George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You mean those 13,000 in Florida that are missing? I thank the gentleman. So this is an incredibly one-sided amendment. This should not be accepted by this House. This certainly should not be accepted when the purpose of the legislation is to expand the participation, the meaningful participation of the shareholders, the people who made a decision to go out and to buy the stock, or they earned it in their retirement fund.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The point is this. The purpose of this legislation is to address a situation which has unfolded in this country in front of so many American workers, so many retirees, so many people who are close to retirement, when all of a sudden they see that, in the executive suites, they take care of themselves in the cloak of secrecy. And so when all of a sudden a major airline, a major automobile company or any other major corporation goes into bankruptcy, they find out that the executives, as part of their compensation, decided that they would have a bulletproof deferred retirement compensation plan, a bulletproof pension plan; while everybody else was in bankruptcy, that they created a trust, all part of executive compensation. And that is why people are now saying these shareholders, the vaunted basic fundamental makeup of the corporation, the shareholders should be engaged in this conversation. This amendment comes to the forefront and really starts to strip away that discussion. Reminding you, this is a discussion, since this is a nonbinding advisory vote, so this is a discussion and a vote. And so the question really is, are we going to take the very same people who we pay great deference to when the corporation wants to tell you why they have to do something or they can't do something, it is because of the shareholders; but when it comes to executive compensation, we are going to shut down the ability of those individual shareholders and retirees and others to be able to have this discussion about executive compensation. And executive compensation is getting so large now that it in fact does impact the shareholders, because many corporations if you look at it, you think how much would they have to do to drive that amount of money to the bottom line? What would they have to do to drive that amount of money to the bottom line? This amendment should be rejected because it is contrary to the purpose and intent of this bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, thousands of foreign workers in this country are being systematically exploited and abused every day. I am introducing the Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 to ensure that these workers have basic human rights protections and safeguards against recruitment abuses. The Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 requires that employers provide in writing and in advance of employment, specific information relating to an individual's working terms and conditions so that workers know the length of their employment, where they will be working and living, how much they will be paid, and what benefits will be made available to them. Under the Act employers will be prohibited from charging the worker a recruitment fee, and obligated to pay the worker's transportation costs. Finally, if an employer or recruiter violates the Act, they will be subject to criminal sanctions, civil penalties and injunctive relief. Unscrupulous employers in this country are luring unskilled foreign workers with the promise of riches--that they can earn 10 times as much or more if they come to work in America. The foreign workers, most of whom come from impoverished backgrounds, are charged fees--sometimes thousands of dollars--to secure these jobs. To cover the upfront expenses many sell their land, their homes, or take out high interest loans. They risk everything with the dream of earning enough money to provide for a better life for themselves and their families. The reality for these workers stands in stark contrast to the riches and opportunity that was promised. Employers often refuse to pay the workers overtime or alternatively refuse to schedule them for full-time work. They work in unsafe conditions, and are forced to live in squalor. Living in fear and with no ability to speak out about the abuses, workers are trapped in virtual involuntary servitude under sweatshop working conditions, indebted by usurious recruitment fees, paid inadequate wages and too often cheated out of what little they are owed. The Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 simply demands that these foreign workers be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. The Act requires that the working conditions promised are in fact the working conditions that will exist. We can no longer allow employers to treat foreign workers as commodities--we have a responsibility to ensure that every individual working and living in this country is afforded labor protections and adequate legal safeguards.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, with a heavy heart, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Richmond icon and youth football coach Fred Lee Harris who died on March 16, 2007. For 27 seasons, Fred Harris dedicated his life to the Richmond Steelers football organization, providing coaching and moral leadership to hundreds of young players who have been a part of this community institution. As Head Coach of the program, Coach Harris was honored as a valuable role model in the community, establishing a consistent winning tradition and a healthy, positive environment for youth both on and off the field. Freddie Lee Harris, as he was known to his family, was born to the proud parents of Charles and Helen Harris on February 21, 1945, in Monroe, LA. At an early age, Fred moved with his family to Richmond, CA, and soon became the oldest of seven children. He attended school in the Richmond Unified School District and graduated from Harry Ells High School in 1963. Mr. Harris was a successful electrician for over 35 years, and became involved with the Richmond Steelers when his own son went out for the team. Despite raising four children and having a full-time career, Fred managed to volunteer 25 hours a week from July to December in order to coach the Steelers' most advanced team, the Midgets. Up until 2005, the Midgets won six consecutive league championships. Moreover, he was the coach and equipment coordinator for the entire program and attended as many as four football clinics a year to make sure the Steelers kept current with the latest coaching and equipment innovations. Fred's natural leadership abilities extended beyond his passion for football and coaching, and he envisioned his position as a chance to nurture life lessons and good values in his players. The Richmond Steelers organization is not just a refuge for the youth in Richmond. The five teams, which consist of players from the ages of 6 to 14, are a valuable resource for parents who disapprove of Richmond's violent street life. Many have said that under Coach Harris' guidance, the Steelers is one of the most effective violence prevention programs in Richmond. As a coach and adviser, Fred instilled the type of pride in his players that comes from discipline, hard work, and team work, the type of pride that lasts for generations. Fred Harris was not just a coach, but an effective mentor. Fred saw the athletic and individual potential in each child with whom he worked, and he was dedicated to helping his players reach that potential through constructive means. Many sons of Richmond would have been lost without this resource. To Coach Harris' wife, Etta Harris, and his children: Andre, Fredda, Felicia, and Maryhelen, I extend my heartfelt condolences. His loss is shared not only by those who knew Fred personally but also by all those in Richmond who benefited from his direction and hard work over the years. We will be forever grateful for the integrity, passion and unwavering commitment with which he sought to make the legendary Richmond Steelers a safe place to foster hope.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise in very strong support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for all of their hard work to put this legislation together. I believe it is time to bring our troops home, to come home from Iraq, and I believe it is time for this Congress to support this legislation. As the American soldiers begin their fifth year in this war of choice in Iraq, we confront the tragic fact that the Bush administration's preparation, planning and execution of this war has not kept faith with the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families have made. More than 3,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and close to 25,000 more have been seriously wounded. And Iraq is mired in a civil war, with tens of thousands of civilians killed, or even more internally displaced. Hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars have been squandered in this war that has left our military readiness in jeopardy, the All-Volunteer Army is at a breaking point, and the world's faith in America's leadership is gravely shaken. The American people recognize President Bush's approach in Iraq for what it is, a failure. That is why we sent a message to Washington this past November to change the course, to end this war, to get out of Iraq. That is what the American people said in November. Instead, this President, in all of his arrogance and all of his lying, chose to choose a surge. Well, the time is now for the Congress to do something about that because the American people do not support a war in Iraq, and has no end in sight, and continues the tragic, unnecessary loss of life. And given the President's unwillingness to change course, it is incumbent upon the Congress to act. With this bill the Democrats in Congress are taking a stand against the President on behalf of the soldiers in this country and the American people. The bill before the House would protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, and require accountability from the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government, and set a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops with a date certain by September 2008 at the latest. We must support this legislation. And again, I thank the authors of this legislation. I rise in strong support of this bill and I encourage all of my colleagues who believe it is time for our troops to come home from Iraq to support it. As American soldiers begin their fifth year of this war of choice in Iraq, we confront the tragic fact that the Bush Administration's preparation, planning, and execution of this war has not kept faith with the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families have made. More than 3,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq and close to 25,000 more have been seriously injured. Iraq is mired in a civil war, with tens of thousands of civilians killed and even more internally displaced. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered in this war that has left our military readiness in jeopardy, the all-volunteer Army at the breaking point, and the world's faith in America's world leadership gravely shaken. The American people recognize President Bush's approach in Iraq for what it is--a failure. That's why they sent a message to Washington this past November to change course. Americans do not support a war in Iraq that has no end in sight and continues the tragic and unnecessary loss of life. Given the President's unwillingness to change course, it is incumbent on Congress to act. With this bill, Democrats in Congress are taking a stand against the President but on behalf of our soldiers and the American people. The bill before the House would protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, require accountability from the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government, and set a responsible timeline for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops--with a date certain, by September 2008 at the latest, for U.S. combat troops to be redeployed from Iraq. Adoption of our plan is the answer to America's plea to bring this war to an end and turn away from the President's bottomless commitment to U.S. participation in the Iraqi civil war. Our plan provides a responsible, phased plan for requiring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And voting yes on this bill will clearly show to the American people that a majority in Congress clearly stand with them in their desire to bring an end to the tragic U.S. occupation of Iraq. My colleagues must understand that if they oppose the war, if they oppose spending more money on the war, if they oppose continuing the tragic loss of life in Iraq, then they must support this bill. The only alternative to this bill that could garner enough votes to pass would be a supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war with no accountability, no timetables, and no end. That is the reality. I know that the majority of the House opposes the continuation of the war. There are differences over strategy, on how best to achieve our goal on behalf of the country, on behalf of the soldiers, and on behalf of their families. Defeating this bill would prolong the war. Defeating this bill would enable the President to continue to his irresponsible and deadly failures. Defeating this bill would send a message to the American people that Congress is not listening to them. The President has run out of excuses for his failures in Iraq. The American people have correctly run out of patience waiting for him to change course. And America's soldiers have done everything asked of them and everything that could be expected of them. It is time for a new direction. The bill before the House provides a new direction for America. And it is the only bill that can take us in that direction. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, March 15, 2007, I was unable to attend votes due to illness. Were I present, I would have voted in the following manner: (1) H. Res. 242--providing for the consideration of H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act--``yea''; (2) On motion to recommit H.R. 1362 with instructions--``nay''; (3) H.R. 1362--The Accountability in Contracting Act--``aye.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, I was unable to attend votes due to illness. Were I present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 1254--Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007--```yea''; H.R. 1255--Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007--``yea''; H.R.1309-- The Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007--``yea''; Stupak amendment to H.R. 985--``yea''; Sali amendment to H.R. 985--``no''; On Motion to Recommit H.R. 985 with Instructions--``yea''; H.R. 985-- Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007--``yea.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by many of my colleagues in introducing legislation to help the San Francisco Bay Area to solve its water challenges. The bill is a revision of legislation I first introduced in the 109th Congress, and will provide local agencies with the Federal partner that they need to implement an ambitious and forward-thinking regional water recycling program. The City of Pittsburg and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, in my congressional district, have been leading the charge, investing time, energy, and local funds in developing water recycling projects to help meet regional water needs. My new legislation, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act of 2007, would authorize a federal partner for the effort in Pittsburg, as well as for similar programs in Antioch, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Pacifica, South Santa Clara County, Redwood City, and San Jose. We put the tools for these Federal-local water recycling partnerships in place with the historic Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, which not only included my Central Valley Project Improvement Act but featured a provision now known simply as the ``Title XVI'' water recycling program. In my introductory remarks for last year's version of the bill, I made the case for the Title XVI program and the importance of water recycling. Although the Bush administration continues to oppose funding water recycling, the case has only gotten stronger since then, as evidenced by the breadth of local support for this bill and for the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. I am also including in the record an editorial from the Contra Costa Times supporting the earlier bill. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a collaboration of public utilities that helps to meet our region's and state's growing water needs through a set of recycling and reclamation projects. The projects in this coalition have been repeatedly vetted, both internally at the local level and through each step of the Title XVI review process. Although these worthy projects have supplied local funding, and secured matching State funding, they still need the Federal partner to step up. There is a clear Federal interest in these projects, as there is in the other successful regional recycling programs like those of Southern California. A good water recycling program stretches existing supplies and provides certainty to all of the water users in the area; conflict can be reduced even in a critically dry year. As we all know, a stable and reliable regional water supply makes good neighbors. This new bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the following Bay Area water reuse projects: Antioch Recycled Water Project (Delta Diablo Sanitation District, City of Antioch); Pacifica Recycled Water Project (North Coast County Water District); Mountain View/Moffett Area Water Reuse Project (City of Palo Alto, City of Mountain View); Pittsburg Recycled Water Project (Delta Diablo Sanitation District, City of Pittsburg); Redwood City Recycled Water Project; South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project (Santa Clara Valley Water District, South County Regional Wastewater Authority); and South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility (Santa Clara Valley Water District, City of San Jose). These seven projects are estimated to make 12,205 acre-feet of water available annually in the short term, and 37,600 acre-feet annually in the long term, all while reducing demand on the Delta and on existing water infrastructure. The new bill also directs the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to fully fund the San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, first authorized in the original Title XVI legislation. These programs are a fiscal and environmental win-win, and encouraging them is sound federal policy. I commend my original cosponsors for joining in this effort to support our region's water recycling initiative: Reps. Anna Eshoo, Ellen Tauscher, Tom Lantos, Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry McNerney, and Pete Stark. I'm glad to be working with my Bay Area colleagues to help our region's water reuse program, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. [From the Contra Costa Times, Jan. 25, 2007] Fund Water Recycling One of the most effective ways to protect our environment and efficiently use natural resources is recycling. It is particularly true of water, which can be used more than once. There is no good reason to flush wastewater into rivers, bays, estuaries and the ocean if it can be treated and used again for other purposes such as irrigating parks and golf courses. That is the philosophy behind six Bay Area water recycling projects ready to begin once they are fully funded. They are in Pittsburg, Antioch, Pacifica, Palo Alto-Mountain View, Redwood City and South Santa Clara County. The recycled water will be treated and piped to water golf courses, parks, school grounds and roadway medians, and will be used by some businesses. Half of the money for the projects will come from local sources. One-fourth will come from the state, including Proposition 50 funds. Another one-fourth will come from the federal government under a bill sponsored by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez. Pittsburg has taken the lead in the recycling effort, has raised local money, has some of the infrastructure in place and already is doing some recycling. Antioch is not far behind. Both cities are at the top of the list for the second round of state funding for recycled-water projects. However, the Department of Water Resources, which can approve the money by administrative decision, needs a bit of prodding by local legislators. Miller's bill, HR 6218, which has bipartisan support, also needs quick approval. Together, the six Bay Area projects would recycle nearly 10,000 acre-feet of water per year. That is not a large percentage of the total volume of water used in the area, but it is a significant amount and would help spur more recycling efforts. The total cost of the six projects is $74.8 million. But the state and federal governments' share is only $18.7 million each. The state money already is available, and there is no reason to believe the federal funds will not be forthcoming. Recycling is not the only way to meet the Bay Area's and California's water needs, but it must be part of the solution. Not only does it use water effectively, it also reduces pollution of the Delta, San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay. We trust state and federal officials will agree and act quickly to help local efforts to recycle an essential resource.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him and all of the members of this committee for their work on the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. This a very important piece of legislation, as so many of my colleagues have already testified to. We desperately need, in communities all across the country, the upgrade and the repairing of our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. There is not a congressional district in the country where we are not behind the curve on this effort. I also rise because this legislation does continue the prevailing wage laws of this Nation, the Davis-Bacon law, which guarantees hardworking Americans, those who are working in Federal construction projects, will be paid a livable wage. Today, we see report after report, economic study after economic study that talks about the precarious state of the American middle class, about how families are struggling to maintain their status in the middle class. It is one of the imperatives of this new Congress, of the Democratic majority, to grow and to strengthen the middle class; and, clearly, the wages that people pay will play a great part in that. We should not have Federal dollars, Federal contracts and Federal projects, whether they are in conjunction with locales or not, undermining those livable wages. These wages are incredibly important to the American middle-class family. We see now that the hardworking Americans and middle class, with the greatest productivity gains in recent history, are sharing the very smallest part of that increase in productivity than at any time in recent history. It is imperative that we have today Davis-Bacon protections in this law. It is imperative that we have the Davis-Bacon protections for middle-class families in the country. We know middle-class families now are constantly confronting the risk of what is happening to their pensions: Will they be funded? Will they be terminated? Will they be frozen? What is their ability to put away money in a 401(k) plan? What is their ability to purchase health care? How much more of the cost of that health care is going to be shifted from the employer to the employee? How much more of that are they going to be able to afford? Maintaining good wages for good quality work is important to these families. It is important to these projects, and it is important to this Nation. I commend the chairman for reporting this bill to the floor with these provisions in it, to ensure that we continue to grow and strengthen the middle class in this country. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. For over 75 years Davis-Bacon has guaranteed that hard-working Americans working on federal construction projects will be paid a livable wage. I am pleased that the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 includes Davis- Bacon prevailing wage provisions and requires that prevailing wage rules be applied to all projects financed in whole or in part through State Revolving Fund programs (SRFs). I vehemently oppose any and all efforts that are intended to strip the prevailing wage provision and undermine the long-standing tradition of Davis-Bacon. The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 will be one of approximately 70 Federal laws that include a Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provision. Throughout these laws Davis-Bacon has infused fairness into Federal contract work; and it has protected contractors and workers from unjust treatment and unfair competition. As more and more families struggle to pay the bills, it is critical now more than ever that we ensure hard-working Americans earn a livable wage. On a bipartisan basis Congress has historically stood together in support of Davis-Bacon, recognizing the obligation that we have to ensure that Americans are paid a livable wage and to ensure the government does not operate to undermine those wages. As we consider H.R. 720 today we again have a moral obligation to stand up and set the example for how workers should be treated and the standard by which they should be compensated. Government Projects Benefit from a Prevailing Wage Provision The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 addresses the critical need that we have to build, upgrade and repair this nation's waste water infrastructure. Davis-Bacon ensures that we hire the best people to do this important work. Requiring that employers pay the local prevailing wage encourages them to hire qualified and highly skilled workers. This in turn results in a higher quality of work and higher productivity; it leads to less waste; it reduces the need for supervision; and fewer mistakes are made which require corrective action. The fact is that Davis-Bacon helps ensure that projects are completed on time and in the long-term require less rehabilitation and repair. Thanks to decent work standards, these projects don't suffer staggering delays and taxpayers do not have to shoulder additional and unintended costs produced by the delays or a substandard work product. Davis-Bacon Helps Local Businesses Davis-Bacon furthers the viability of local businesses who want to compete for government contracts. The Act protects local employers from cutthroat competition that results from fly-by-night firms who try to undercut local wages and working conditions and who unfairly compete with local contractors. Prevailing Wages It's important to remember what a prevailing wage is. A prevailing wage is defined as the weighted average of all the wage rates paid to laborers or mechanics in the same classification in the same locality. It is literally the wage that prevails in the local market. The government, when making contracts, should respect those prevailing rates. The government should not be in the business of using taxpayer funds to drive down wages in a locality. Defeating President Bush's Repeal of Davis-Bacon We've seen efforts to undermine the nation's wage laws time and time again and defeated them time and time again. Two years ago Congress successfully defeated President Bush's attempts to repeal Davis-Bacon during the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. At a time when the victims of the hurricane had lost everything--their homes, their belongings, even family members--some political forces thought it would be a good idea to also cut their wages. In a bipartisan effort, Congress stood together and convinced the President to abandon his efforts; in doing so we ensured that those rebuilding the Gulf would be justly compensated for their hard work. I'm proud of the fact that support for Davis-Bacon has always been on a bipartisan basis--and I expect such bipartisan support for this fundamental worker protection will prevail again today. Madam Chairman, it is time for us to once again stand up for the rights and the dignity of workers across this country. Let's continue the tradition that began over 75 years ago--support the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions contained within the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chairman, Members of the House, my colleague from the other side said that every American is guaranteed the right to organize, and that is what this legislation is about. You have a guaranteed right to organize, but when you do, very often what you find out is you do not get the right to organize on behalf of better wages or a pension plan, or holding onto your health care benefits, or the hours that you get paid at work, or the tension between your family life and work, the kinds of things that people organize for. In many workplaces, when you exercise your right to organize, you get fired, you get intimidated, you get harassed, you get followed home, your kids get followed to school, people park their cars outside your house. Your work shift has changed, you are on the graveyard shift instead of the daytime shift. That is what you get. What we are here about today is to redeem what has been in the law for almost 70 years, and that is the law that gives you the right to organize. It says you can either choose to go through an NLRB election or you can choose to have a majority sign-up. But then they inserted in the law many years later the right of the employer to veto that right to majority sign-up. So what the Republicans are suggesting in their opposition to this bill is that we should take away the choice from those workers that has been in the law for 70 years. So that those people, when a majority of people in a workplace decide that they need to organize their workplace to protect their jobs, to protect their salaries, to protect their pensions, to protect their health care, that they will be able to have that organization come into being. Today, you get harassed, you get intimidated, you get an election, and after the election, you get appeals. And you get endless bargaining that in our own State of California, people have been waiting 7, 8, 9 years for a union that they won in an election. Apparently the secret ballot isn't enough to win your full share of democracy, and has not been enough for millions of workers across this country. So this legislation is very simple, it is only eight pages long. It says the worker gets to choose. That is the basis of American labor law. It is up to the employees to choose their organization and to choose how they want to arrive at that organization. They can choose an NLRB election or they can choose a card check majority sign-up. And we are simply saying, let the law work. Let the employees have the choice. And stop the illegal intimidation of workers. This last year, 30,000 workers had their pay restored to them because illegal actions were taken against them by employers because those workers did nothing else than exercise what the gentleman on the other side of the aisle spoke to, the right in America to organize. But 30,000 workers lost pay, lost hours at work, got fired. All of those things happened to them. And the year before it was 20,000, 20,000 and 20,000. This has gone on far too long. It is time to empower the employees to make this choice about their workplace. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank all of my colleagues who participated in this debate. At a time when the middle class standard of living in America for millions of Americans is at greater risk than at any time in recent history, at a time when people see employers arbitrarily terminating their pensions, freezing their pensions, shifting the cost of their health insurance, cutting the benefits under health insurance; at a time when they see that they have no new money to take home in their wages, that their wages have been flat; at a time when CEOs are awarding themselves golden handshakes, golden parachutes, and golden hellos, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, at that time at that moment we have an opportunity here to redeem a provision of the law which has been in the law for 70 years to simply give the workers a choice. They can choose an NLRB election, or they can choose a majority signoff. That is a simple choice that these adults in the workplace can make. It is a choice that was given to them 70 years ago, and it was a choice that later was taken away by a veto of the employer. Imagine, a majority of the Americans get together and they do something and one person gets to veto it. One person gets to veto it in the workplace. Think of what the relationship is between that employer and those employees. Think about how those employees must have felt that they needed to organize in the workplace, because employees know that they do if they are going to stop the trend and the bleeding that they see today, against the benefits that they have at their workplace, against their salaries, against their hours at work, against their right to a retirement nest egg that means something. Every day you pick up the business journals of this country and you read where again another employer has terminated a pension, has restricted the pension, won't pay into the pension, puts the pensions into bankruptcy. You want to know why people need card checks? People need card checks so they can have the freedom of choice to choose do they want an election, do they want a card check. It is in the National Labor Relations Act today, it is the law, but for the veto, the veto of the employer. How more arbitrary can you possibly get that a single employer could override the desires of a majority of the employees in its workplace? How more arbitrary can you get? It is the same arbitrariness those employers show when they cut your health care benefits and your pensions and your retirements without any say by the employees, without any negotiations. That is why millions of Americans want representation at work, so that they can have a voice in that workplace, they can have a voice in their future, they can have a voice in whether or not they are going to be able to buy a home, buy a car, educate their children, have a health care policy that they can afford that will be there when they need it. That is what this is really about. This is about whether or not we are going to strengthen and help maintain and grow the middle class in this country. Because it is not happening under the arbitrary policies that are imposed on workers today by their employers. This Employee Free Choice Act gives the workers that choice, the choice that is currently in the law. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation when it comes time for passage. Again, I thank all my colleagues for participating in this debate, I thank the Chair for the courtesy they have shown both sides. Madam Chairman, We all know that workers in the U.S. are among the most productive workers in the world. Yet for far too long, they have not been reaping the benefits of their hard work. For years and years now, many workers have found themselves working harder and harder just to stay in place. And many more have been losing ground financially despite their work. This is troubling enough on its own. But what makes it even more troubling is that, over the last several years, our economy has been growing. The stock market is doing well. Corporate profits are high. Consider the facts. Since 2001, median household income has fallen by $1,300. Wages and salaries now make up their lowest share of the economy in nearly six decades. The number of Americans who lack health insurance has grown by 6.8 million since 2001, to 46.6 million, a shocking record high. The number of Fortune 1000 companies that have frozen or terminated their pension plans has more than tripled since 2001. Indeed, the middle class itself has shrunk. Over 4 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the poor since 2001. And meanwhile, corporate profits make up their largest share of the economy since the 1960s. Madam Chairman, there are a lot of explanations for the growing inequality in our economy. Congress' failure to raise the minimum wage for 10 long years is an obvious example. But perhaps the most significant explanation is that workers' rights to join together and bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been severely undermined. Today, when workers want to form a union, their employers can force them to undergo a National Labor Relations Board election process. That process is broken, because it allows irresponsible employers to harass, coerce, intimidate, reassign, and even fire workers who support a union. Take the example of Ivo Camilo. Mr. Camilo is from Sacramento, not far from my district. For 35 years, he worked at a Blue Diamond Growers plant in Sacramento. In 2004, he and several dozen coworkers sought to form a union. For that, Mr. Camilo was fired. After 35 years of service, Blue Diamond tossed Mr. Camilo out on the street, just because he wanted a union. The same thing happened to Keith Ludlum when he supported union representation for him and his coworkers at a Smithfield foods plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina. Mr. Ludlum, a veteran of the first Gulf War, was fired in 1994 because he wanted a union. It took him 12 years of litigation to get his job back. What happened to Mr. Camilo and Mr. Ludlum happens with distressing frequency in this country. In 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers were receiving back pay from employers that had committed unfair labor violations. Earlier this year, the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that employers fire one in five workers who actively advocate for a union. A December 2005 study by American Rights at Work found that 49 percent of employers studied had threatened to close or relocate all or part of the business if workers elected to form a union. And Human Rights Watch has said, ``[F]reedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it.'' Corporate executives routinely negotiate lavish compensation packages on their own behalfs, but then they deny their own employees the ability to bargain for a better life. This debate is about restoring workers' ability to choose for themselves whether or not they want a union. To make that happen, the Employee Free Choice Act does three things. First, it says that when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a union, they get a union. The legislation requires the National Labor Relations Board to develop model authorization language and procedures for establishing the validity of signed authorizations. The legislation does not take away workers' ability to have a National Labor Relations Board election instead of majority sign-up if that's what they want. It gives them the choice. If 30 percent sign cards saying they want a union and petition the Board for an election, they get an election. But, if a majority of workers sign cards saying they want a union and they want recognition now, they get a union. This majority sign-up is not a new idea. Under current law, when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a union, then they can have a union if their employer consents to it. But instead of consenting, employers often reject the employees' choice and force them through an NLRB election process that is dramatically tilted in the employer's favor. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply take this veto power away from employers. Under current law, it's the employer's choice that matters. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it's the employees' choice that matters. Majority sign-up has a proven track record for reducing coercion and intimidation. In cases where responsible employers, like Cingular Wireless, have permitted their employees to form a union through majority sign-up, both sides have praised the process for increasing cooperation and decreasing tension. Second, the legislation increases penalties against employers who fire or discriminate against workers for their efforts to form a union or obtain a first contract. Under current law the National Labor Relations Board is required to seek a federal court injunction against a union whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the union has violated the secondary boycott prohibitions in the National Labor Relations Act. Under this legislation, the Board must seek a federal court injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has discharged or discriminated against employees, threatened to discharge or discriminate against employees, or engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights during an organizing or first contract drive. The legislation authorizes the courts to grant temporary restraining orders or other appropriate injunctive relief. Employers found to have discharged or discriminated against employees during an organizing campaign or first contract drive must pay those workers three times back pay, instead of the simple back pay required under current law. Employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during an organizing campaign or first contract drive would receive civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation. Under current law, remedies are limited solely to make whole remedies: back pay (minus any additional interim wages the employee did or should have earned), reinstatement, and notice that the employer will not engage in violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Many employers conclude that, even if caught, it is financially advantageous to violate the law and pay the penalties rather than to comply. And third, the legislation provides for mediation if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days. After 30 days of mediation the dispute would be referred to binding arbitration. Under current law, employers have a duty to bargain in good faith, but are under no obligation to reach agreement. As a result, a recent study found that 34 percent of union election victories had not resulted in a first contract. Madam Chairman, we have heard a lot of shamefully misleading claims from the critics of this bill. Those critics claim that they have workers' best interests at heart, and that they are trying to protect democracy. Yet their claims are belied by the fact that some of the nation's leading workers' rights and prodemocracy organizations support this bill, including Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Worker Justice, and the Drum Major Institute--among many, many others. These are organizations that are dedicated to the mission of improving the lives of American workers. I can tell you that if this bill would do the kind of harm that its critics claim it would, then these respected organizations would not be supporting it today. I want to close by just reminding people how much is at stake here. We can continue on our nation's current path, where our society grows more and more unequal and polarized. If we stay on the same path, then our middle class will keep getting squeezed, and will struggle to pay for just the basic necessities of life, like housing, healthcare, education, and transportation. We can stay on that path, or we can go in a new direction. We can ensure that every American worker gets his or her fair share of the benefits of a growing economy. To strengthen America's middle class, we have got to restore workers' rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. After all, union workers earn 30 percent more, on average, than non- union workers. They are much more likely to have retirement and health benefits and paid time off. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 800 so that we can finally start to reverse the middle class squeeze and create an economy that benefits all Americans.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairwoman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey has explained this quite correctly. This allows you, because of your membership in a union, to be discriminated against in the employment. The actions that the gentleman says that he wouldn't like to have take place are actions that are already illegal under the law. You don't get to disrupt the workplace. You don't get to engage in those kinds of activities, and that's the way the law is written. This is just simply a broad discriminatory practice against the employment, or it allows the nonemployment of individuals who are members of the union. At very best, under the best interpretation, what this employee would buy themselves if they go to seek a job is they would get themselves a lawsuit. They would have to sue for the right to be employed in a workplace. You know, a job today in America is not a luxury; it is a necessity. This is just part of the harassment of individuals who believe in the organization of the workplace. This is just one more of the harassment, and now they want to put this one into the statutes of the United States. We should vote against this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, you look at this amendment and you realize this is just another piece of the continued effort by which the party on the other side is fully prepared to diminish the rights of workers to have access to information about an organization that may help them in the workplace. But, you know what? If the employer wants to bring that worker in and sit him down on a one-to-one meeting with the supervisor, with the owner of the company or the Board of Directors, if he wants to take them off of their job where they may be getting paid for productivity and explain to them why they shouldn't join the union and all that, there is nothing to protect that employee there. There he is sitting with the person who can fire them. There he is sitting with the person who fired over 35,000 people or docked their pay or did some other illegal action against them because they said, well, I think I might still want a union. But if the union wants to go out, if other employees want to talk to their fellow workers about this, you have no opportunity to communicate. And then you are supposed to go into an election. But one side doesn't get any opportunity to communicate. That is an interesting theory, that those with all of the power in this arrangement, those with the authority to hire and fire, they get unlimited access. But here, you may get, on break time in the break room you may still have a little tiny bit of access for the union, but they can't talk to a person out there because they could take them off the list. What do you think the first thing is the employer might suggest to the employees when they hear that there is a union effort in the company? Put yourself on the Do Not Call List. Joe, did you put yourself on the Do Not Call List yesterday? Because then the employer knows immediately that the union no longer has access. Just another form of intimidation, just another form of a kind of arbitrary power over the employees, just one of those little things that the anti-union consultants will tell the employer to check off. Make sure you told your employees to sign up for the Do Not Call List. Make sure you run down that list, find out who signed up and who didn't, get that list clean, because if we ever get that list, if we can get 100 percent, then the union has no access to them. It is a wonderful tool in the name of democracy you want to put into the hands of the anti-union campaigns. No, it is very unfortunate that they simply won't allow workers to make this decision, the decision that is accommodated and allowed and provided for in the law of whether or not they want an NLRB election, or they want a majority sign up. They are not going to do that. And so fearful of the decision that the employee might make, they have decided to insulate the employee from the campaign and put them off limits to anybody except the employer. No, this amendment should not be supported at all, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him so much for his role in bringing this bill to the floor and the subcommittee where he chairs the subcommittee and in the full committee during the debate and here on the floor today, and I thank all of my colleagues who voted for this bill. I don't know, maybe you have been doing business so long where you have been paying back your supporters, you think that is the way everybody does business. And that is why you have people heading down toward the courthouse and that is why you lost your leadership, because they were paying back their supporters. Now, I know it is hard for you to change your stripes, and some of you will be wearing stripes, but the fact of the matter is, that is not the way we are doing business. But that is your language and that is your habit and the way you ran the Congress. It is pay to play. Pay to play. Well, a new day is in town, and we are here today about whether or not workers will simply have the choice to exercise a right that has been in the law for 70 years, a right that can be taken away from them like that from an employer who simply says no to a majority of people who want representation in a workplace, a right that is part of the National Labor Relations Act. But it is revoked by employers, arbitrarily, without reason, without purpose. Then they can insert those employees into a process that is well documented now of hundreds of thousands of employees over the last decade that have been punished and had retribution, been harassed, lost pay, lost their homes, lost their jobs, lost their good shift, lost their premium time. That is the record. That is the record. So the question is simply this: Will we give these employees the choice to decide, do I get to have an NLRB election, or do I want to choose this. Thirty percent can have an election. It takes 50 percent to have a card check. And your secret ballot, Mr. McKeon, you forgot to have the secret ballot for the decertification election. Apparently you don't need a secret ballot for that. You just have a card check. Okay. Now we understand what is going on here. Let's remember today that families find themselves in the most difficult of economic situations. Today, your employer, who has reduced your pension, they have terminated your pension, they have reduced the payments into your pension, they extend the time in years that you have to participate in the pension before you can vest. Your health care, they ask you to pay more for it and reduce the benefits that you are paying more for. They change your hours. They change your pay. They change your premium pay. They change your shift. So finally people say, I have got to have some say. I want the right to organize at work. I need representation. As the new Senator from Virginia said, everybody needs an agent. ``I need somebody to negotiate with this employer because I am not able to support my family. My wages aren't going up.'' The productivity is going up, the highest productivity in the history of the country, and employees are taking home the smallest share. Who is taking the most home? The CEO's, with their arbitrary golden parachutes and golden handshakes. What about the person trying to support a middle-class family? What about the person trying to decide whether they can hold on to their house or if they can buy their first house? Where do they get to negotiate? The law says go to the National Labor Relations Act, and there you find a provision that says an employee has the choice of how to do this. But if they choose a card check, the employer can take it away from them. That is not democracy. That is arbitrary. That is capricious. That is an outrage. These are real people. These are real people that have been hurt this way. I conducted a hearing. Ivo Camilo worked for Blue Diamond Growers for 35 years. He was awarded all kinds of awards for being an outstanding employee. Thirty-five years he gave them his life. And then Ivo said he wanted a union and they fired him. And when he said that to our hearing, he started to cry. Thirty-five years he had worked, and he started to cry. My granddaughter was sitting next to me in the hearing. She had to leave early, but she had her father call me from the car. She got on the phone and she said, ``Papa,'' she said, ``Papa, why did that man have to cry in front of all those people?'' I said, ``Montana, he cried because he was embarrassed to admit to other people that he couldn't provide for his family; that he had lost a job that he was proud of. He lost a job because he simply spoke up.'' Another constitutional right you forget sometimes, he simply spoke up and said, ``I would like to have representation at work.'' And so Ivo Camilo was fired, along with tens of thousands of other workers who simply made that statement to their employer. You believe that is a fair system? That is a fair system that people can be fired? And when he gets his job back, he gets his back pay, no penalty for doing this, and that is why 30,000 people have taken action against them, because there is no penalty for the employer to fire these people, because what do they want, they are trying to increase the security in the workplace, they are trying to increase the financial security of their families. You can pick up the paper every day and understand what is happening to people with health care, with their pensions. You can see what happens every day. The wages of working people are flat. They have been decreasing over the years, even as they have been the best workforce in America, and now they understand the risks that they run. They want more say. They want their employers to stop fooling around with pension plans and dipping into their retirement funds and putting those things at risk. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act does: it gives these employees a chance to have representation and protect the health and welfare and support of their families. I urge a vote against the McKeon amendment and in support of the legislation.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this is one of the more cynical amendments that could be offered at this time. You are going out to organize a workplace, and the people you are going out to organize are the employees of a company. Now, either that company has a large number or maybe a total workforce that is illegal, and they don't want you near them; or they are legal because they are employed there, because that employer is supposed to check to see whether or not they are legal and to certify that they are. That is the pool of people that you are seeking to employ. Now, this administration, you know, I think in 2004, maybe fined five companies, or you can put them on one hand. They now want to shift their failure to enforce in the workplace to the union organizers that they somehow have to do immigration checks because neither the employer apparently did them, nor the administration did them. This is simply outrageous that we would ask people to do this. The people who are working in the facility, whether it is a plant or a job site, the employer has certified that they are legal, and they are legal workers. Why is it we would shift this to the unions? If this company is not properly certified, that is why the Federal Government is supposed to be inspecting them. But they don't inspect them, because you haven't done this in the past, because you haven't taken this problem as seriously as you should. But all of a sudden you decided on this bill you are going to take it seriously, and you are going to shift it on to the union organizing effort to check this. It is an outrageous and cynical approach. If you take it seriously, if you take it seriously, then enforce the law. Enforce the law. You have been in power for 12 years. And apparently this is a problem that is so important that it only comes to light this evening. Enforce the law, 2004, three companies. Madam Speaker, I yield time to Mr. Andrews from New Jersey.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You will have your opportunity to address immigration law. You will have that opportunity. You have tried to deny it over the last several years, but you're going to have it. All this amendment says is you really dislike the unions even more than you dislike the illegal workers. That is what this says. Point of Order

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, all I can tell you is these people over here, when it was a question of the company, illegal immigration didn't bother them. All of a sudden, nonunion, these folks over here want to put it on the back of the unions in a most unfair fashion. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the House, let's not vote for this cynical amendment. Let's vote ``no'' against this and not punish people who are out trying to organize for the benefits of their families and their communities and for their health care and for their wages and put this burden on them that this administration hasn't accepted and the employers haven't accepted or the employers are doing it illegally. Let's enforce this law and not make this a substitute for that. I ask you to vote against this.

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