner with local school districts who were looking to repair and to restore and renovate their schools to make them more energy efficient so that those local school districts could save on the average $100,000 in energy bills by making these changes. We know that the economy has made it more difficult for those local school districts to be able to repair and renovate and restore those schools that are in such bad need of that kind of work. So we offer the hand of the Federal Government as a partner with those districts based upon those local priorities, some of which have been waiting for several years. That partnership is critical to the survivability of these districts in meeting their energy needs as we go forward. So what do we have here? We have an attempt to kill this amendment based upon a deficit from a party that gave us and left office with $1 trillion in deficits, when they entered office with $5 trillion in surplus. They want to tell us how to manage the books and not take care of local schools, not have school construction, not have local jobs in our community because they ran up the deficit. The all-time world champions of deficits now want to suggest to you that you should put your schools at the end of the line of the deficit that they created. Yes, we have a budget. We have a budget that takes down the deficit, that takes down the deficit to what it was in the Reagan years. You know, we've been through this before. We went through this where the Republicans run up the deficit on the theory that they starve the beast, and then none of the things that we believe in can go into effect. We're not going to let this happen on this bill. It's most important that we understand that, that this is about this party trying to stop what is an agenda that has bipartisan support in the House, in the Senate, at the local levels to try to improve the learning opportunities for so many of our students. I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This decision is simple. The American public made a decision. They want us to go in a new direction. They want us to improve our education systems, our health care systems, and our energy systems. The party on the other side is not interested in that. They don't have those solutions on the table. They haven't presented those solutions on the table. But what they want to do is infringe on the ability of this President and this country to move forward in a new direction. We cannot let that happen. They didn't do it. This is a party that is now holding weekend talk sessions about how they lost their way. Yeah, they lost their way on fiscal irresponsibility for 8 years, and now they want the school children of this Nation to pay the bills. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2187 into the Record.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), who has been a driving force behind this legislation and one of the original cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee Chair, Mr. Kildee, who is the original sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee Chair of the Education and Labor Committee, 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 3 minutes to the original author of this legislation, who has been pushing school construction legislation for a number of years, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a great supporter of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House, the 21st Century Green High- Performing Public School Facilities Act is exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. We have seen now over the last year, and in some cases a little longer, and for the foreseeable future, that the tax resources of local school districts, cities, and counties have plummeted because of the foreclosure crisis that confronts this Nation and because of the financial scandals and the financial collapse of our institutions across this Nation. We have seen that credit is not available. The school districts that have voted for bonds have had difficulty in getting those bonds to market so that they can engage in the construction. And we see, in fact, the backlog of repairs to schools, renovations, modernizations of schools and school facilities is starting to lag. We also know and we understand that for the foreseeable future, unemployment will continue to go up in this country, at a diminished rate, but we still know half a million people a month are losing their jobs. Auto sales are down because American families are trying to save more because of the recession, the depression we are in. They are trying to take care of their needs, so school districts are denied those resources as are States. So what the Federal Government is doing in this time of emergency is trying to say that we will join with you in a partnership based upon the priorities of locally elected school boards, of superintendents of schools, for the repair and restoration of schools that are so necessary in so many areas of this country. If a school board or if a school district doesn't need the money, they need not take it. We hope that they wouldn't because maybe it can go to another school district that might need it more. But the fact of the matter is, these repairs and restorations, and if we use green technology and use the guidelines of the green standards, not only can repair and restore these schools, they can make them much more efficient in the use of energy and the use of water and the use of natural daylight so students will have a better learning environment and better opportunities at learning. Yes, the data is pretty darn clear that in those kinds of facilities students do have a better opportunity in learning the material that is presented to them in that environment than they do in an old and run- down facility that is crumbling and bathrooms that are not safe and can't be used and windows that are not replaced. Yes, that may not sound like the local school district that some of you represent, but it sounds like a lot of the local school districts that a lot of us represent, and those school districts are doing all that they can. People are voting for bond issues and paying higher taxes, but the fact of the matter is they don't have sufficient resources to do that. That does not mean that we should just sentence those kids to a second-class education, to deny them educational opportunities, because when we do that, we then spill over into the national interest of this country, and that is to make sure that every child receives a first-class education, that every child at the end of 12 years has the opportunity to choose a career or schools or schools and a career in whatever combination, but they are prepared to do that. And we know from all of the surveys that it is far more difficult for young children to learn in dilapidated, ill-repaired, badly restored schools when they are trying to get down the basics of their education. So this is a Federal partnership. In some cases, local government joins with private sector money to repair and restore schools and provide new technologies. We want to join in part of that. You can say this is the Federal taking over the role. It is not taking over any role. This is insignificant compared to the efforts being made by local governments. We are simply saying we think this can be catalytic in terms of getting some of these projects done at this particular time and for the foreseeable future so that we can ensure our students have an opportunity to do that. I want to thank the foresight of Mr. Kildee, not only the subcommittee Chair, but the author of this legislation, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Loebsack, who worked with local districts, who worked with local schools, who looked at examples of what had been done to make a more efficient use of those local dollars, of Federal dollars, of education dollars, to bring that together and try to build high-performing schools. We want to make the same decisions for these schools that so many in the private sector are making about their renovation, the renewal, the repair of commercial facilities, of facilities throughout our communities where the real estate industry is saving billions of dollars by greening those buildings, where we're saving energy, where we're saving water--in States like California, those two things are very important--and providing a safe environment for children. That's why we should pass this legislation. H.R. 2187 requires local educational agencies to ensure a full and open competition for qualified bidders. We expect that process to maximize the number of qualified bidders to include local, small, minority-owned, women- owned, and veteran-owned contractors, and to do so without diminishing or precluding the local educational agencies' ability to seek out responsible contractors by, for example, requiring contractors to participate in bona fide apprenticeship training programs and to demonstrate other legitimate responsibility and qualification standards. Such requirements can be used to ensure high- quality work and successful project delivery as well as foster good training and employment opportunities in local communities. I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the committee and a strong supporter of this legislation (Ms. Titus).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a member of the committee.