George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 24 and 25. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll Nos. 24 and 25.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years, my work in this House has been guided by my firm belief that every child, regardless of his or her ZIP code, deserves access to a quality education that will prepare them for future success; and every parent deserves to know that their child's school is helping their son or daughter achieve his or her full potential. That is why, under No Child Left Behind, we demanded the accountability include transparency on school performance. We share the collective responsibility, at all levels of government, to make good on the promise of high-quality education for all students. Unfortunately, we all know that not every school is living up to that promise. When any school fails its students, it is our responsibility, not only to give those students a high-quality public school option, but to also improve the low-performing schools. It is simple: no child should be stuck in a failing school. This week is National School Choice Week. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their strategists have embraced the so- called ``school choice'' as a part of their rebranding effort to appear more caring. Politico reported just last week that the Republican strategists have been counseling the Republicans that talking about helping poor minority children softens the Republican image. Talking about it, not doing something about it. Conservative advocacy groups have declared in planning documents that it is an excellent media opportunity to focus on kids and the future. It is a media opportunity to focus on children, not to do something about it. This new effort even has a warm and fuzzy name, the Growth and Opportunity Project. This is political posturing at its worst, and it does nothing to provide actual choice for our Nation's students. The cornerstone of true school choice is the principle that every child has the right to attend a great school. Not only should the students have high-quality options, but we need to demand that low- performing schools improve, and support that improvement. Without quality schools to pick from, families face an empty choice. Yet that is all the Republican majority has offered Americans so far. Neither school choice nor quality of schools was on their agenda when they voted for the Republican rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That bill abandoned our responsibility to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality education. It undercut Federal support for schools. The majority leader pledged that Republicans remain vigilant in protecting and promoting school choice; yet their bill removed the school choice mechanisms that were already in current law. And their bill failed to require that schools in districts improve when they are failing to effectively educate students. With the Republicans' Elementary and Secondary Education bill, along with sequestration, the majority turned its back on the Nation's most vulnerable students. They took money away from America's poorest schools, and they took money away from America's poorest students. The very people that the majority's school choice media opportunity pretends to support are the same ones that are hurt by the majority's actual votes in this Chamber. Not a media conversation, not the posturing to appear to soften the image, but the actual votes taken in this Chamber harm the very children that they now say they want to support with this media opportunity to soften their image. It was the Democratic Elementary and Secondary Education bill that held schools accountable for improvement and demanded that children be afforded new education opportunities when stuck in a failing school. School choice should not be an empty promise. It should not be a political tag line that frees my colleagues from taking responsibility for our Nation's education system. Mr. Speaker, if you want meaningful school choice, you must demand schools be held accountable for equitably serving all students, and you must provide the support that the schools need to provide that quality education. Without that accountability for school quality, what choices would parents really have when their schools are failing? An option between two low-performing schools? Not a good option. An option between low-performing neighborhood schools and figuring out how to get your child across town to a different school, providing the transportation, and still hold down the job, that is not a fair option. What we know, Mr. Speaker, is that if you ask parents all across America, they will tell you that their first choice in school choice is to have a neighborhood school that is high-performing; have a neighborhood school that meets the demands of that family and those children to get a first-class education; not to drive across town; not to spend time putting their kids in transit or putting their kids in harm's way trying to walk to that better school. Fix the neighborhood schools; and if you don't, then provide that child the alternative to go to another school, as we did in current law, not as we do in the media release. I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go beyond the rhetoric and posturing and sit down with me and others to make real, sustainable improvements in public education for all students. Poor and minority kids are not a media opportunity. These are real children who deserve an equal shot at a bright future.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 12 and 13. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, study after study has shown us that investment in quality early education leads to better educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, and lower crime rates. Decades of research confirm that quality preschool helps prevent achievement gaps for low-income children, with long-term benefits for our Nation. But we don't need research to confirm the importance of quality early childhood education. Ask any parent in America if it matters to them. The problem is that not enough children have access to it. That is why I have introduced the bipartisan bill, Strong Start for America's Children Act. When Congressman Hanna, Senator Harkin, and I introduced the bill in November, we were joined by the sheriff of Minneapolis, a top private- sector CEO, a retired Air Force General, a parent, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. These leaders from so many segments of our country understand the need for greater Federal investment in high- quality preschool. My legislation proposes an innovative Federal-State partnership to increase resources for local school districts and community-based programs that provide quality pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds. It also allows funding for educating 3-year-olds. It also allows States to spend some of the money on good quality infant and toddler care. The bill improves child care quality for infants and toddlers by supporting partnerships between child care and Early Head Start. Millions of young children from low-income families lack access to high-quality preschool programs and child care services. They are on waiting lists because of limited public funding. This deepens achievement gaps and impedes the Nation's economic workforce success. For example, Early Head Start has shown to be an effective, high- quality program; yet the sad truth is that only 3 percent of the eligible children have access to it. Additionally, one in six low- income families eligible for Federal child care services has access. Mr. Speaker, this is not a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue. Babies, toddlers, and preschoolers don't know that political parties exist. In fact, we are seeing that Republican and Democratic Governors from all regions of the country are pushing for more funding for early learning in their States. They want to be partners with the Federal Government. State legislators from both parties in a wide range of States have led efforts to support quality preschool. Just recently, we received a letter signed by more than 500 State legislators from both parties in support of this issue. I am also very proud of our partnership with the fellow Republican Members of the House, such as Mr. Hanna and Mr. Grimm. We all know that the policy makes sense for America's future. We all know what is possible in our communities and in our Nation if kids are given a fair shot at success. The public understands and believes in early childhood education. A bipartisan poll released in July found an overwhelming majority of Americans supports quality early childhood education and rate it a national priority, second to only increasing jobs and economic growth. Seven in 10 support the Federal plan to help States and local communities provide better early childhood education. Members of Congress and other policymakers are also getting on board. The bipartisan budget agreement reached last month includes a reserve fund for early childhood education, child care, and voluntary home visitation. That is yet another acknowledgment by another bipartisan group of Members--in this case, budget leaders--that early childhood education should be a top priority for the Federal Government. That acknowledgment is clearly a step forward, but it isn't enough. Our next step must be the enactment of the Strong Start Act. With the fiscal year 2014 spending deadline less than a week away, I understand that appropriators from both Houses are considering increased funding for preschool, as outlined in our bipartisan bill. I heartily encourage this course. Despite the language used whenever we in Congress talk about budgets, funding early childhood education isn't spending. It is an investment, and it is an investment that is critical for our Nation's long-term economic strength. From a better-educated workforce to a reduced need for social services, study after study has documented the enormous return on investment of early childhood education. We can save between $7 and $12 for every dollar invested. These are real savings resulting from less grade repetition, lower dropout rates, less spending on welfare and social services, more tax revenue, and lower incarceration rates. As Sheriff Rich Stanek said when we launched the Strong Start for America's Children Act: I'm the guy you pay later. Let's stop spending on the back end what we should be investing in the beginning in a child's life. For all of these reasons, our bill has the support of more than 60 national organizations representing pediatricians, law enforcement, religious groups, labor unions, business and military leaders, people with disabilities, school principals, civil rights leaders, and literacy advocates. Now is the time to empower the next generation and guarantee a better future for our Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed Roll No. 1. If I had been there, I would have voted ``present.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding career of Ms. Catherine ``Kate'' Ertz-Berger, Executive Director of the Contra Costa Child Care Council, and congratulate her as she retires after twenty-eight years of dedicated service to the children and families of Contra Costa County. Kate's deep passion for helping others was evident early in her career, during her tenure with the Massachusetts Department of Social Work and the United Way of the Bay Area. She brought that same passion to the Contra Costa Child Care Council in 1985 and has been the heartbeat of that agency for nearly three decades. Under Kate's dynamic leadership the Council has grown to be one of the largest and most effective nonprofit organizations in the San Francisco East Bay serving families throughout our community. Kate has shown remarkable command of the issues most critical to early education and the needs of families with small children. Under her guidance, the Council has greatly increased public awareness of the need for quality child care and early childhood education through the development of a wide variety of innovative initiatives, programs and services. Most importantly, she has forged lasting partnerships with the community, parents and child care providers. I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Executive Director Kate Ertz-Berger, for her committed and diligent service to the children and families of Contra Costa County. I am pleased to call her my friend and wish her the very best as she begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, a year has passed since the 112 garment workers--mostly women--were killed in a factory in Bangladesh that produced clothing for brands like Walmart, Sears, and Kmart. Earlier this year, I went to Bangladesh and met with women who leapt from the third and fourth floor windows of the factory to escape the fire. There is no good way to jump from that height. The women who survived the fall were broken, crippled, and unable to support their children. Since the Tazreen fire, several brands have stepped up with payments for survivors, and yet some of the companies that were presumably profiting quite nicely from production at the Tazreen factory have opted not to compensate a single victim. Walmart is one of those. They have chosen not to compensate a single woman who died in the factory, was crippled in the factory, had lost their job in the factory all because of the fire in the unsafe factory. The Tazreen factory was known as a deathtrap. Windows were barred, and the management locked the doors in the stairwells, leaving workers with no way to escape. Walmart knew this factory was a deathtrap. The company had commissioned a series of audits in 2011. Their audits uncovered that Tazreen was an overcrowded factory without proper fire alarms or smoke detectors, that it lacked sufficient fire fighting equipment, with partially blocked exits and stairwells, and did not post adequate evacuation plans. Because factory management failed to improve conditions, Walmart terminated the contracts with the factory. However, Tazreen factory workers continued to produce for Walmart, even though they terminated their contract. According to documents found in the ashes, more than half of the factory's total production was dedicated to Walmart just 2 months before the collapse. So while Walmart left the factory because it was unsafe, over half of the production, according to the documents, was still for Walmart, knowing they were producing in an unsafe factory that claimed the lives of 112 women. Walmart now claims that the Tazreen factory was an unauthorized subcontractor. Half of the work in the factory was there because supposedly Walmart, whose hallmark of efficiency is their supply chain, didn't know their subcontractor was placing these very significant orders in a factory that they abandoned and was also owned, overall, by another company that they were doing business with. I think Walmart is trying to construct a process so that they can deny the responsibility for the deaths of the women, the responsibility to pay maybe a benefit to those families who were crushed by the loss of their breadwinner, their mother, their sister, their wife. It is time to accept that responsibility. When Walmart terminated direct contracts at the factory, it never told the workers that it was leaving or why it was leaving. At a recent public forum, Walmart said that its only responsibility was to notify the factory owner, but that is like notifying a criminal that you are aware of his crime while you keep his next potential victim in the dark. Workers had no reason to suspect that Walmart walked away due to safety concerns because Walmart garments still dominated the production there. By quietly walking away and failing to tell anybody who could remedy the danger--workers, trade associations, and the government-- Walmart left the Tazreen factory vulnerable to a fire that would engulf them. The Walmart actions were calibrated to evade responsibility, and they put those women at risk. The pattern of evasion was repeated at Rana Plaza, where 1,132 workers--again, mostly women--were killed when the factory collapsed earlier this year. Walmart claims it did not permit production there, but evidence found in the rubble of that collapsed factory shows that Rana Plaza was producing jeans for Walmart less than a year before the collapse. There is a theme here: when tragedies occur, Walmart claims production was not authorized as a way to disown responsibility. But every brand sourcing garments from Bangladesh knows that extensive subcontracting is part of the business model. That is how fast-fashion is produced. You can cut your direct dealings with a specific factory, but there is a chance someone in your supply chain is going to subcontract right back to that factory. The ethics are not complicated. The United Nations Principles on Business and Human Rights call upon multinationals to conduct due diligence through the many layers of their supply chains where the risks are the greatest to identify, mitigate, and prevent the problems. Had Walmart done that, maybe 1,000 women would be alive today and not have had a factory collapse on them. Maybe 112 women would be alive today. Maybe those women who had to jump out of the third and fourth floor windows to survive the fire would not be crippled today, would be able to support their families, and live somewhat of a normal life. Audits don't absolve companies of responsibility. If terminating a contract could lead to even greater harm, there is a special obligation, according to these recognized principles of the United Nations, to stay and remedy the problem. Brands have an obligation to both audit working conditions and to help remedy the risk of the most vulnerable in their supply chain. Walmart, accept responsibility, and start doing business in a humane way.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed rollcall Nos. 612 through 614. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Nos. 612 and 613. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 614.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for organizing this tribute to Barry and, I think, to his family, because we know the time he takes away from them on our behalf for his service here. I am one of the few people who can say that I was here before you were, Barry, but I thought everybody here was from Boston or something like that when I first got here from the west coast. I want to join my colleagues here. I think we all have very strong and deep feelings about the service you have rendered to us. Sometimes when we were pleasant, and sometimes when we weren't so pleasant, sometimes when we were harried, and sometimes when we were relaxed, you always seemed to be very stable in terms of the answers that you could provide us, even when you couldn't possibly know the answer to the question, ``When are we getting out?'' You would just kind of look and say, Well, and you would give your best guesstimate because you didn't have a clue what was going to take place on the floor, given the turmoil that happens from time to time. But it was more than just about getting out; I think it was also an assessment, your sense of what was really taking place on the floor. Yes, there were 50 amendments filed, but you had a handicap system. You figured 30 were going to go by the wayside by noon. Another five would drop out later. You heard somebody else might have been leaving. So now we are down to a handful of manageable amendments. So don't give up your early reservation. That kind of handicapping was worth a lot when you come from the west coast and you have got to do it every week. So thank you for that. Your service here overall to us, the dignity with which you have treated the Members of Congress--as I say, sometimes we can be rather demanding because we are harried. It has just been a wonderful, wonderful relationship to have you on our side in our cloakroom, taking care of us and answering questions from our families when they call and want to know what might they expect in terms of our service and our time here. I think Joe Moakley picked a good guy. He did right by you, and you did right by us. And I just want to thank you. I want to join Mr. Welch also. I was a big fan of the experience that the pages were able to garner here, and all of us have met people who were pages who now live in our districts and remember that experience, or it was key to their actions, and it was unfortunate that we weren't able to hold onto that program. But your management, your care, and your kind remarks to them sometimes when they were being youthful and exuberant about something that may be taking place, to remind them what was going on in the House, I think, was one of the lessons of their lives that they will never forget. So thank you very much for that management and oversight of those young people who have gone on in so many instances to make major, major contributions in our communities and in our country. Thank you so much for your service.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to official business in California today and missed roll Nos. 583 through 587. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 586. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 583, 584, 585, and 587.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the ranking member for all of her work on this legislation and for her yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2374. This bill is very bad news for working families. It protects the loophole in the law that allows conflicted brokers and advisers to rip off ordinary Americans who are trying to save for their retirements. The 2008 financial crisis wiped out trillions of dollars of Americans' retirement accounts. Working families now need help in rebuilding those nest eggs, and they need better protection for their savings. The SEC and the Labor Department have moved to provide these protections, proposing to close the harmful loophole, but this bill would scuttle those efforts. Here is what is at stake. Millions of Americans are putting money aside every day in their 401(k)s and in their IRAs to save for retirement. They have to make these investment choices, and Wall Street is more than happy to advise, but some of those advisers and brokers have conflicts of interest, often undisclosed conflicts of interest. The brokers know about their conflicts of interest, and the brokerage houses know about their conflicts of interest, but the person who is handing over his hard- earned retirement funds doesn't know about the conflicts of interest. The workers think they can trust this investment advice. But what they don't know is that their advisers may get paid more for, in fact, in actual cases, steering them into high-cost funds with the worst performing of the family of funds. It is very good for the family of funds, but it is very bad for that individual worker who is now handing over his retirement nest egg. That product might have higher fees than other products. It might underperform compared to other products. In other words, the product is not in the worker's best interest, but it certainly is in the broker's best interest. The SEC and the Labor Department are trying to close this loophole that allows this rip-off to continue to happen, and it is, indeed, a rip-off of ordinary Americans. I know my friend from New Jersey doesn't like the term ``rip-off,'' but that is what is happening to these hardworking American families. Multiple studies--not conjecture--have found that these conflicts of interest cost these retirees, these workers, very real money. In 2009, the GAO found that, when a pension consultant has conflicts of interest, a defined benefit retirement plan underperforms by 130 basis points. If a conflicted broker in the defined contribution world recommends funds at a similar rate of underperformance, a 40-year-old worker who rolls over his $20,000 401(k) balance into an IRA will see his retirement savings cut by a third over 30 years. If he normally earns 6 percent returns, he would now only be making a 4.7 percent return. The bottom line is he is $35,000 poorer by the time he reaches 70. Thank you for that conflicted advice. This year, researchers found that the funds recommended by conflicted brokers in 401(k) plans underperformed by an average of 3.6 percent. That translates into workers losing $1 billion every month from their retirement funds because of these conflicts of interest. As a result, consumers are getting bad advice and are putting their retirement savings at stake. Where do those figures come from? They come from the founders of the Vanguard funds, who worked out the differences between these funds, conflicted funds, and other funds. That is why the Dodd-Frank law directs the SEC to transition brokers to a fiduciary standard, and, separately, the Department of Labor is trying to align the protections as well. Brokers need to either act solely in the best interests of investors or otherwise disclose who they work for and how they are paid, but some on Wall Street have cried out, claiming that they will not be able to offer investment advice, especially to working people, if they cannot offer conflicted advice. They can't tell you how to invest your money unless they can offer you conflicted advice wherein they are getting paid more to offer you a substandard product. With the knowledge of that and the higher fees, they somehow can't make money. Let's remember that 75 percent of the brokers can't beat the S&P 500 that is on automatic pilot.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, is that what they are really saying? Is that what American workers want to know--if I don't give you money, for which you can keep secret conflicts of interests that you have with the investment of my money, I have to give you my money anyway if I am looking for this investment? That is absolutely wrong. The American worker deserves better than that. These people work hard to make the decisions to try to save, to add to their 401(k)s, and you want to talk about, oh, we should educate them about the value of a 401(k) and about the value of an IRA. You can educate them until the cows come home, but if they know that somebody is stealing their money because someone can conceal a conflict of interest, all of that education won't make a damned bit of difference because the fact of the matter is they've worked too hard to hand over their money to those conflicted advisers. That is what this bill is about. This bill would continue those conflicts, make every effort to delay and stop this rulemaking--or we change the law, we go forward, we protect working families, we protect the retirees, and we make sure that the financial marketplace is free of these conflicts of interest. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for all of her effort on this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I am offering along with Mr. Conyers is the way H.R. 2374 should have been drafted. Instead of short- circuiting the regulatory process on behalf of Wall Street profits, this represents the appropriate and balanced way forward to advise the Department of Labor in their current rulemaking on investment advice. First, Congress should not be in the business of shutting down any and all efforts by the Department of Labor to make rules for fiduciaries. The fiduciary rule is the cornerstone of pension law. It is what makes sure that, when you hand your money over to someone else to invest it for you, they are going to act in your best interest. Stopping any and all regulatory action to ensure that people's retirement nest eggs are protected is irresponsible. My amendment would allow the Department to proceed. At the same time, it addresses concerns that have been raised with the Department of Labor's proposed rules. Under my amendment, Congress would send a message to the Department of Labor that we want investors protected, not Wall Street brokers or advisers trying to protect their gravy train. This amendment makes it clear that the Department may proceed with better protections for retirement investors in a way that provides for unbiased investment education, ensures that underserved communities are not unduly harmed by basic financial protections for investors, ensures reasonable competition to advisers, and protects employee stock ownership plan appraisals. We want investment advice to be provided in consumers' best interests, not in whatever way makes advisers and brokers the most money. Studies show that most Americans who save think their investment advisers are acting in their best interests. In fact, AARP found that overwhelming majorities of consumers thought all advisers were required to act in their best interests. But, in fact, they are not, under the current law. They are not required to disclose that they have a conflict of interest. With poll after poll showing that most Americans are worried about their retirement, they should have the confidence that their investment adviser is working in their best interest, and not conflicted in the advice he gives that person because he may receive additional fees or higher commissions because of recommending a product that is not in their best interest. This amendment is a no-brainer. It supports consumers and their retirement savings. It supports unbiased investment education. It supports reasonable compensation for advisers for the important duties they perform. This is a proper and balanced way forward. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller-Conyers amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I just want to say that it is an interesting concept that the only way the investment community can continue to survive and offer advice is if they can have the right to have conflicted advice--conflicted advice--be protected by the law, as opposed to representing the person that they are taking the money from to invest. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), coauthor of the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Do I believe that advisers have a fiduciary relationship to the people that they are taking money from to invest? I do. I think the law should reflect that, absolutely.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is what the amendment addresses.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Texas have additional speakers?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. You can talk about the advisers having a fiduciary responsibility and obligation under the law, but then you can have the broker-dealers come in and close the deal, and they can provide conflicted advice and, in fact, conflicted products--in the best interest of this retired individual who is trying to invest their funds? Very clever. But this comes from an industry where we saw the banks sell a tranche of mortgages to their best friends and customers and then immediately bid against the success of that tranche of mortgages. So conflicted advice can be very profitable. They worked it to a fare-thee-well among the big players. Now you come in with your $100,000, your $80,000, your retirement funds, and you want to make an investment and you want some advice and you want to talk to a broker, and the broker says, Oh, yes, we have exactly the product for you. In fact, he or she has been told to sell this product, even though it is not the best-performing product, it may not be a match for this couple, but it has the highest commissions for the firm and for the broker. That is what they do. What you are suggesting is that should be written into the law, that conflict of interest, and you talk about all the terrible things that happen. But when the adviser fiduciary study was done in 2013, 68 percent said the fiduciary--this is of the investment industry--68 percent said the fiduciary standard will not reduce products or services; 79 percent said it does not cost more to work as a fiduciary; and 65 percent said the fiduciary standard will not price investors out of the market. So the industry says that, but you have a whole theory how this is doomsday for the small investor. It is just not so. What you are doing is protecting the right of brokers to give you conflicted advice about the investment of your money, and they knowingly do it. You are saying that the industry cannot continue unless they are allowed to continue to give conflicted advice. That is why we have conflict of interest laws, because we don't allow people to do this when they have a responsibility. We should vote for this amendment and vote against the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, a bipartisan bill that is an important step toward creating good jobs here at home and growing our economy while improving our waterways infrastructure and addressing significant risks to public safety. The House WRRDA bill makes crucial investments in ports and waterways and is an important vehicle to improve our nation's flood protection systems. Maintaining and investing in these resources is essential to economic prosperity and public safety both because there are a substantial number of jobs linked to waterways and ports and because flood damage poses a serious risk to the livelihoods and economies of communities across the country. Although I am voting in favor of this bill and believe that passage of it is critical, I am deeply concerned by misguided environmental streamlining provisions in the bill that ultimately will weaken the National Environmental Protection Act. Although the major reason for the Army Corps of Engineers' project delay is a backlog in projects and a lack of funding for those projects, the troublesome provisions in this bill instead purport to address that issue by unwisely undermining the effectiveness of NEPA reviews through unreasonable time restrictions and limitations on the quality of information available to both reviewing agencies and the public. In addition, the bill undermines the integrity of several other foundational environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Ultimately, these provisions will weaken environmental protections and undermine other elements in the bill that are designed to improve efficiency. It is critical that concerns over these provisions be addressed in the conference committee on this bill so that we can ensure final passage of a bill that create jobs, improves our waterways infrastructures, and protects the environment. Once again, I urge support for WRRDA and look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the bill further to secure final passage of a bill that helps create jobs across the country in an environmentally responsible way.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Republican government shutdown is over, and the threat of the default has been averted for now; but no one is relieved. The crisis should never have happened. The shutdown really hurt our economy. Standard & Poor's estimated that it cost the country $24 billion, and there is something even worse: each threat of shutdown and default slows economic growth by sowing uncertainty, dampens consumer confidence, and cuts jobs and income. The Wall Street Journal today ran an article this morning titled, ``A Confidence Shutdown.'' Reporter Gerald Seib wrote: Washington's misadventures have extracted a historically high toll on America's confidence. ``A historically high toll,'' he wrote. How high? At no other time did consumer confidence plummet as far as it did in the Republican shutdown except for prior to the 2003 war in Iraq and the 1990 Persian Gulf war. The American people don't want a government that is shut down; they want a government that is on their side.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Mr. Rokita for presenting the bill and Mr. Fitzpatrick for his work on the legislation. I appreciate their assistance. Mr. Speaker, when parents send their children to school each morning, they expect them to come home safe from harm. Day in and day out, millions of teachers, staff, and administrators do their utmost-- sometimes in downright heroic ways--to put their students' safety first. But despite these efforts, there remains a steady stream of stories from across the country involving students who have been abused by someone in a position of trust in their schools. Just this past summer, a music teacher in a Silver Spring, Maryland, elementary school was found to have sexually abused 15 minors over an 8-year period. In my home State of California, a teacher was convicted of throwing a 5-year-old boy with a disability onto a classroom floor and kicking him and was transferred to another school for the following year, but was not fired due to legal limitations. The superintendent of the school district acknowledged that police were not informed after that horrible incident. To make matters worse, even after her conviction, this person was allowed to keep a desk job through the rest of the school year, still had her credentials, and could simply move to a new school to teach, putting more children at risk. We should be doing everything we can to prevent these abuses. A very fundamental place to start is to not employ predators in our schools in the first place. After I requested an investigation in 2010, the Government Accountability Office uncovered a wide range of cases in numerous States of convicted sex offenders who had previously targeted children, working in schools side by side with children. In some cases, these schools had unknowingly hired sex offenders. This happened because State laws are inconsistent in how they require schools to conduct background checks of their employees and what types of crimes are covered. In other cases, the Government Accountability Office found that districts knowingly passed on a potential predator and abuser to another school or school district, allowing the offender to resign instead of reporting him. Although every State requires some background checks, the checks are not always thorough. GAO found that some States only require checks for licensed teachers, but not other employees. And some States don't require criminal history checks for contractors at public schools. The GAO also found that at least half of the States lack any rules to ensure that child abuse allegations are not suppressed by school officials, and only a few States require schools to conduct recurring background checks on employees. The significant differences in the ways schools screen prospective employees lead to gaps in student protection, but a child's safety shouldn't depend on the State in which they reside. A patchwork of State laws fails to protect all children, and that simply is not good enough. We need minimum national standards to keep children safe from sexual predators and other violent adults. That is why I am proud to be the author of the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, along with my cosponsors. This bill closes the loopholes. It would create consistency across States in background-check policy, requiring public schools to conduct comprehensive background checks for any employee or applicant for employment with unsupervised access to children, using State criminal and child abuse registries and the FBI's fingerprint database, as well as to periodically update these checks. Contractors in public schools with unsupervised access to students are also subject to these same background checks under this bill. It would prohibit school districts from hiring or retaining anyone who has been convicted of certain violent crimes, including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault, or child pornography. Schools must be places where faculty and students can focus on teaching and learning, without fear of emotional or physical harm. Keeping students safe requires a coordinated effort from teachers, principals, superintendents, community partners, and parents. The vast majority of school staff is trustworthy and works hard every day to support students' learning needs. I honor and respect their work, which is so central to the success of this Nation. The criminal background checks required in H.R. 2083 are essential to ensuring that schools and school districts are doing everything they can to protect children. Mr. Speaker, keeping children safe isn't a partisan issue; it is a moral obligation. And that is why I am pleased to see the strong bipartisan support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this legislation. I want to thank the cosponsors in particular: Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Stivers, Mrs. McCarthy, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Cohen. Working with Chairman Kline's and Mr. Rokita's staff, we clarified several provisions from the original bill that I introduced in May, including that States must periodically repeat or update background checks on employees, based on State and local policy that is publicly transparent; school districts may share background check results with each other for the same employee; and school employees could appeal the results of a background check if it is inaccurate or incomplete and establish their employment eligibility if the check was corrected. This bill is only as good as the quality of the background checks, and I will work with my colleagues to address issues related to ensuring that the checks are complete and accurate. Congressman Ellison and Congressman Bobby Scott have introduced legislation that seeks to support this goal, and I will work with them and others on these important worker protections if the bill moves forward in the Senate. I want to thank again Chairman Kline for working with us on sensible solutions that will protect children across the country. I also want to thank the respective staffs for their diligence and thoughtfulness in helping us to develop and move this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.