George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this amendment is an attempt to gut this legislation. This amendment would have OSHA not only wait for the outcome of the Imperial Sugar investigation, but also from findings from the combustible dust National Emphasis Program before deciding on whether or not to move forward. The National Emphasis Program could go on for years before there are findings. In fact, at the end of the day, OSHA could decide to do nothing. To do nothing has turned out to be very expensive for the American workers in those workplaces where there is combustible dust. The track record is horrible with respect to OSHA preventing these dust explosions from taking place. That is the reason that prior to the most recent explosion that Mr. Barrow and I are trying to address, prior to that, the Chemical Safety Board made a recommendation to OSHA that they should promulgate these enforceable regulations, because there are no enforceable regulations with respect to dust currently in effect, except for what we did years ago in the grain industry. Except for what we did years ago in the grain industry, and that dramatically reduced the number of incidents that took place. So to adopt the Wilson amendment is to adopt a position to do nothing, and to take an agency that has chosen time and again to do nothing in this field that any way provides for enforceable regulations of this most dangerous material when the workplace is not properly maintained and preventible actions are taken. That is just not acceptable. That is not acceptable in the name of the workers who died in the Port Wentworth plant. It is unacceptable to the workers who died earlier from the explosions. OSHA has refused to act. They have not acted on a single standard in the entire last 8 years unless they were prodded by the Congress or the courts. So to now say that you are going to take the lives of American workers and you are going to give those lives again back to OSHA, where they have not seen any hazard, they have not seen any danger in spite of the explosions is just the height of irresponsibility by this Congress. And I would hope that the Congress would overwhelmingly reject this amendment that allows OSHA to continue the status quo that allows OSHA to continue its irresponsible position. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. I think the gentleman has the right to close on his amendment. Could the Chair advise me of the time I have remaining.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note that a significant number of the signatories to the letter that was referred to by my colleague on the other side of the aisle really have little or nothing to do with these standards or are impacted by them. And this is the same coalition that continues to call for no action with respect to actions by OSHA, and it is that approach to the protection of American workers and to the safety of those workers that has led to the tragedy that we witnessed at the Imperial Sugar facility. And, clearly, these are accidents that we know are preventable, that we know we can dramatically reduce because we have the experience from the grain dust standards. This legislation is designed to be workable. It was worked, as I pointed out, with numerous conversations with the technical staff of OSHA, with the affected industries and the trade associations that are involved with this. I would note that the National Fire Protection Association, when we tell OSHA that they should select the ones that are relevant to the standards and the ones that are meaningful to this effort, we are talking about standards in which a consensus has been arrived at within the industries. These are consensus regulations that are put out there, but they are not required. And we think that in our discussions again with the OSHA staff and with the associations this is a good place to start because of the consensus. There may have to be additions and subtractions, and that is within the discretion of OSHA during the process that is anticipated under this legislation. So I would hope that we would reject this amendment by Mr. Wilson and that we would pass the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would hope that people would vote against the Wilson amendment. The people who are truly impacted by combustible dust are the workers who have been killed in the past and the workers that will be killed and injured in the future if we do not have an enforceable standard. I appreciate you have 17 regulations and all these things that OSHA is yakking about now, after years of doing nothing. The fact of the matter is, according to the Chemical Safety Board, they are not enforceable standards with respect to dust. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5522, 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.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today, on Equal Pay Day, Americans are reminded of how far we have to go in order to eliminate pay inequity between men and women in the United States. While our Nation has made many strides in the fight against discrimination, the struggle for equal pay for equal work continues. On this day, we remind ourselves that much more work needs to be done. Women have seen recent success shattering a number of glass ceilings within the ranks of corporate and government leadership. Yet the fact is that American women are still only being paid 77 cents for every dollar that their male counterparts earn with the same education, training, and experience. Any wage gap based on sex is unacceptable. The current one is staggering. As pay equity advocate Evelyn Murphy has calculated, the current wage gap means a woman with a high school education will lose $700,000 over her lifetime. A woman with a college education will lose $1.2 million over her lifetime. And a woman with a professional degree will lose $2 million over her lifetime. But unequal pay not only surfaces in workers' weekly paychecks, it also harms workers' retirement and health care security. Its sheer irrationality hinders the American economy as a whole. In the new global economy, those who stand in the way of equal pay are tying one hand behind America's back. Holding women back not only hurts workers, it's bad for business. And even where progress is made on the most insidious forms of intentional discrimination, reactionaries are still trying to roll back these protections. Just last year, the Supreme Court did precisely that in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly two decades at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Alabama. She sued the company soon after learning that she was paid less than her male counterparts. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex. But, five members of the United States Supreme Court rejected longstanding law and said that Lilly Ledbetter did not file a complaint quickly enough, nullifying the jury's verdict. In fact, Ms. Ledbetter filed her complaint as soon as she learned of the pay discrepancy through an anonymous note in her mailbox. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the clock on filing started to run when the employer made its discriminatory pay decisions, decisions which the employer effectively hid by explicitly forbidding anyone to discuss their pay. So despite finding that Ms. Ledbetter was unlawfully paid less than her male counterparts, she could not recover anything. The company that paid her less just because she was a woman owed her nothing. A slim majority of the Supreme Court shunned reason in order to satisfy its own narrow ideological agenda. I am proud to say that just months after the ruling the House of Representatives repudiated the Supreme Court's decision by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would restore workers' right to challenge discriminatory paychecks. Today should serve as a call to action to end the pay inequity that half of our country's workforce continues to endure. The Senate should pass and the President should sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And the Congress should take up additional legislation to strengthen the Equal Pay Act. I urge my colleagues to recommit themselves to the fight for equal pay. The wage gap between men and women must disappear. And the Congress has a very clear role to play in that effort.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill H.R. 5715, 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.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Teaching and Research Assistant Collective Bargaining Rights Act. This legislation will restore the right of graduate assistants to organize and bargain for better wages and working conditions under the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA. Graduate assistants across this country have seen their workloads dramatically increase in recent years. As many colleges and universities try to cut costs they have relied on graduate students to take on a larger role and more responsibility: They teach classes, develop course curriculum, grade student papers, and provide counseling. One reason for this trend is simple--graduate student teachers are paid a fraction of what faculty earn. Confronted with this economic reality, graduate assistants, many of whom have families to support, have sought to exercise their right to organize and bargain collectively for a better deal. Right on cue, as it has done with millions of other workers, the Bush NLRB quickly stripped away the right of graduate teaching students to join a union and have a voice at the bargaining table. The National Labor Relations Board's, NLRB, 2004 decision in Brown University overturned prior precedent and found that graduate assistants are not employees under the NLRA and therefore not afforded the rights and protections of the Act. This decision has stripped away the right of over 51,000 teaching assistants, research assistants and proctors to bargain for better wages and working conditions at 1.561 private universities. Thousands of graduate assistants continue to light for the right to join a union. At public universities in 14 States, graduate assistants are already afforded the right to join unions. According to the Coalition of Graduate Employee Unions, there are approximately 23 unions on more than 60 campuses in the United States, including the University of Michigan, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of California. The Teaching and Research Assistant Collective Bargaining Rights Act is simple. It will amend Section 2(3) of the NLRA to clarify that the term ``employee'' includes any graduate student who is performing work for compensation at the direction of the institution. As employees, these workers would have the right to organize and bargain collectively under the NLRA. This bill restores prior precedent. As the NLRA covers only private sector workers, State schools are not affected by the Brown University decision or this legislation. The Teaching and Research Assistant Collective Bargaining Rights is about fundamental fairness and justice. It will restore the right to thousands of hardworking graduate employees to bargain for better wages and working conditions. I urge all of my colleagues to support this country's graduate teaching assistants and support this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5715, into the Record.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, Members of the House, today we continue the consideration of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. This is legislation that was reported from the Committee on Education and Labor with unanimous bipartisan support. Once again today, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle and the staff on both sides of the committee for working in a manner which allowed us to report this bill in very short order to the House for its consideration, and on working with the Department of Education, the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, for her cooperation in helping us with this legislation so that we can assure the parents, families, and students of this country that there will be no interruption in their access to student loans. As the lending season starts to progress now, as students are getting their letters of acceptance, thinking about the next semesters of education and next year's education, as that lending season comes into its fullness, we want to make sure that there is no disruption. We are concerned about a disruption because of the general disruption that is taking place in the Nation's credit markets, and specifically, concern about whether or not there will be a spillover onto the student loan markets so that students will have difficulty finding those loans. We have worked with the Department of Education, we have worked with the administration, we have worked with the Republican members of the committee and our own caucus to devise a system of relief that is available to the Secretary and to the administration in the event that that should happen. And really what we're doing is three things: One, we're making sure that the existing law and the existing program for such an emergency, the Lender of Last Resort program, is functioning, that agreements are reached between the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Treasury, and we've been told by the Secretary of Education that she has informed the members of the committee that that has been done, that the Secretary meet with the guarantee agencies that might stand in the stead of those lenders that cannot make those loans to make sure that there is a smooth transition between them and the universities and colleges, and that that program is in place. Also, that schools are aware that they can apply to qualify for the Direct Lending program. Many colleges and universities use that today. They may want to consider that so, again, there is smooth transition should the private lending market not be able to come forward with the student loans, they could direct their students to either of those two programs. And, finally, to try and help the private sector credit markets for student loans, as this bill does, to give standby authority to the Secretary to purchase those government loans from the traditional lenders in the student loan field so that we might develop some liquidity in that market so that they can then take the money they receive from the Secretary and make a new tranche of student loans. If she purchases those loans, that money could only be used to provide a new set of student loans for the students for the coming year. And we also raised the loan limit for students, for undergraduates, because we understand that the private student loan market is in very rough shape, and there are some students who use private loans to fill a small gap between the total cost of their education and what they were able to borrow. We think by raising the limit, we will be able to help most of those students in that situation. So this is an important piece of legislation. It's legislation that we look to be acted upon in the Senate in a very timely fashion and then to be sent to the President, we believe, for his signature. And then we will have completed a series of standby authorities and a series of processes that we should be able to assure families and students that there will be no major interruption in the student lending for the remainder of this year and next year. With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If I might, I have one additional speaker, but the speaker is on his way to the floor. If you want to go ahead, then we will have that speaker, and I think we will yield back our time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Mr. McKeon for mentioning my staff and to Julie Radocchia and also that I failed to mention her birthday yesterday when I recognized her service.

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. The amendment was done on a bipartisan basis with the input of the senior Republican member, Mr. McKeon. The manager's amendment we are considering here today makes various technical changes to the legislation and additional substantive changes to ensure continued access to Federal student loans. Specifically, the amendment makes the following changes: It targets loan limit increases to undergraduate students and families. It clarifies that only eligible students as defined under section 435(a) may qualify for these loans as with all other Federal student aid. It clarifies that at the discretion of the Secretary, a loan may continue to be serviced by the current lender. And in regard to school-wide Lender of Last Resort eligibility, it specifies that the Secretary of Education shall determine whether a school qualifies and provides criteria for the Secretary to consider in making the determination. It specifies that funds received by lenders from loan sales will be used to originate new loans. And it clarifies that, at the discretion of the Secretary, a loan purchased by the Secretary may continue to be serviced by the current lender. Now more than ever, families deserve every assurance that we are doing all that we can to make sure that they will continue to be able to access the low-cost loans they need to pay for college, regardless of what happens in the credit markets. I am confident that our efforts, coupled with the proper planning by the Federal Government, will provide them with that guarantee. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not expect to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I commend Mr. Petri for this amendment. He addresses an oversight in the legislation in making sure that the Secretary has the ability to review and revise the regulations concerning prohibited guaranty agency inducements to ensure that agencies do not engage in improper inducements. We don't think this is a problem, but we had a problem in the past in the rest of the program, and we passed on a bipartisan basis, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, and I think this amendment is an important part of keeping the integrity of that act and the continuity within the student loan program so that all participants in that program understand that we cannot condone even an appearance of improper relationships. When students and families are borrowing money and making sacrifices for that money, we want to make sure that they get the best deal available and they get the best facts available to them. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.