George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank the Rules Committee for reporting this rule to the floor and I want to thank Mr. Cardoza for managing this legislation. He has spent his entire public life being concerned about children at risk. And clearly the children we seek to protect in this bill are at serious risk. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for all of her effort on this legislation. She, too, has spent her entire time in Congress trying to make sure that our children are safe in whatever setting we have responsibility for, whether it is in high schools or colleges or in this case residential programs. This legislation is designed to address in a reasonable manner a very serious problem that has come to the attention of the Education and Labor Committee this last year when we started looking at the abuse and neglect in teenage residential programs. Tragically, a number of these cases have resulted in the death of a child. This legislation will help ensure that children are safe no matter what setting they are in. It will also provide parents with the information they need to make safe choices on behalf of their children. The rule we are considering today is a fair one. It makes in order the Miller-McKeon manager's amendment and one other amendment offered by Ms. Shea-Porter, a member of the Education and Labor Committee. Mr. McKeon and his staff have worked alongside our staff to make sure that we could do this is in bipartisan fashion, and the manager's amendment reflects the changes to be made to improve the legislation since it left the committee. Of the 10 amendments originally submitted to the Rules Committee, our bipartisan compromise incorporates and makes unnecessary seven of those amendments. It would be disingenuous for anyone to come to the floor and oppose this rule since it takes into consideration those concerns. I want to thank Mr. McKeon for working on this legislation so that we would have a bill with few amendments but we would address the concerns of the Members. In the course of crafting the manager's amendment, we worked with several Members on provisions that are now reflected in the compromise. Representatives Cuellar, Rothman and Matheson each made valuable improvements to the manager's amendment, and we thank them for their input. Mr. Bishop of Utah submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee which we believed raised legitimate concerns, and we made a number of changes in the manager's amendment to, we believe, fully address his concerns. Two other amendments on the other side of the aisle were made moot by the bipartisan agreement, and yet they were not withdrawn. This should not be a partisan issue. The GAO has found thousands of documented cases and allegations of child abuse and neglected children--stretching back decades--in teen residential programs. In hearings before our committee, we heard horrific stories about the way children in these programs were treated by uncaring, untrained, and abusive staff members. For example, children were forced to eat food to which they were known to be allergic. They were required to remain in so-called ``stress'' positions for hours, and to keep hiking even though it became clear they needed immediate medical attention. Madam Speaker, the time for Congress to act is long past due. The weak patchwork of State laws and regulations governing teen residential programs have permitted these abuses to continue for far too long. We must act to prevent children from being put at risk. This bill will help keep children safe and help parents get information they need to make sound choices about the care of their children. I hope that we can adopt this rule. Madam Speaker, let me just say this. I have been involved in this issue for almost 30 years. These abusive programs of children in wilderness camps and boot camps and whatever they call themselves, wagon trains to the future, have gone on for many years. There are many, many programs that take care of children in residential settings, very troubled children, and these programs offer specialized care to those children and treatment of those children, and many parents have written to Members of Congress and my friends and others who have sent their children to these programs, have experienced some success with the care of those children to get rid of addictive behavior and abusive behavior on behalf of those children. But yet within this industry, there is a group of homes that continue to travel from State to State without awareness by the State or not caring by the State, or falling through the regulations, no Federal regulations, no State regulations, and those are the programs that have abused these children. We have worked with professional associations. We have worked with trade associations. We have worked with individuals who run homes of high reputation to develop a set of regulations that make sure that parents will be aware of the placement of their children, the care they are likely to receive, and the skills and the training of the people who take care of them, because that is not true today. As we found out in a GAO report, as Mrs. McCarthy pointed out, there are deceptive practices of people who have huge financial interest in the outcome of referring a family to those homes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. And that is what this is about. That is where we saw this incredibly abusive behavior, and in a number of instances, simply lethal, to these children. The children died in the care in which their parents had placed them because the parents were not aware of how poorly run these facilities were. In a couple of cases, referrals for criminal proceedings against those individuals have been made. Why is this bill important, because these children are out-of-home placements, and we have to understand the responsibility of those individuals who represent themselves that they can provide treatment and they can provide care. If that's not true, the parents ought to know it. This is simple awareness by parents of the care their children are going to receive. It is hard to believe that you could put your child into a program and the child could die of dehydration or die of simple neglect because people refuse to call medical personnel to the care of these children because they said that the children were faking. No, they weren't faking, they were dying. They were dying, and people stood around and said they were faking it, don't touch them, don't go near them, and they died on the trail. They needed water. No, they were faking, and they pushed them on to hike out in the desert in the heat, and they died of dehydration. Children standing in stress positions that look more like Guantanamo Bay than look like a care facility for American children. Children standing in a stress position with their hands out with a hood around their neck and a hangman's noose for hours while others children watched and participated in the treatment of those children. That's not the care of children. There is no professional organization that recognizes that kind of care for the treatment of children. And yet those homes blemish the reputation of facilities and organizations that are trying to care for very difficult children. And as Carolyn McCarthy said, these parents are at their wit's end. They have tried almost everything. We need to make sure that the next thing they try is safe and well-organized for the care of their children.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, with the passage of H.R. 5781, The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, Congress will finally recognize the vital importance of providing paid parental leave to millions of families who want to start a family. I would like to thank Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney who first introduced this legislation and urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Currently, there is no paid Federal parental leave policy. If Federal employees wish to start a family or expand their family, they must take unpaid leave or cash in their sick or vacation days so that they may continue receiving an income while they are at home. With the rising prices of food and gas, unpaid leave poses an even greater economic hardship for working families, not to mention the extra costs that are associated with providing for a newborn. Unfortunately, the absence of a family leave policy for Federal workers forces mothers and fathers choose what is more important: either stay at home with their infant and forgo a steady income or head back to work without spending adequate recovery or bonding time with their newborn. The Federal Government lags behind the private sector in this area. The current lack of a parental leave policy for our Federal employees impairs efforts to hire and retain the best and the brightest our Nation has to offer. Family-friendly policies like guaranteed paid leave not only help parents balance work and family, but will also help ease our, impending Federal personnel crisis. Federal employers will benefit from increased retention rates, decreased absenteeism, and improved productivity. Several States have taken the lead to provide coverage for employees. In fact, over 6 years ago, California successfully enacted a paid parental leave law and it has been a great success. New Jersey recently passed a similar law in April and several other States even cover maternity under their disability insurance laws. H.R. 5781 seeks to amend the current Federal family leave policy by allowing mothers and fathers up to 4 weeks of paid lave for the birth or adoption of a child. Federal employees should not have to make choice between their family and their job but should be covered under a fair, paid parental eave policy. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5781, The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate the committee bringing this bill to the floor. It is just so fundamental that one of the times when government should step in and lend a family a hand is when that family, through no fault of their own, has lost their job. The difference is whether or not that family will be able to maintain and hold on to their home, to their car, to their kids' education, to provide the wherewithal for their children. And for millions of Americans, that's what's happened. And since they've lost that job, they have also exhausted their unemployment benefits that has enabled them to keep their head barely above water. They're gone looking for jobs, they've gone looking for work. They've tried to retrain. They still haven't been able to secure the employment because this is a terrible market for employment. What we need to do is to extend those unemployment benefits to those families so that they can hold themselves together. It should not be a policy in this country that when you lose your job through no fault of your own, that you crash to the ground, you lose your home, you lose your kids' education, and you start all over again. It's not good for the economy, it's horrible for these families, and it's wrong for this government not to take every step we can to prevent that.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have fought to bring America's addiction to oil to the forefront of our national attention for years. We must reduce our dependence on oil in order to stimulate the economy, to protect our country and to curb the harmful effects of global warming. Since Democrats gained control of the Congress last year, we raised automobile fuel efficiency standards for the first time in over a quarter of a century, despite the opposition of President Bush. And the House recently passed a comprehensive renewable energy bill. Our renewable energy bill will reduce America's dependence on oil. It will lower energy costs, protect the environment, and create hundreds of thousands of new skilled green jobs all across America. While Congress is working hard to reduce our oil dependence, my constituents are working hard to do their part to battle rising energy prices and reduce their own carbon footprint. I recently asked my constituents to tell me what they were doing to reduce their personal energy consumption and to reduce the cost of energy in their monthly lives, and I promised that I would share some of these best ideas right here on the House floor. Here are some of the comments I've received so far. Many of my constituents are already following some of the more conventional but important methods of energy conservation, including replacing traditional light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights, unplugging appliances that aren't in use, drying clothes outside in the California sun. Many more are taking advantage of public transportation options throughout Northern California and the San Francisco Bay area. Patricia Kneisler of Benicia, California, gangs all of her errands together. By doing this, as she says, her ``gas guzzler,'' the 1995 SUV, is only used when absolutely necessary and in the most efficient manner. Gina Hale's family in Pittsburg, California, attached ultraviolet blocking film on all of the house's windows to cut down on air conditioning costs during the summer. Melissa Miller of Concord, California runs her dishwasher only when it is full and at night when the electricity rates go down after 7 p.m. I have posted on my Web site sources of information about how consumers can reduce their energy consumption and save money and help protect the environment. I invite you to visit my Web site. While you're there, post your own comments about your ideas of saving energy. It's at www.georgemiller.house.gov. Small changes have big impacts. Not only are my constituents reducing their own energy bills, but they're also contributing to our future energy independence. Mr. Speaker, Congress can and must continue to support all of the individuals who are working to reduce energy consumption. We must work to pass legislation that invests in renewable energy, encourages innovation and investment in green technology and supports the creation of green jobs. Congress is obligated to move America into the future, into a modern energy policy, and stop the reliance on the past fossil fuels policy that has kept this country in bondage to the oil companies and to the suppliers from overseas. Our economy and our environment depend upon it. It is a tragedy that President Bush and 12 years of a Republican Congress stood in the way of energy independence, stood in the way of a modern energy program. While the President told the Nation and Congress that we're addicted to oil, he did nothing to alter that addiction-- nothing other than to call for more oil drilling. Spoken like a true addict. Now is the time to move forward. The price of gas and oil is at a crisis to America's families, and we must act quickly and boldly to come to grips with this crisis. Our future depends upon reducing our demand for oil, increasing energy efficiency, and providing sustainable energy sources to relieve consumers of the crippling energy costs that invade their lives on a daily basis and to stimulate the next generation of innovation. I appreciate the contributions of my constituents, and I look forward to hearing from more of them and to bring them to the attention of the House to see what decisions they're making about reducing energy costs in their personal daily lives.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for agreeing to handle this rule on this piece of legislation, and for her strong support of this legislation to provide for green high-performing public schools and the facilities in which our children learn. This legislation comes along at a time when the record is very clear that in far too many instances our Nation's school buildings are literally crumbling around the students that we send to them every day. They're in desperate need of renovation; they're in desperate need of remodeling; they're in desperate need of modernization, so that our students who attend those schools every day can have a safe learning environment. Not only will this bill help improve student achievement by providing students and teachers with modern, clean, safe and healthy learning environment, but it will also give a boost to our economy and help make schools a part of the solution to the global warming crisis. It is this kind of forward thinking and innovative policy that is needed to strengthen our Nation and help build a brighter future. By addressing a number of key challenges at once, this bill is a clear win for our children, for the workers and for our planet. I would like to thank my colleagues who were instrumental in drafting this legislation and working on it many years. I want to thank Congressman Ben Chandler, the author of this bill, for the hard work and dedication of moving this legislation through the House. I would also like to thank Congressman Dale Kildee, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education for his work on this bill. Mr. Kildee has been a longtime champion of efforts to improve the physical conditions of our Nation's schools, and he deserves great credit for his leadership in this area. I also want to thank Congressman Dave Loebsack, who joined the fight the moment he stepped foot into the Congress. Like Mr. Kildee, Mr. Loebsack is a former teacher, and he understands firsthand the difference that a top-notch facility, that a modern facility, that a safe facility, that a clean facility can mean to a child's education. That's the promise of this legislation. And I would like to recognize the efforts of Congressmen Rush Holt, Charlie Rangel, Bob Etheridge and Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, who is the head of the Green Schools Caucus. As study after study has told us, we don't have a choice when it comes to rebuilding our schools. We simply won't be able to provide every child with the world-class education they need and deserve unless we're willing to help the States and school districts improve the conditions of these buildings and facilities. It's not a question of if we should modernize and repair our Nation's schools; it's a matter of when. It's simply a decision that we have to make and we can make it today. Today we have that opportunity to begin this investment, an investment that will yield great results for our children, our economy and our future. Finally, I want to thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the consideration of this rule, for the reporting of this rule, and to Chairwoman Slaughter for her diligence in making sure that this rule came to the floor.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, it's interesting that my colleagues on the other side railed against this legislation in the name of energy. It doesn't do a lot of good to pump more energy into these schools, more air conditioning into these schools, more heat into these schools when the schools are such inefficient users of energy. It makes no sense to pump more and more electricity into the schools, to use lighting that's outdated, outmoded, harmful to the learning of these children. The purpose of this legislation is to take a major institution in our country, our elementary secondary education system, and have the Federal Government lend some support to local efforts that are struggling now, trying to accelerate their programs to cut their energy costs in the running of their schools. That's what this bill allows us to do. It allows us to put in place as they renovate, as they repair, as they remodel these schools, trying to recover, as all businesses are all across the country, as homeowners are all across the country, to reduce their energy costs. It allows us to partner up with them and to provide some assistance in doing that. It's rather interesting that all they can talk about on the other side is somehow that they didn't get to go to Alaska. If they'd gone to Alaska, it probably would have made a penny or 2 cents or 3 cents a difference in a gallon of gasoline today. But the fact of the matter is why would you go to Alaska and put it into cars that are getting 12 and 13 miles a gallon? But you never went to the question of efficiencies. You never went to the question of better automobiles. We did. The first time in 30 years, this Congress improved the mileage standard for automobiles. Just think if we had done it when George Bush said he wanted it done. Today, it would have been an entire different industry. But no, you listened to the oil industry and you listened to the automobile industry. Well, listen to them today as the chairman of General Motors has to admit that they didn't see it coming, they didn't see it was going to happen. They laid off 20,000 workers. They shut down four plants making SUVs and trucks. Why are we listening to those people? If we continue to listen to them, we'll be the only people in the world that are listening to them. They've made one bad business decision, one bad energy decision after another for the last two decades, and it cost them almost 450,000 jobs to the workers. It cost them market share, it cost them productivity, it cost them profit. Now what are they doing? They're trying to play catch-up. Well, we don't think the school districts in this country should play catch-up like General Motors. We think the school districts in this country ought to have an opportunity to make these facilities more efficient in the use of the energy, more efficient in the conservation of energy so that they can come into the modern age and they can make the changes that all of the studies indicate to us not only will save them energy, not only will make the facilities safer, cleaner and better for the learning environment that these children need, it will also dramatically change the cost of running these school districts. It's happening, but too many school districts in too many areas don't have sufficient funds. We think the Federal Government ought to put its shoulder to the wheel and help these school districts conserve their energy.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What would you prefer that they do, have the schools do nothing when they know that they have a waiver? Every business in America is investing in energy conservation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. This doesn't take anything away from local responsibility.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facility Act, legislation that would invest in modernizing public schools across the country. This legislation is an example of how well-crafted public policy can address a number of key challenges all at the same time. This bill has something in it for improving the education of our children, improving our economy, and improving the environment. First, this legislation will help improve student achievement by providing more children and teachers with a modern, safe, healthy, clean, place for learning. Second, this legislation will give a boost to our economy by injecting demand into a faltering U.S. construction industry. And, third, this legislation will make our schools part of the solution to the global warming crisis by encouraging more energy efficiency as well as the use of renewable energy resources. Any one of these three reasons alone would be enough to support this bill; but when you put all three of them together, this is a clear win for our children, for our communities, for workers, and for our planet. For children and teachers, unfortunately, the reality is that in too many of our communities the schools are literally crumbling. In 2000, The National Center of Education Statistics said it would take $127 billion to bring schools into good condition, including that 75 percent of the schools were in various stages of disrepair. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave U.S. schools a D for national infrastructure report card. Just last month, the 21st Century School Fund called for a $140 billion Federal investment in school facilities to bring all school districts up to the level of the highest income districts followed by ongoing annual Federal investment. The fact of the matter is that those children who have the most difficult time receiving an education are receiving that education in some of the worst schools in this Nation. This is an effort for us simply to partner with local school districts on a formula basis so that they can then carry out their plans to renovate, to repair, to remodel existing schools so that they can save energy, they can provide better lighting and a better atmosphere for the schools to learn. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is interesting that again they talk about the increased energy costs for schools. And at the same time that we are considering legislation which is designed to lower those energy costs for schools, they are arguing against the passage of this legislation. This is a modest effort by the Federal Government to help these schools get on with the refurbishing, the repair, and the renovation of these schools so that they will lower their energy costs, whether it is heating or air conditioning, so that they can then put that money back into the educational program. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler), the author of this legislation who understands the importance of this contribution to the education of our children at the local level.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, and an incredible advocate for the Federal role in school construction for many, many years, and a coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), a member of our committee and a primary sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of our committee and a sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee and subcommittee Chair.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. It's wonderful to listen to this conversation among two people talking about fiscal responsibility back and forth to one another. When the Bush administration came into office, they were given a $5 trillion surplus. Now, 8 years later, it's a $9 trillion deficit. And in that time, they never found the way to fund title I. They never found the way to fund IDEA. And yet, somehow, they were fiscally responsible, and now they've run this economy and this country into a ditch, with $9 trillion of debt in 8 short years, and they inherited a $5 trillion surplus. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, all day long we have had an interesting double argument here from my colleagues on the other side. All day long they have insisted that school districts are in trouble because of increased energy costs, because of the increased cost of electricity, natural gas, air conditioning, heating, fuel for the buses, and all the rest of it. And they have spent all day long arguing against a bill that's designed exactly to deal with the energy costs of those schools, by helping those districts to refurbish, to rebuild, to remodel, to reconstruct old facilities that do not use energy efficiently, that do not have state-of-the-art facilities for the conservation of energy, for the better use of energy. We are giving out tax cuts and have for many years in a very sensible program to help businesses come into the modern age in energy. Businesses, homeowners, and others are reaping huge savings. But schools aren't. So this bill simply says that the Federal Government will join in a partnership with local districts who have already set out their priorities to provide for energy efficiency, to provide for new technologies so that they can provide the best learning environment for the children in those school districts. And when they do that, what we're seeing across the country is those schools that are fortunate enough to have the money are dramatically reducing the amount of their budgets that go to energy and they can use that on curriculum or extracurricular activities or teacher pay or whatever else it is. But most schools can't afford to do that. And so what we are saying is we will simply partner up with those districts most in need and see if we can help them reduce their energy budgets over the years so they can put it into education. That is the bill that Mr. Chandler introduced. That is the bill that is designed and has been voted on on this floor today, because that is the need of the school districts. That is why the school districts, the State Superintendents of Schools, local school districts, are supporting this legislation, because it meets the need they have. Now somehow after arguing all day long that this is too heavy of a hand, we now see an amendment that we've never see in committee, we didn't see on the floor, we didn't see in Rules Committee, that is suggesting somehow we just pay the ongoing maintenance cost of the districts. I don't know if that is what you wanted to sign up for. We thought we'd sign up to be a partner in district priorities to refurbish and rehab schools and improve the energy efficiency of those based upon the district policies. I didn't know we were going to sign up for a long-term grant for the maintenance of school districts. I would like to yield now to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank my colleague. All day long in this Chamber we have had amendment after amendment saying that if we weren't putting money into school construction to refurbish these schools in need, they would put it in IDEA, they would put it in title I, they would put it in after-school care, they would put it in monitoring. You know what? When they had the money and they were in control, they didn't put it anywhere. They inherited a $5 trillion surplus, a $5 trillion surplus, and when they had the money, they didn't put it anywhere. Now we have a $9 trillion debt and they still can't fund education. That is why we have got to stop it. We should reject this motion to recommit. This is enough to kill the bill. What we need is in fact more money for our schools.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3021.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3021, the Clerk be authorized to correct the table of contents, section numbers, punctuation, citations, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate to reflect the actions of the House.