George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and not adopt a policy of employment discrimination based upon religion.

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 all Members may have 5 legislative days to submit their remarks on H.R. 1429, to be taken up next.

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. 1429, the Clerk be authorized to correct 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. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in a few minutes, the President of the United States will veto the legislation to hold the Iraqi government responsible and accountable for the benchmarks that they promised their citizens and the citizens of this country. Tonight, after 24,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded, 3,212 have been killed, and the country has descended into a bloody civil war, what we now see is the basis on which the President told this country he wanted the surge in the escalation was that he would hold the Iraqi government responsible. In January, he said he would hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks as announced, and that if no progress is made, they would lose the support of the American people. The fact is that no progress has been made, and the Brookings Institute has shown us that situation. What we see now, as Secretary Rice says, that the administration believes that holding the Iraqis accountable to these benchmarks that they establish as the price of the surge ``doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity we need to move forward.'' You can be creative all you want but unless the Iraqis know that there are consequences, and that is what this legislation said, that if you can't reach these benchmarks, if you can't establish a civil society, then we will withdraw our troops. Right now, under President Bush's proposal under Secretary Rice's proposal, what we see as the only people paying the price are the American soldiers. Those are the only people paying the price tonight. Today marks a sad anniversary for this, country. Four years ago today, President Bush declared that the mission in Iraq was accomplished and that major combat operations in Iraq were over. Since that time, 24,270 U.S. soldiers have been wounded, 3,212 have been killed, and the country has descended into a bloody civil war that we cannot stop nor should we referee. It is time for America to redeploy it's troops from Iraq. That's why today, Congress sent a bill to the President's desk that would do just that: to redeploy from Iraq. It's what a majority of the American people want, and it's what a majority of the United States Congress wants. But instead of ending the war, the President is pursuing a war with no end in sight. He refuses to hold the Iraqi government accountable for the benchmarks it promised to achieve: to establish a government supported by its people that can provide for its own security. In January, the President said that ``If the Iraqi Government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.'' Well Mr. President, the Iraqi's have not followed through, and your war has lost the support of the American people and a majority of the United States Congress. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, there has been ``no progress thus far'' achieving the administration's benchmarks. Yet, despite the President's promise in January to ``hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced,'' the administration has flip flopped. On Sunday, Secretary Rice said the administration believes that holding the Iraqis accountable ``doesn't allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward.'' You can be creative as you want, but unless the Iraqis know that there are consequences to not living up to their end of the bargain, American Soldiers, taxpayers will continue to make all of the sacrifices and bear all the costs. And that is unacceptable. Optimism is not a strategy. Ignoring the facts and misleading the country is not a path to victory. It is time for the Iraqi's to be held accountable, and to take charge of their own country. And it is time that the President yield to the will of the Nation, and end our occupation of Iraq now.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 493) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, as amended.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days in which Members may insert material relevant to H.R. 493 in the Record.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House will take up H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007. This legislation is sponsored by two of my distinguished colleagues, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, who has been waiting 10 years to debate this bill on the floor of the House of Representatives, and Congresswoman Judy Biggert, who has been a member of the committee which I chair, the Committee on Education and Labor, and I commend the sponsors for their hard work and for their perseverance. This bill is long overdue. The Human Genome Project started the revolution in science and medicine nearly 20 years ago by identifying the specific chromosomes within the genes that make up the human body. Once the scientists identified and understood these genetic building blocks, they developed tests that identified genetic markers for diseases that could, but may never, occur. We understand that this scientific revolution can and will save lives. It can save children from devastating illnesses, and once these tests and treatments become more widely available, they will help us live longer lives with less debilitating diseases. The key to unlocking this scientific revolution is to assure individuals of genetic privacy and nondiscrimination when they undergo genetic testing and counseling. Many Americans already forgo testing for fear of losing their jobs and their health insurance. In a 2003 National Institutes of Health study, 39 percent of the individuals surveyed cited fear of losing their health insurance as the most distressing issues related to genetic testing. There is a clear need for us to pass this law to protect genetic information from discriminatory uses. We all suffer if fears of lost jobs or health insurance stifle these scientific advances. That is why 41 States have passed laws to prohibit discrimination in the individual health insurance market. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the Chair of the Rules Committee of the House, who has worked on this legislation for a very long time, without whose persistence with this bill we would not be here on the floor.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) who, again, has worked so hard to bring this legislation to the floor and helped to resolve some of the differences that have existed between the committees, and I thank her for her work.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 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. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I would just want to join in thanking all of the Chairs and the ranking members of the three committees and the subcommittees, and clearly Louise Slaughter, our colleague from New York, who has worked so hard on this legislation so very long, and Judy Biggert also, and Anna Eshoo. Given the importance of this legislation, it is hard to believe it has been stuck in the Congress of the United States for 10 years, but it has been. Maybe our reporting it today off of the floor is a tribute to a fresh start. This is a very, very important piece of legislation to the health of the Nation and to the world. The advocacy of Louise Slaughter has reminded us almost every day in those 10 years what we were missing by not passing this legislation and making it available so that we could get on with the wonderful discovery and the wonderful help that could be provided to individuals, to their families and to our communities. And the National Institutes of Health is to be commended, with all of the assistance they provided and all of the information provided to this Congress. With that, I also want to thank the staffs of the three committees on both sides of the aisle for all of their work. They put in a lot of hours to get this resolved so that we could come to the floor and work over the differences that were there sometimes between the committees.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. America is still the number one economy in the world, and we can keep that leadership. But we can only do so with a level of determination and commitment that we have not shown in almost half a century. Other countries are making aggressive investments in a competitive workforce. We must exceed those efforts. That is why--nearly 2 years ago--then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi laid down a challenge to Congress and the President to invest in innovation in order to create vibrant industries, a strong economy, and good jobs here at home. Now, with Speaker Pelosi at the helm and Democrats determining the agenda before Congress, we are acting on that challenge. Working with leaders from the hi-tech and bio-tech industries, venture capitalists, and academics, Democrats laid out a plan to boost America's competitiveness. We made it clear to the American people that we take this challenge seriously. Today, we are taking the next steps on our commitment. The bill before the House today is an important step for America's future economic strength and the strength of America's middle class. Mr. Gordon's legislation is a strong step in reaching a key goal of our innovation agenda. This bill will educate 25,000 highly qualified math and science teachers by creating high quality programs that integrate the strong teaching of both education programs as well as strong research and content area instruction. In the Education and Labor Committee, we are also working to create a new generation of innovators by ensuring that today's students are taught to high academic standards and receive the workplace skills that are necessary to prepare them as scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in a global high-tech economy. The Committee will work toward the goals of innovation agenda by educating 100,000 new innovators in the next five years. We propose a new public-private partnership with the business community and higher education institutions to produce well-qualified, highly-skilled workers by establishing Congressional Science fellowships and interdisciplinary Master's programs in science, engineering, and math that include specialized training and internships with business partners, and loan forgiveness options. Additionally, we will build on the work of Mr. Gordon by placing a highly qualified teacher in math, science, and technology K-12 classrooms by offering up-front tuition assistance to talented undergraduates majoring in math, science or engineering who agree to teach in a high-needs school and by partnering community colleges with 4-year institutions to improve the teacher pipeline. Lastly, we need to enhance the ability of states to coordinate education and workforce goals, identify the challenges of recruiting students and retaining them in innovative fields, and develop collaborative solutions through statewide coalitions of education, business, and community leaders, such as P-16+ Councils. America's entrepreneurial, innovative spirit is one of the key reasons for our strength in the world today. If we match that spirit to these substantial investments, our economy will stay strong for generations to come. I look forward to continuing to press forward with other elements of the Innovation Agenda and to make sure that America stays No. 1 in the world.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I don't know how many conversations Members of this House have had with corporate officers and leaders, but very often when you ask them why they will do something or not do something, they tell you that they are there because they have to take care of their shareholders, they have to protect their shareholders, and the shareholders control the corporation. But when we get to executive pay, all of a sudden we find out that they really don't want to have this discussion among shareholders about executive pay. And here we are presented with an amendment that is designed to close down those discussions, and it is certainly designed to close down those discussions among average shareholders. I don't know when the shareholder gets the determination of whether or not they have spent a de minimis amount of money or not. I don't know for a retiree, for a pensioner or a worker of that corporation, if they spend $100 or $500, if they give to a campaign, is that a de minimis amount? Maybe to them it is not, but it may be to the campaign. I don't know when that determination is made so that they can then speak out or not speak out or have their vote counted. And when are they in jeopardy or not in jeopardy? I don't know. Are they responsible for the rest of the campaign if they simply decide to send money to a campaign and vote their vote because it is the only organization available when it is an organization if pensioners decide that they don't like the direction this company is going? So what you are really doing here is, you are trying to chill the speech and freeze the speech by putting them and holding them responsible for the disclosure that they may not have any control over. They may not have any control over the entities, all persons or entities engaged in such a campaign, they may not know that. They may know they just don't like that executive compensation or they want a discussion of it. They don't necessarily know the activities engaged in to influence the vote. You know, a lot of times people will hear about these campaigns in the newspaper because they are there, and they don't know the amount of money that is expended on the campaign. When do they get to vote? When do they get to vote? They don't have this information on their person, so to speak, but unless they can comply with this form, their vote is not counted. Now, let's flip it over to the other side. The corporation can use corporate funds to make a general solicitation of proxies. They don't even have to speak about this campaign, they don't even have to speak about executive pay. They make a general solicitation. They say the shareholders' meeting is coming up, this is the agenda and this is what is going to be on it. Then they get to vote any way they want. What the hell is going on here? I want to spend $100 or $500 because I think that this is not in the best interest of me. I am a shareholder, I own the stock, and I have got to jump over all the hoops; and the corporation just glides through an election and they have the proxies. This sounds like the problem with executive compensation; the decision is made at the corporate level, and nobody gets to second-guess it. Send out a general solicitation. Maybe there is no campaign against executive pay at the time that the solicitation for proxies goes out. You know why? Because very often most people don't know what the executive pay is. You can read that form until you are blue in the face and you don't know what it is. How many times have we heard executive compensation boards say, I was in the room, I didn't know we were paying them $37 million? I was in the room, I didn't know he got those stock options. I was in the room. That is why we started putting responsibility on people who were in the room. But now this poor shareholder, this poor shareholder who is not in the room, who is not on the inside deal, this person has to jump through hoops. And then I guess what do you do? You petition to have them count your vote, and then in the petition you say, to the best of my knowledge, these are all persons who were engaged in the campaign, and to the best of my knowledge, this is what they did to influence a vote, to the best of my knowledge, this is the amount of money spent; and if it turns out to be wrong, your vote is thrown away. You call that democracy? That sounds like what they call democracy in Latin America or something.