George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, finally, but 4 years too late, the Bush administration, with Vice President Cheney's trip to Afghanistan, has recognized that the real war on terror is not Iraq; that Iraq has been a diversion against that war on terror; that, in fact, the real war on terror is in Pakistan and Afghanistan and in the border area. They are starting to discover that the Government of Pakistan has not been our friend as we have tried to stabilize Afghanistan and the Karzai government, as we have tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, as we have tried to root out the Taliban and al Qaeda; that, in fact, because of the diversion and our early leaving of Afghanistan for Iraq, that we have now allowed the al Qaeda to come back in command and control and to build their membership, to recruit around the world. We have seen the Taliban come back into Afghanistan and start to threaten and overturn village leaders and democratically elected leaders in villages in various parts of Afghanistan. Only now, 4 years too late, does the Bush administration recognize that this is the real war on terror, and they have failed to fight it, failed to deal with it and failed to prepare for it. -

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 990) to provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Pell Grant by eliminating the tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell Grant program, as amended.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 990, the Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007. This is a bill that is designed to adjust an inequity in the current law that works against the interest of many college students in those States that have low tuition. At a time when we have seen tuition and fees of public colleges and universities increase significantly, there is a notable exception to that trend, and that is that California community colleges recently decreased their tuition and fees from $26 a credit to $20 a credit. For a student taking 13 credits for two semesters, they save $520 in tuition for the year. This is almost unheard of in a day of skyrocketing college costs. Unfortunately, a provision in the Higher Education Act penalizes students attending low-cost institutions, such as California's community colleges. The provision known as ``tuition sensitivity'' reduces the Pell Grant for the neediest of students attending higher education institutions with the lowest tuition. The result is that thousands of low-income students receive a lesser Pell Grant. The Pell Grant Equity Act eliminates this discriminating provision in the law, ensuring that students receive the full amount of the Pell Grants they are entitled to receive. This is a very important bill for these students and for their families. This is legislation that my colleague, Mr. McKeon, the senior Republican on the committee, worked very hard last year to get into the Higher Education Act. It was passed on the floor of the Congress. He worked very hard to bring this matter to the attention of all of the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, but as you know, that legislation was not passed in the end, and that is why we are here today because this has an immediate impact on those students who find themselves in this situation. And I want to thank him for all of the effort that he made to adjust this inequity in the law over the last couple of years as we have tried to deal with this within the Higher Education Act. This bill is a 1-year fix, and we do so because we anticipate that this would cover the upcoming academic year. And we would hope to be able to make the permanent changes when we reauthorize the Higher Education Act in this Congress. According to the Congressional Research Service, our bill will help approximately 96,000 students receive an average of $100 more in a Pell Grant aid. Sometimes that doesn't sound like a lot of money, but in grant aid to these students and these families, this is an important amount of money because it is not just the tuition that is going down, it is other costs continue to go up. This increase will help make a real difference for these students in meeting not just their tuition costs, but the costs of their books, their supplies, transportation, room and board, and expenses that quickly add up. We know this is an issue because we have received letters and heard stories from the community colleges, from the students and from their families. It is a situation where you can find two siblings, one at Cal State school and another at a nearby community college. Both students take similar courses, enrolled full-time, live at home, commute to colleges, both have filed Federal financial aid forms and have an expected family contribution of zero. So both qualify for the maximum Pell Grant. Due to the current rules, the sibling attending the community college will receive $402 less, even though the educational costs overall are the same for those two individuals. That is why we need to pass this legislation today. It has strong bipartisan support. And it will keep the Pell Grant as a strong part of our Federal student aid program targeted to those in the most need. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier in the first few hours of this session, this Congress took a bipartisan vote to cut interest rates for the neediest students who are borrowing money. Those same group of students, many of them are still eligible for the Pell Grant. This action we take today, again on a bipartisan basis, I think will be very helpful to these students and to their families as, again, they try to put together the resources necessary so that they can begin their advanced education in the higher education system in this case. Hopefully in community colleges, they will continue to try to figure out, along with the State legislatures, how to lower the cost of that college. And this would provide an additional incentive, since they know now that those students will not be punished in a sense because they are going to a lower cost college at that time. I would like to thank the staff of both committees for all of the work they did on this, for the senior Republican, Mr. Keller, on the subcommittee, and Mr. McKeon on the full committee, and to Mr. Hinojosa, the chairman of the subcommittee, for all of their work. We look forward to a quick passage here and hopefully a speedy passage in the Senate.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Con. Res. 74 sponsored by Congressman Mike Thompson. Passage of this bill will express federal support for Hydrocephalus research. Hydrocephalus, a chronic neurological condition that causes cerebrospinal fluid to build up in the brain cavity instead of being reabsorbed into the body, is a disease that affects over one million Americans. This disease can cause head enlargement and blurred vision, learning disabilities and impaired physical development and is fatal if untreated. Like many other diseases that affect a relatively small portion of our population, Hydrocephalus research lacks proper funding. It is deplorable that the current standard treatment, which requires the insertion of a shunt into the brain to drain out the fluid, was designed in 1952. Shunts are extremely prone to infections and frequently require repair through major surgery. Modem medicine can do better. I am certain that with federal support for additional research we can develop a better treatment, if not a cure, for those suffering from Hydrocephalus and help them live healthier, fuller lives. I applaud my colleague, Mr. Thompson, for his efforts in this area and I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for all of his hard work in struggling on this issue and our troops and force strength, Mr. Speaker. But I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution regarding the Iraq war. I rise in strong support to this resolution to say to the President, no more. I rise in strong support of this resolution to say to the President, your policy is wrong. Yes, you have tried the surge before, and the surge has not brought peace to Iraq. It has not brought an end to the insurgency. It has not brought an end to the sectarian war that is going on in that country every day. Yes, this is the fourth time that the President tried this policy, and it has not worked in any of those times. When we pass this bipartisan resolution, the President should pause. Because, at that moment, the President will not have the support of the United States House of Representatives; and, at that moment, the President will not have the superintendent of the people of the United States. The President better think long and hard about he really believes that he should commit these troops, and continue to commit these troops, without the authority of the people, without the authority of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, American men and women have been fighting in Iraq, and they will soon begin their fifth year. In 5 years, they have done all that we have asked them. But what we have asked them to do cannot be accomplished by the military. We have known for some time that Iraq now requires a political solution, and it requires the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi society and the communities to take hold of their country and to decide whether they want a future of continued sectarian violence or whether they want an orderly society. They must make that decision. The President has had it wrong for many, many months, for many years. He has continued to say that, as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. Mr. President, you have it wrong. As we begin to stand down, they will begin to stand up. The fact that our military troops are on the streets of Baghdad and Anwar Province and elsewhere enables people to continue a level of violence that randomly and wantonly takes the lives of men, women and children, innocent bystanders, for almost no good reason at all, no good reason at all. It allows that to continue because each knows, if it gets out of control, the American troops will ride to the rescue, the helicopters will come, and the missiles will fly. We are the enablers of the continuation of this violence. Once they have to take responsibility for their actions, once we leave, this is no longer an insurgency. This is crime on crime, Iraqi against Iraqi. Somebody has got to take the responsibility for that, and that will not be us. We will not be able to bring it to an end. The Iraqi government will be. The time has come for our troops to leave. The time has come for us to understand that we cannot cure what is wrong in Iraq. But for these troops that are there and for the troops that are being sent in spite of the will of the American people and the will of the Congress, we ought to understand that they should be fully equipped. We should not repeat the history of this administration in this deployment where men and women were sent into the theater without proper vehicle armor, without proper body armor, without proper interpreters and without proper training. Many Members have come to this floor for many hours now and said, what is the message you are sending to your troops? What was the message the Congress is sending? What was the message this Congress sent to the troops when the President allowed them to go to war without enough troops to secure the peace? What was the message this Congress sent when it allowed the troops to go to combat without proper vehicle armor? What was the message that the Congress sent when it allowed our troops to go into combat without proper protective armor? What was the message this Congress sent to the troops when it allowed this President to continue this failed course with no adjustment over the past 4 years? And what was the message that we sent to the troops when it allowed the President to effectively draft American volunteers by continuing their tours, shortening their time at home, shortening their time with their families and sending them back without proper training, shortened training and without proper equipment? We cannot do that to the troops. The message of this resolution is we are not going to do that. We are not going to do that. We will make a pledge to you that we will not let you fight and die forever with no plan to get you out, with no exit plan for you, with no change in the policy that has led tragically to so many deaths and so many wounded. That is what this resolution is about. That is the message we must send to the troops, and that is the message we must send to the Iraqi people, that they must take responsibility. This surge is not an election-day surge. This isn't a constitutional- day surge. This is a surge for the purpose, this is an escalation for the purposes of door-to-door combat, street by street, block by block, house by house. Yet today we see General Schoomaker saying in the paper that these troops that are getting engaged in this up-close battle in the midst of the Iraqi people will not have enough interpreters. They will not have civil affairs soldiers. They will not have enough translators. So now we are putting them again where they are at greatest risk, and this Congress is agreeing to go forward and repeat history and put them at risk when it is not necessary.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today along with Representative Thomas Petri to introduce the Student Aid Reward Act of 2007, the STAR Act, a bill that is a vital part of strengthening America's middle class. Since 2001, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities have exploded, increasing by 41 percent--after inflation. Students are graduating with greater amounts of debt than ever before, and unfortunately as many as 200,000 prospective students each year decide not to go to college because they can't afford it. Already in this Congress we have taken great strides toward making a college education affordable for all qualified students through increased grant aid and more affordable student loans. The Student Aid Reward Act continues the mission of putting students and families first by providing additional need-based grant aid to students without any cost to the taxpayer. This legislation is simple: It encourages colleges to use the less expensive of the federal government's two student loan programs, and puts the savings back into the hands of students through need-based grant aid. In order to do this, the Student Aid Reward Act calls on the Secretary of Education to determine which of the two Federally backed student loan programs is more efficient. Schools that elect to use the more efficient program would then be rewarded with additional scholarship funds for and graduate fellowship money for low- and middle-income students--all paid for by the savings generated by the bill. According to the President's recently released 2008 education budget, student loans made through the more expensive program in 2007 cost $3 more for every $100 lent than the same loans made with U.S. Treasury funds. At a time when our Federal Government is facing an extreme deficit, this is a win-win bill for students, families, and taxpayers. This bill will not only increase efficiency in the loan programs, but will also generate increased competition, resulting in increased benefits for students and families. The Student Aid Reward Act has also been introduced in the Senate by Senators Edward Kennedy and Gordon Smith. No qualified person should ever be prevented from going to college because of the cost. We must ensure that every student in this country has the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues Rep. Buck McKeon, Rep. Ruben Hinojosa and Rep. Ric Keller to introduce the Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007. As we all know, Pell Grants are the cornerstone of our federal student aid system providing approximately $13 billion for more than 5 million undergraduate students, mostly from low-income households. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of low-income students, who would otherwise qualify for a full Pell Grant, have been unable to do so because of the current ``tuition sensitivity'' rule. ``Tuition sensitivity'' is intended to reduce the Pell Grant for students attending higher education institutions that charge very low tuition. Current law punishes very low cost schools and the students who attend those schools by reducing the Pell Grant aid they can receive. The Pell Grant Equity Act addresses this imbalance by eliminating the discriminating ``tuition sensitivity'' provision in the law and ensuring students continued eligibility for the full amount of aid they would have otherwise received. According to the Congressional Research Service, the students most negatively affected by this policy are ``the poorest students attending institutions with very low tuition charges.'' Since 2001, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities have exploded, increasing by 41 percent after inflation. The exception to the rule of rising tuition and fees, are California's community colleges. This year, instead of seeing an increase in tuition and fees, California community college students' enrollment fees witnessed a decrease from $26 to $20 per unit. The California community college system, and any other college system that experience cost reductions, is unfairly penalized by the ``tuition sensitivity'' provision. Based on estimates from the Chancellor's office of the California community college system, more than 260,000 California community college students are expected to receive reduced Pell Grants because of the tuition sensitivity provision. Rather than limit the Pell Grant--our goal is to expand it, which is what we accomplish through the Pell Grant Equity Act. We must ensure that every student in this country has the opportunity to pursue their educational dreams, particularly those from low- and middle-income families. There is no goal more important for our nation's students and families, for our economy and our future.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as already has been noted this evening, tomorrow the House will begin a 3-day debate on the question of whether or not we support the escalation of the war in Iraq by supporting the President's policy to send over 21,000 additional troops to Baghdad, what is called the surge, but is in fact an escalation of the war and of the exposure of our American troops in Iraq. It is an important debate, and it will be an important vote. It will be a very simple proposition: Either you support the escalation or you do not. This is the vote that the American people have been asking for now for many, many months. They certainly expressed it in the election. They have expressed it since the election where we see time and again they are telling the country, they are telling those of us who are in the Congress of the United States that they do not support this policy; they want an exit plan; they want our young men and women brought home from Iraq; and they want the Iraqis to take responsibility for the political decisions that must be made if Iraq is in fact going to be a unified country, if Iraq in fact can proceed along a road to building democratic institutions and hopefully finally building a democracy. But none of that, none of that will be done by the troops from America. None of that can be done by the troops from America. The fact of the matter is that that must be done by the Iraqi people. But there will be those in this debate who will be defending the President's failed strategy in Iraq by attacking the President's critics. They ask, what message would America send to its troops in combat if Congress votes to repudiate the President's plan? What message, indeed? Mr. Speaker, the question really is, what message did Congress send to our troops from the very beginning of this miserable war? What message did Congress send to the troops in the beginning of this miserable war when they voted to go to war based upon the lack of proper evidence, false evidence, manipulated evidence and, in fact, outright lies to the American people and to the world about the situation in Iraq, and certainly a war that was not vital to the interest of the United States? What message did Congress send when it allowed the President to go to war without enough troops to secure the peace? What message did the Congress send when it allowed our troops to go into combat without proper armored vehicles? What message did Congress send when it allowed our troops to go into combat without proper protective body armor? And what message did the Congress send when it allowed the President to continue a failed course in Iraq with no adjustments in strategy? What message did Congress send when it allowed the President to effectively draft American volunteers by continuing their tours of duty over and over again? And what message did the Congress send to our troops, indeed? But there is a new Congress now and there is a new message for our troops. By raising objections to the President's failed strategy, and by demanding a new course in Iraq and the immediate and responsible redeployment of our forces, we will send a new and clear message to our troops. Our message to the American forces in combat is that we will not let you fight and die forever in Iraq with no plan to get you out, with no exit plan. Our message is that we will insist that the Iraqis take responsibility for their country and the building of a democracy, and that soon American forces will be brought home or redeployed to fight the real war on terror. Our message is that the American forces will not be used to fight Iraq's civil war. Our message to the President's few remaining supporters in the House and Senate is, do not exploit our brave troops in combat in a desperate and vain effort to bolster a weak President. Do not use our brave men and women serving in Iraq to cling to a misguided policy that is dangerous for America's interests and for its troops as well. Join us in opposing the escalation of the war in Iraq, and when we see that history is now repeating itself, where once again the administration is prepared to send our soldiers into Iraq without proper equipment and without proper training, demand, instead, a new strategy to get America out of Iraq's civil war, to get Iraq to take responsibility for its own future, and to use our troops for the proper mission, to defend America.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2(a)(2) of Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules for the 110th Congress for the Committee on Education and Labor for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted these rules by voice vote, with a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on January 24, 2007. The Rules of the Committee on Education and Labor for the 110th Congress rule 1. regular, additional, and special meetings: vice chairman (a) Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held on the second Wednesday of each month at 9:30 a.m., while the House is in session. When the Chairman believes that the Committee will not be considering any bill or resolution before the Committee and that there is no other business to be transacted at a regular meeting, he will give each member of the Committee, as far in advance of the day of the regular meeting as the circumstances make practicable, a written notice to that effect; and no regular Committee meeting shall be held on that day. (b) The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (c) If at least three members of the Committee desire that a special meeting of the Committee be called by the Chairman, those members may file in the offices of the Committee their written request to the Chairman for that special meeting. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the staff director of the Committee shall notify the Chairman of the filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairman does not call the requested special meeting to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of the Committee may file in the offices of the Committee their written notice that a special meeting of the Committee will be held, specifying the date and hour thereof, and the measure or matter to be considered at that special meeting. The Committee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the staff director of the Committee shall notify all members of the Committee that such meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered; and only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at that special meeting. (d) Legislative meetings of the Committee and its subcommittees shall be open to the public, including radio, television and still photography coverage, unless such meetings are closed pursuant to the requirements of House Rules. No business meeting of the Committee, other than regularly scheduled meetings, may be held without each member being given reasonable notice. (e) The Chairman of the Committee or of a subcommittee, as appropriate, shall preside at meetings or hearings, or, in the absence of the Chairman, the vice chairman, or the Chairman's designee shall preside. rule 2. questioning of witnesses (a) Subject to clauses (b) and (c), Committee members may question witnesses only when they have been recognized by the Chairman for that purpose, and only for a 5-minute period until all members present have had an opportunity to question a witness. The questioning of witnesses in both Committee and subcommittee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairman, followed by the ranking minority party member and all other members alternating between the majority and minority party. The Chairman shall exercise discretion in determining the order in which members will be recognized. In recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to minority party members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to place the members of the majority party in a disadvantageous position. (b) The Chairman may permit a specified number of members to question a witness for longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this clause shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate. (c) The Chairman may permit Committee staff for the majority and the minority party members to question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this clause shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate. rule 3. records and rollcalls (a) Written records shall be kept of the proceedings of the Committee and of each subcommittee, including a record of the votes on any question on which a roll call is demanded. The result of each such roll call vote shall be made available by the Committee or subcommittee for inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of the Committee or subcommittee. Information so available for public inspection shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members present but not voting. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one member. (b) In accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, any official permanent record of the Committee (including any record of a legislative, oversight, or other activity of the Committee or any subcommittee) shall be made available for public use if such record has been in existence for 30 years, except that-- (1) any record that the Committee (or a subcommittee) makes available for public use before such record is delivered to the Archivist under clause 2 of Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall be made available immediately, including any record described in subsection (a) of this Rule; (2) any investigative record that contains personal data relating to a specific living individual (the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), any administrative record with respect to personnel, and any record with respect to a hearing closed pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall be available if such record has been in existence for 50 years; or (3) except as otherwise provided by order of the House, any record of the Committee for which a time, schedule, or condition for availability is specified by order of the Committee (entered during the Congress in which the record is made or acquired by the Committee) shall be made available in accordance with the order of the Committee. (c) The official permanent records of the Committee include noncurrent records of the Committee (including subcommittees) delivered by the Clerk of the House of Representatives to the Archivist of the United States for preservation at the National Archives and Records Administration, which are the property of and remain subject to the rules and orders of the House of Representatives. (d)(l) Any order of the Committee with respect to any matter described in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be adopted only if the notice requirements of Committee Rule 17(c) have been met, a quorum consisting of a majority of the members of the Committee is present at the time of the vote, and a majority of those present and voting approve the adoption of the order, which shall be submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, together with any accompanying report. (2) This subsection applies to any order of the Committee which-- (A) provides for the non-availability of any record subject to subsection (b) of this rule for a period longer than the period otherwise applicable; or (B) is subsequent to, and constitutes a later order under clause 4(b) of Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, regarding a determination of the Clerk of the House of Representatives with respect to authorizing the Archivist of the United States to make available for public use the records delivered to the Archivist under clause 2 of Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives; or (C) specifies a time, schedule, or condition for availability pursuant to subsection (b) (3) of this Rule. rule 4. standing subcommittees and jurisdiction (a) There shall be five standing subcommittees. In addition to the conducting oversight in the area of their respective jurisdictions as required in clause 2 of House Rule X, each subcommittee shall have the following jurisdictions: Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.--Including education from early learning through the high school level including, but not limited to, elementary and secondary education, education of the disabled, the homeless and migrant and agricultural labor. Also including school construction, overseas dependent schools, career and technical training, school safety and alcohol and drug abuse prevention, educational research and improvement, including the Institute of Education Sciences; and early care and education programs and early learning programs, including the Head Start Act and the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness.--Education and training beyond the high school level including, but not limited to higher education generally, postsecondary student assistance and employment services, the Higher Education Act; postsecondary career and technical education, training and apprenticeship including the Workforce Investment Act, displaced homemakers, adult basic education (family literacy), rehabilitation, professional development, and training programs from immigration funding; pre-service and in-service teacher training, including Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Title II of the Higher Education Act; science and technology programs; affirmative action in higher education; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; all welfare reform programs including, work incentive programs, welfare-to-work requirements; the Native American Programs Act, the Robert A. Taft Institute, and Institute for Peace. Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities.-- Adolescent development and training programs, including but not limited to those providing for the care and treatment of certain at risk youth, including the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; all matters dealing with child abuse and domestic violence, including the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and child adoption; school lunch and child nutrition, poverty programs including the Community Services Block Grant Act, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); all matters dealing with programs and services for the elderly, including nutrition programs and the Older Americans Act; environmental education; all domestic volunteer programs; library services and construction, and programs related to the arts and humanities, museum services, and arts and artifacts indemnity. Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.--Wages and hours of labor including, but not limited to, Davis-Bacon Act, Walsh- Healey Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, workers' compensation including, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, Federal Employees' Compensation Act, Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Service Contract Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, including training for dislocated workers, Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, trade and immigration issues as they impact employers and workers, and workers' health and safety including, but not limited to, occupational safety and health, mine health and safety, youth camp safety, and migrant and agricultural labor health and safety. Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions.-- All matters dealing with relationships between employers and workers generally including, but not limited to, the National Labor Relations Act, Labor Management Relations Act, Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment-related retirement security, including pension, health and other employee benefits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); all matters related to equal employment opportunity and civil rights in employment, including affirmative action. (b) The majority party members of the Committee may provide for such temporary, ad hoc subcommittees as determined to be appropriate.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Student Loan Sunshine Act of 2007, a bill that aims to protect students and families from the predatory practices of unethical student loan lenders. This comes on the heels of an announcement made last week by the Attorney General of New York, expanding an ongoing investigation into the activities of lenders and their relationships with colleges and universities across the country. The allegations are quite troubling and are worthy of the attention of every state as well as the Federal government in the interest of protecting students and limited taxpayer funds. At issue here, Mr. Speaker, is the practice of lenders buying their way into colleges and universities through excessive ``inducements,'' or what some might term bribery. Over the last year stories have surfaced with lenders offering exotic vacations to employees of colleges as well as offering to run student aid offices during high volume times. These activities often result in lenders securing a coveted place on a college's ``preferred lender list.'' While some may see this as not so troubling or not the business of government, I beg to differ. When these activities directly result in limited options for students and families in deciding how to pay for college, I believe it is not only our business but our responsibility to do something. Preferred lender lists are, for the most part, a non-issue with some colleges and universities. These institutions have indeed done the work of looking for the best deal in the interest of students and families and can justify why lenders have a place on their preferred lender list. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Entry into a school's preferred lender list means more than just having a coveted spot and a near guarantee of business, it means there are opportunities for lenders to prey on students and families and offer them private loans. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that students are taking out loans in record number and doing so before having exhausted all of their options with federal student loans. Why is this a problem? Private loans carry interest rates as high as 19 percent--compared to federal loans that are offered at 6.8 percent. Something must be done about the practices by lenders to limit choice for students as well as encourage students to take out high-interest and risky private loans before exhausting all of their borrowing options through the federal programs. To begin the process of addressing this, I join my colleagues from the Education and Labor Committee, Ruben Hinojosa, Tim Bishop, Joe Courtney and John Yarmuth in introducing the Student Loan Sunshine Act. The legislation: Requires full disclosure of special arrangements that lenders and institutions of higher education have to offer loan products at the institution; Bans lenders from offering gifts worth more than $10 to college employees, including travel, lodging, entertainment, and in-kind services that lenders provide to college financial aid offices; Requires full disclosure of the reasons why an institution of higher education has selected a lender for its ``preferred lender'' list, including any special arrangements the lender has with the school; Encourages borrowers to maximize their borrowing through the government's loan programs before taking out alternative loans and direct-to-consumer loans with higher interest rates. The legislation has also been introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy and Richard Durbin in the Senate. It is clear that we need to take steps to address the complex activities of lenders and their relationships with institutions. The Student Loan Sunshine Act is a necessary first step in starting the dialogue at the national level.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to be joining 230 of my colleagues in introducing H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act is a bipartisan bill designed to provide workers with a fair opportunity to bargain with employers for better wages, benefits and working conditions. In recent years, despite a growing economy, the middle class has been squeezed. Corporate profits and executive compensation have skyrocketed, but the middle class has seen their wages stagnate, while the costs for basic needs like healthcare, education, food, energy and housing continue to increase. Globalization and misguided government policies have contributed to a growing income disparity and less economic security for middle class families. One way to help the middle class is to provide them with a fair opportunity to organize and join unions, so they can have a say in what goes on in the workplace. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers. In addition, they are 62 percent more likely to have employer-provided health coverage and four times more likely to have pensions. The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order form a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers. Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can force workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted. The Employee Free Choice Act would add some fairness to the system by: (1) allowing a majority of employees the opportunity to select to be represented by a union by expressing their decision through the signing of authorization cards; (2) provide for mediation and arbitration when workers and employers cannot agree on a first contract; and (3) increase penalties against employers who threaten, intimidate or fire workers for engaging in protected activity. I urge all my colleagues to join in this effort to provide working people with a real opportunity to bargain for better wages and benefits.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, no one who knew them both could ever deny the power of the relationship and marriage between Phil and Sala Burton. It brought together two people who cared deeply about America and believed strongly in progressive values and actions. As the enclosed article notes, Sala Burton saw these same values and talent in our new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, many years ago. When Sala, seriously ill, asked Nancy Pelosi to run for her congressional seat, she was acting on the same values and trust that she and Phil brought to public life. Sala made a decision that changed the history of the House of Representatives and our country forever. I would like to share the article with our colleagues: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2007] Sala's Choice Nancy Pelosi Carries On a Powerful Legacy (By Harold Meyerson) Sala Galant Lipschultz Burton made two critical decisions during her lifetime, the full meaning of which could not have been apparent to her at the time she made them. The first, in the early 1950s, was to marry a young lawyer and Democratic activist named Phil Burton, who was to become the single most important member of the House of Representatives in the '60s and '70s. As a leader of the California Young Democrats and a rising force in San Francisco politics, the young Phil Burton had already won a reputation for his political brilliance--and for his explosive temper. Nobody worked harder for liberal causes. Nobody demanded more of his associates and staffers: If they didn't match his crazy hours, his ability to count votes or his understanding of the art of the deal, they'd be subjected to eruptions from the Burton volcano. Throughout his career, in fact, the biggest obstacle to Burton's success was his rage. That he accomplished as much as he did was due in part to Sala. The late John Jacobs, whose 1995 biography of Burton, ``A Rage for Justice,'' is one of the great political biographies of the past quarter- century, reported that Sala was Phil's confidante, co- strategist and champion, but that was only the beginning. ``She cleaned up his messes,'' Jacobs wrote, ``soothing and placating those he insulted or abused. She alone could intervene in a conversation to shut him up.'' Phil Burton was first elected to the House in 1964. In his 19 years as a congressman--he died of a ruptured aorta in 1983--he was responsible for the legislation that established Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the aged, blind and disabled; created black-lung compensation for coal miners; increased the minimum wage; made strikers eligible for food stamps; greatly expanded the size and number of national parks; and abolished the House Un-American Activities Committee. More broadly, he broke the power of the old Dixiecrat barons in the House by subjecting committee chairmanships to secret ballot elections within the Democratic caucus. He engineered reapportionments of California that were greatly to his party's benefit, and he steered contributions to the Democratic candidates who needed them most. When he died, Sala succeeded him in a special election. Just four years later, in January 1987, Sala herself lay dying of cancer. She asked Phil's brother, John Burton, who had represented an adjoining congressional district in San Francisco, to come to the hospital and told him that she wanted ``Nancy'' to succeed her. For a moment, John Burton was unsure which Nancy she was referring to, but as she explained to family and friends at her bedside, the woman in question was the former California Democratic Party chair Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi had been associated with the Burtons since shortly after she and her husband had moved to San Francisco in the years when Phil's star was rising. The Pelosis had a large, attractive house, and the first thing she recalls Phil saying to her was, ``We'll use this for fundraisers.'' But Phil's appreciation of Pelosi wasn't confined to her abilities as a hostess. He saw in her a commitment to progressive values and a clear political sense of how to turn those values into laws. When John stepped down from Congress in 1982, Phil asked Pelosi to stand for election to replace him, but she declined, saying her children were too young. Five years later, Sala, on her deathbed, evidently saw in Pelosi the same qualities that Phil had seen. This time, her children older, Pelosi said yes, and in April she won a squeaker of a special election. In the House, Pelosi has continually sought the counsel of another Burton protege, George Miller, whose district is right across the Bay from hers. Appointed early on to a seat on the Appropriations Committee, she demonstrated, says the committee's new chairman, Wisconsin's David Obey, that she was ``operational''--a Burton word meaning able to steer difficult measures to enactment. When the Newt Gingrich Republicans swept to power in 1994, political almanac authors Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa termed it ``the collapse of the House that Phil Burton built'' Nancy Pelosi, as smooth as Phil Burton was rough, is far more open to openness in the legislative process than her sometimes secretive mentor was. Politically, she understands the limits of the possible and that she can expand them only as far as the American people are willing to go. But she also knows that the American people want Congress to do any number of things that were stubbornly, and, in the end, suicidally resisted by the now-collapsed house that Newt Gingrich built. The Burtonistas--with different causes and methods for a new era, to be sure--are back. Score two for you, Sala.

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 former General Manager and founder of the Public Employees Union, Local No. 1, Henry LeRoy Clarke who died on January 4, 2007. For more than 38 years, Henry Clarke dedicated his life to improving working conditions for thousands of public employees in the Contra Costa County community. As General Manager, Mr. Clarke was a strong advocate on behalf of union members, transforming the political landscape from one that was highly adverse to organized labor to one that promotes mutual respect between administration and employees. Henry Clark was born on March 10, 1923, in Denver, Colorado, to a family of seven children. During the depression, Henry moved with his family to Chico, California, to prosper in farming. He graduated from Chico High as Student Body President, and soon after entered WWII to serve in General George Patton's army in Europe. After the war, Henry returned to Chico, where he was named All Western Conference Tackle while playing for Chico State. He transferred to the University of California, Berkeley in 1948 to play football under legendary coach Lynn ``Pappy'' Waldorf and study labor, economics, and politics. Although Henry was only a young student, he helped organize the food service workers at Cal into one of the first unions in the U.C. system. Upon graduating with honors from the University of California, Henry became a history teacher in the Napa public schools where he met his lovely wife Maureen. He only taught for 2 years before the school district fired him for none other than trying to form a teachers' union. From that moment on, Henry dedicated himself to the causes of organizing labor. He became the first full-time executive secretary of the California Federation of Teachers, and soon after the western representative of the American Federation of Teachers. In this position, Henry helped direct the largest collective bargaining election of teachers in the United States during the New York City teacher strikes of 1961 and 1962. In 1962, Henry took on the job of General Manager for the Contra Costa County Employees Association, a title he would hold for the next 38 years. In 1968, he founded the independent Public Employees Union, Local No. 1, which many county employees joined in order to avoid a passive international union. Henry formed the union based upon fierce democratic principles, providing each member access and a voice in the governance of the union. Under Henry's visionary leadership, Local No. 1 grew from 632 members into a model for controlled unions everywhere achieving a current membership of over 15,000, which includes public employees from Northern California's counties, cities, school districts, and special districts. Henry represented these employees with vigor until his retirement in 2000. Henry Clarke spent over four decades standing up for the rights of workers in Contra Costa County. He was a true public servant who understood the process of social justice. To Henry's son and daughter-in-law, Cameron and Ellen Clark, and his grandson, Henry Wallace, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Your loss is shared not only by those who knew Henry personally but also by all those who have been touched by the work he has done. We will be forever grateful for the integrity, passion and determination with which he sought to make our country's work environment fair and safe for all.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the chairman for yielding. I think it is just incredible that the other side of the aisle would argue, at a time when the most competitive and the most stressed oil market in the world, that what you need to develop oil leases offshore is to have government subsidies. At a time when you have national governments and international oil companies scouring the world to lock up resources, almost willing to do business with anybody in the world, doesn't matter if they are a dictator from the right or the left, at a time when countries are out trying to get their hands on these resources, we suggest the only way you can get people to drill in the most secure area of the entire world is to give them a subsidy. The national security of the United States is the subsidy they get when they drill here. They do not need additional subsidies.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 65, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to provide a great deal of assistance to those students who borrow from the subsidized student loan program. I want to thank the Rules Committee for providing for the passage of the rule for the consideration of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act. Today, millions of students and their families all across America are struggling to figure out how to pay for college. They are making critical decisions about whether college is in their future, based on what they can afford and how much debt they will be able to reasonably take on. We know that a college education is as important today as a high school diploma was a generation ago. Yet, since the 2000-2001 academic years, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities have soared by 41 percent, while those at the private universities have increased by 17 percent. This is not a problem that we can ignore. The College Student Relief Act helps students and their families by cutting interest rates for undergraduate subsidized student loans in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, phased in over 5 years. Once this interest rate is fully phased in, a student with an average loan debt of $13,800 will save approximately $4,400 over the life of their loan. I am pleased to report that the College Student Relief Act is fully paid for, and complies with the House's new, strict PAYGO rules. Additionally, all changes to both students and lenders only apply to future loans. This legislation will give much-needed relief to some 5.5 million students who borrow subsidized loans each year. The majority of students helped by College Student Relief Act are low- and middle- income students with family incomes between $26,000 to $68,000. Half of these students are eligible to receive Pell Grants, but many such students find that Pell Grants alone are insufficient. Because of the failure to increase the value of the Pell Grants over the last decade, the Pell Grant does not cover the cost of education, and so those students who are eligible for Pell Grants because of family income and resources also find out they have to borrow. They borrow from this program, so this program is an additional savings, when we pass this legislation, to those who are eligible for the Pell Grants. Providing debt relief to our students is the right thing to do. Current studies indicate that more students are borrowing more than ever. The debt level of graduates from public universities has skyrocketed by 58 percent in the past decade. The Pell Grant recipients and students with modest incomes are likely to borrow more often and in greater amount than other students. This is just the first step in helping students and their families with college education. We plan to increase Pell Grants later in the appropriation process in the amount which has seriously fallen behind the cost of college, and we need to again take a look at making college tax credits and deductions simpler to use and more robust. That is what this Congress is committed to doing in the future when we are done with these six bills in the first 100 hours. I also believe that colleges and universities should play their part in addressing affordability by becoming more diligent about cutting expenses and more transparent about college costs. We hope to address this in the 110th Congress when we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. We cannot ignore the fact that students and families are drowning in debt in such a way that many of them have been forced to make difficult choices. Some choose just not to go to school, they stop going to school or they defer going to school, or they choose professions that will be more lucrative, instead of public service professions such as teaching, social work, law enforcement and other such professions because they know the debt that they will have to repay. The debt issue and the agony families feel when they think about being able to afford college for their children is all too familiar a story to many of us who have been involved in this issue for some time. I am pleased this bill has earned wide support in the education community among students, with such groups as U.S. PIRG and the United States Students Association, with colleges and universities across the country, including the National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities and the American Council on Education, and with labor unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007, so we can tell middle- and low-income families that we want to invest in a college education, we want to help these families find a way to pay for that, and we want to do whatever we can to reduce the burden of debt that these students are taking on today in unprecedented levels, the first generation to be put in that situation. I think this is a good beginning in the first 100 hours to put this Congress on record not just as hoping to do something for students, but in fact doing something for 5.5 million students who will be eligible for the benefits under this interest rate cut. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the presentation of my colleagues on the other side; their sort of would have, could have, should have. But the fact of the matter is, last year, when they had the Higher Education Act in front of them, the only thing they did was take $16 billion out of the student aid accounts and give it to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country. They didn't think about the Pell grantees at that time. They talked about them, but they didn't do anything for the Pell grantees. They didn't do anything to lower the student loans here. They took $16 billion, and we begged them, we went to the Rules Committee and we begged them to let us recycle that money on behalf of the students on loans or Pell Grants or whatever. They said, no, this is going to the richest people in the country. And the fact of the matter is, the Rules Committee was so generous that in the entire higher education bill of last year, we got one amendment. We got one amendment. So I think the point is that on this day, here in the first 100 hours, we are going to take care of middle-and lower-income students, 5 million of them who need these resources; then we will move on to tax deductions for families. And then we are going to move on and deal with increasing the Pell, something the President promised to do 6 years ago and has never been done.

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas 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 Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.