George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for 1 minute.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I now yield to Mr. Etheridge from North Carolina for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry, and I would say to the gentleman that I appreciate you sharing your concerns with me. Nonprofit lenders, certainly, our guaranty agents all play a necessary role in the Federal student loan program. Our goal is to ensure in the end that our policy benefits all students, and I pledge to work with you to ensure that we meet this goal and maximize the benefits of the most number of students.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the staff of the majority side of the committee, Gabby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Lisette Partelow, Stephanie Moore, Brian Kennedy from my staff for their great efforts in helping to prepare this legislation for the 100 hours, legislation that will have a dramatic and important impact on the cost of student loans for students borrowing from the subsidized loan program. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, we come to the end of this debate on the question of whether or not we ought to make an effort to reduce the cost of college for millions of college students who will be taking out loans in the future to try to pay for that cost of college, and I think the resounding answer of this Congress in a few minutes will be: Yes, we should. Because we understand from discussions with our families, with our neighbors, with people in our communities that families are struggling with their children to try and figure out how they can afford them the opportunity that has become so terribly important in the economic future of these young people, and that is a college education. No longer today can you get by with a high school education. In fact, for most jobs now and most jobs certainly in the future we know that employers are telling us that at a minimum 2 years of college education is required. So this bill is about the opportunity to provide those students the means by which they go to college. I have listened to all of this discussion on the other side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is they simply don't understand the bill. When a person is deciding whether or not they are going to pay the tuition this year, some of these students are eligible for a Pell Grant, they will get their $4,100; they still won't be able to meet the cost of the college, and they will borrow money. And under this legislation, after July, they will start to get a reduced interest rate, and next year they will get a further reduction in the rate and it will continue on. Unless the Republicans are going to repeal this legislation, maybe you are going to repeal it and take away this benefit for the students, it will continue on, as the gentleman knows. Just as we have a sunset in the Higher Education Act, a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we continue to reauthorize them time and time again because that is the commitment of this Congress, and I don't think the gentleman is suggesting that. So what we have today is the opportunity for this Congress in the first 100 hours, in the first 100 hours of legislative business to reduce the student loans for those people on a subsidized loan from 6.8 percent down to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years and then thereafter. That is a magnificent opportunity. When it is fully implemented this legislation will provide $4,400 in interest rate relief. $4,400 is a very substantial relief to low income and middle income families when they look at the life cycle cost of what it is going to cost to acquire 4 years of education to get that basic B.A. degree. When they look at that, they will see that this legislation will substantially reduce their costs. But as Speaker Pelosi made very clear about this 100 hours, this is only the beginning. This is a down payment on our efforts to reduce the cost of college. Yes, we want to follow along with Mr. McKeon's suggestions and his work in talking to the universities about whether or not they are doing all they can to keep the cost of college down and to make it affordable. We want to increase the Pell Grant, and we will be doing that in this committee and in the Appropriations Committee. And we hope to be able to enlarge the tax deduction for parents who are paying for the tuition and the cost of college beyond that. So, yes, in this 100 hours, this is what we can do. This is what is affordable. Yes, my colleagues talk about all that they wanted to do. They paid for none of it. They sent the bill to these very same college students in terms of deficit, in terms of debt, in terms of interest on the debt, trillions of dollars of debt. This they may think is too small now, but the fact of the matter is, it is very important to these families that it is paid for so we don't continue to add to the debt because we have said we were also going to be fiscally responsible and have pay-as-you-go. Finally, there has been a lot of discussion today about who doesn't like this bill. Maybe some of the lenders don't like this bill, some of the pundits don't like this bill. Maybe some of the people who work with the lenders don't like this bill. The people who like this bill and the people who matter are the students. And that is why U.S. PIRG and the U.S. Student Association and so many students support this legislation, because they know what this means to them with the passage of this bill, that their interest rates will be lower. They know this will lower the cost of college. That is what we said we would do. That is what we are going to do. That is what the 100 hours have been about. That is what is going to happen with the passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Help these students and help families with the cost of college.

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I would hope that the House would turn down this motion to recommit because if you don't, there is going to be an awful lot of people who are going to be terribly disappointed. This motion as presented today would knock almost a million students out of the benefits of this legislation, the benefits of a reduced interest rate on their college loans. This motion if it is accepted would mean that families that might have one, two or maybe three kids in college, if they earn more than $68,000, they wouldn't get the benefits of this program. This amendment, as offered and if it is accepted, means that perhaps a firefighter who is married to a teacher or teachers who are married to one another would not be able to get the benefits of this program for their families. Is that what we want to do? Is that what we really want to do? We knock a million of the 5.5 million beneficiaries off eligibility for this interest rate reduction? Do we want to knock off families that may have more than one child in college off of this ability to benefit from the interest reduction? Do we want to take middle-class families, where a teacher might be married to a firefighter or teacher married to a nurse, and say to them, you are not eligible for this? I don't think you want to do, and I certainly know that the Congress doesn't want to do that. This is aimed, based upon income, the cost of the institution you go to, the number of children in your family, income determinate, you get a subsidy. What they want to do now is put a cap on the income of about $65,000, which means if you have more than one child or two children in college, you still have the income cap and you can't get help. So we are sending a message that you can help make your first child, but not the second child? That is what we are going to tell families? Their income didn't go up, but their cost just went up because another child is eligible for college? Another child said, I want to go to college. The family has to say, We can't help you because there is a cap. That is why this is called the subsidized loan program, because we recognize there are people within the middle class, at the lower end of the middle class who need this help. Two and a half million of the recipients are eligible for Pell. They are going to get this help. That is what this is designed for. This is designed for those families in the middle class that need this kind of interest rate help and is designed for those in Pell who still need additional money to go to school. That is why we picked this category of people. But to now tell hardworking Americans because of a cap you pulled out of the sky in the last 5 minutes that they can't help their children with the cost of education, that they are not eligible for this subsidy of cutting the interest rate from 6.8 to 3.4 percent, I don't get it. I don't understand it, and I don't think the Congress should support it. I don't think that is the message that we want to send to those working families. I don't think that is what we want to do. You think of your districts and you think of somebody with a family income of $65,000, and you start thinking who you are telling, you are not prepared to help with reducing the cost of college for those families. Start thinking now because you are going to vote in a few minutes. Think about that family, two parents working their tails off to make ends meet. They are firefighters, construction workers. They don't work all year round. They get laid off. They are married to a nurse or a teacher or a policeman. All of a sudden they find out that they are not eligible for this. I ask this House to give this a resounding ``no.'' This isn't fair, it isn't just, and it is wrong. It is going to drive up the cost of college for the very families and students who need it the most. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 31) honoring the Mare Island Original 21ers for their efforts to remedy racial discrimination in employment at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, yesterday on the occasion of his birthday people across this country took time to honor and celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King. Many of us participated in acts of community service and community rallies or took time out to listen to the words of Martin Luther King and his speeches. We were reminded that the words and works of this great civil rights leader are still timely today. In his writings Dr. King often cited examples of how the simple but courageous acts of one or two people to fight racial discrimination had far reaching implications for the future of this country. He talked about the persistence, the relentless persistence of average individuals to fight against discrimination, to fight against injustice, and to fight against inequalities. In his cell from the Birmingham jail, he writes of James Meredith and Rosa Parks, and how the simple but selfless acts of just one person helped change the course of this country. As he saw it, these acts and the destiny of African Americans were tied up with the destiny of America. The resolution I bring forward today honors a group of men, the Mare Island 21ers, whose destiny was tied up when they bravely took action to end racial discrimination in naval shipyards in the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1960s. The Mare Island 21ers were a group of 21 African American shipyard workers employed at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California. At that time minorities were mostly working in unskilled positions at Mare Island, as sandblasters, laborers and cleaners, with efforts to keep them out of certain positions. The discrimination was not restricted to withholding promotions and unfair hiring practices, according to one of the workers; they faced discrimination at every turn. Long time denied opportunity for advancement, these workers decided to organize. Under the leadership of Willie Long, a journeyman pipefitter from Shop 56 who was also a World War II veteran and a Pearl Harbor survivor, the group met in complete secrecy to protect their safety and their jobs. Not long after the group began to meet, President Kennedy issued his executive order establishing the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities and reaffirming the prohibition against discrimination against any employee of or application for employment by the Federal Government because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The order issued in March of 1961 also created a discrimination complaint process for Federal workers. Learning of the President's executive order, the 21ers decided to file a complaint with the committee. The complaint covered deplorable conditions for African American workers at the shipyard, including the denial of promotions and access to the apprenticeship program, and general unfair treatment. In their report they cited that there was an established unwritten practice at the Mare Island Shipyard not to upgrade third step mechanics no matter what the qualifications of the employee are at any given time. As a result, there are Negro employees with 15 or 20 years of experience still in this category while white workers with much less experience and time have moved rapidly up the ladder of promotion. They also said that Negro employees are systemically barred from supervisorial positions although many are entitled to such positions by reason of seniority and experience. There are two Negro lead men and sandblasters and one Negro leading man laborer out of a force of hundreds of supervisors, and the statistics proved this discrimination. He also said that Negroes who take examinations for advancement for the most part are flunked out on later oral interviews even though they passed the previous examination. The board is made up of the top three supervisors within the shop; and so long as this situation exists, Negroes will never be able to advance through examination. Young Negro men are refused the opportunity of apprenticeship training for the most part in Shop 56. No Negro apprentices have been hired in at least 3 years. In over 20 years at Mare Island, no Negro mechanic has ever received a superior accomplishment award, to our knowledge, which included cash bonuses for those who got it. Then, in fact when the time came for apprenticeship programs, they were not given credit for the training related to their jobs and they take on their own orders in advance of themselves. In fact, Negroes are discouraged from taking any training. And, of course, when the fleet started to change in this country and we went to atomic submarines, there were no Negroes who had been selected for the training of this program. This was the kind of discrimination that this brave group of men who had to meet in secret, who had to be very careful that anybody at the workplace would not know that they were discussing this with their fellow workers when they met at home, they said, with all of the shades drawn, this is the discrimination that they were living under in the Naval Shipyard at that time and this is the discrimination that they cited to President Kennedy's employment board. It was a complaint among many that were received by the Committee on Equal Employment in the early days of its existence. Finally, the Navy was forced to pay attention to the long history of discrimination felt by the workers at Mare Island. In August of 1963, almost 2 years after the initial complaint was filed, the Navy put policies in place to affirmatively take action on behalf of minority workers. These heroic men included Willie Long, Boston Banks, Jr., Matthew Barnes, Louis Greer, Jake Sloan, Charles Fluker, Clarence Williams, James Davis, Thomas King, Robert E. Borden, James O. Hall, Matthew Luke, Herman Moore, Jimmy James, John L. McGhee, James J. Colbert, Virgil N. Herndon, Eddie Brady, Brodie Taylor, W.J. Price, Levi Jones, Herbert H. Lane, Kermit Day, and Charles Scales. The actions of the Mare Island 21ers resulted in new employment opportunities for African Americans at other naval bases all across the Nation. Despite these pioneering steps, their early civil rights efforts remained in obscurity until recently. The group's surviving members still talk about the movement, but the full story was buried in the 1960s and only recently came to light as a result of a series in the newspaper articles by the Vallejo Times Herald reporter Matthias Gafni. Mr. Speaker, in tribute to these men and their fight to end racial discrimination in the workplace, it is proper for Congress to formally recognize the Mare Island Original 21ers and thank them for their heroic actions and their gift to this Nation to end discrimination in the naval shipyards. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his comments and appreciate his support for this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee. (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his support of this. This naval shipyard, it has been closed and it is going through the reused process, and it is a very, very exciting economic development plan for the city of Vallejo. It is in my district. And just down the way, down the river to San Francisco Bay is the Rosie the Riveter historic site. And at Rosie the Riveter, they talk about the various sites where we assembled the great American armada to carry supplies and troops to the Pacific during the Second World War. In the town in which I was born, in Richmond, California, the Second World War and the Kaiser shipyards being located there overnight completed integrating the city. And of course we all know the story of women who went to work, women of all races went to work in those Kaiser shipyards; blacks went to work alongside white shipyard workers. Then they moved on, the shipyard, in peacetime at Mare Island, and that is where this discrimination took place. Because of the actions of President Kennedy, because of the actions of people like the Mare Island 21ers and a lot of other brave people, today we look back at this as part of history in terms of workplace discrimination, certainly the Federal Government, one of the integrated workforces in the country. It is because of these kinds of actions that we can now speak of this, for the most part, as part of our historical past, but never losing sight of the sacrifice and the courage of ordinary people to move the dial toward integration from discrimination. It wasn't easy in these communities; it wasn't easy in these workplaces. So when we see actions like this taken, I think it is quite fitting that the Congress would recognize this by passing this resolution commending the actions of courage of these 21 African American workers in the shipyard. I thank my colleagues for support of this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his words in support of this resolution. I would hope that the House would adopt it unanimously. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the College Student Relief Act of 2007, a bill that will deliver much needed relief for students and families. The College Student Relief Act of 2007 cuts interest rates in half phased in over 5 years starting July 1, 2007. This proposal will provide debt relief for over five million students and families by cutting interest rates in half for undergraduate borrowers of subsidized loans. In keeping with our promise to be fiscally responsible, this bill provides offsets in full compliance with our newly passed PAYGO rules. Madam speaker, as you know college affordability is one of the most important issues facing students and families. With the significant increases in tuition over the last five years our nation's students and families will finally get some much needed help with their student loans. Millions of college students and parents of college students are struggling to come up with the financial resources to pay for college. And many would-be students--as many as 200,000 per year--are choosing to delay or forgo attending college altogether because they can't afford it. This debt problem affects all of us. Public service professions like teaching are suffering, because graduates cannot manage their college debt on public service salaries. Nearly a quarter of recent college graduates have too much debt to manage on a starting teacher's salary. This poses a serious threat not just to students and families, but to our Nation's economy and to the future of our workforce. Today, we are finally taking our Nation's students and families in a New Direction by making college affordability a top priority. Once fully phased in, these cuts will save the typical borrower with $13,800 in needbased federal loan debt roughly $4,400 over the life of their loan. In my home State of California, this bill will save the typical borrower $4,830 over the life of their loan. This will be an important first step towards making college more affordable and accessible for millions of low-income and middle class students. As Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, one of our top priorities will be to continue to lower college costs for all qualified students. I look forward to seeing this bill pass through the House with overwhelming support and bringing help to our students and families.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, and I want to thank the committee for bringing this bill to the floor and look forward to its passage. In 2003, I opposed the President's prescription drug plan because it was clear that it would not help America's elderly and America's sick. Instead, the bill guaranteed high prices to drug makers, by prohibiting the Federal Government from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of seniors. Today we have an opportunity to correct one of the wrongs instituted by that bill. The bill before us today is part of our ambitious agenda for the first 100 hours in this new Congress, and will start to put the interests of seniors before those of drug companies. The states, the V.A., Fortune 500 companies, and large pharmacy chains all use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for their patients. Medicare beneficiaries deserve the same opportunity. Giving HHS drug price negotiating authority for Medicare has overwhelming bipartisan support across the country; along with support from organizations like AARP, Consumers Union, and AFL-CIO. Negotiating for lower prescription drug prices will be the first step towards fixing this highly flawed system and helping our seniors.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, last night the President spoke to the Nation and presented his proposal to the Nation to increase the troop levels an additional 20,000 troops to be sent to Iraq to continue the war in Iraq. What the President didn't do was lay out the plan of how that would be successful, how that would be different than what we are currently doing, and how the results would be different. The President, with his initial decision to invade Iraq, a decision that was his choice, and this was not a war of necessity, this was not a war to protect the vital interests of the United States, or the integrity of the United States or the safety of our homeland, this was a war where the President chose to go to war. At the time he was considering going to war, he was advised by many. We all know this history of many saying not to do this and also saying that this would not work in Iraq with its history, with its culture, with its religious differences. But the President chose to go anyway, and we have been there now for 3 years. Over 3,000 young Americans have paid with their lives for this endeavor, and over 20,000 have been wounded, seriously wounded. I have had the honor to visit with many of those soldiers as they have returned to Walter Reed Hospital with life-changing, life-changing wounds. It is remarkable that they would survive them at all, a great testimony to the medical care that is available to them, but nevertheless, life-changing injuries for these young men and women. Now the President is suggesting, with his plan for escalation, that we will send another 20,000. The fact of the matter is that American soldiers have done all that they can for the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people, the Iraqi Government, has chosen not to take advantage of having the Americans in the country to resolve their political differences, to resolve their differences of culture and religion. They have chosen to continue to fight. In fact, we find that our soldiers more and more now are simply the targets within the civil war that is going on in Iraq; and for all intents and purposes there is no reason to suggest that that is going to change. The President has suggested that somehow the current Iraqi Government will have to meet some thresholds. Those thresholds are absolutely contrary to the interest of that government in terms of their survival. It is asking for a betrayal of that government against its Shi'a base, and it fails to recognize how fundamental, how fundamental the clash is between the Sunnis and the Shi'a, not just in Iraq, but throughout this region. If the President had taken time before the invasion, he might have been able to understand that. But it is a fundamental clash between these two factions in Islam. Because of the actions of this President, he has unleashed the ability of that clash to present very real rewards and very high stakes for either sides. It is not just the oil in Iraq or the governance in Iraq, but it is really about the ability of the Shi'a to spread their influence beyond Iran, to spread their influence beyond being a majority minority in Iraq, to spread their influence beyond being a minority in Lebanon or in Syria; and these are fundamental, and they go back a long time in the history in the clashes between Sunni and Shi'a and how the Shi'a have been treated in countries where they are a minority whether it is in Jordan or whether it is in Saudi Arabia or other countries in the peninsula. This is very, very fundamental, and the stakes are very high. At this moment our troops are a pawn in that game, in spite of what the President suggests that this is about the security of the region, this is about the blooming of democracy. It is not about any of that any longer. It may have been in his mind when he signed the order to send these troops to Iraq; but the fact of the matter is, it has been overwhelmed by history, by culture, by the nature of the region, all of which he made worse by this disastrous decision of his to choose to go to war in Iraq. The idea now that contrary to the overwhelming desire of the American people to disengage from this area, and of this Congress that he would go forward, is arrogance that is so dangerous, so dangerous to our country, our standing in the world, and our troops in the region that immediately action should be taken in this Congress to stop this President from going forward with this very dangerous escalation that will do nothing more than add to the list of casualties by American soldiers in this region.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the disaster that we now see unfolding in the Middle East with the war in Iraq was set in motion when this President, against the advice of so many generals and military people, and against the advice of so many Middle East experts, made the decision to invade Iraq. It was a war of choice, a choice not made by the American people, but a choice made by this President. And he set in motion the disaster that we now see. We understand that this decision that he made has been paid for by the lives and the injuries and the harm done to our men and women in uniform. Last night he asked for a continuation of that disastrous choice with no new plan to change the outcome, but to simply extend the time in which our military will be engaged in Iraq. It is foolhardy to believe that we should be sending our troops into Iraq based upon the theory that the Shia majority in Iraq for the first time in 100 years and the growing Shia majority across the Middle East is going to negotiate away their ability to act as a majority. This is a foolhardy trip, and we ought to vote against the President's proposal.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Pelosi spoke about the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, one of the things she said she wanted to accomplish was to begin to make the economy fairer for all Americans. Today, with this legislation to increase the minimum wage, we begin that task. For 10 years, the lowest-paid workers in America have been frozen out of the economy of this country. They have ended up every year, after going to work every day, every week, every month, they have ended up poor, far below the poverty line of this country. They have been working at a Federal poverty wage, not a Federal minimum wage. I am very honored today to be here supporting this legislation as the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. I am also very honored to be sharing this legislation with our new majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. Because of his activities in the last Congress, we were able to bring this issue to a head because of the amendment that he offered on the Health and Human Services bill, where the Republicans chose not to bring the bill to the floor of the Congress, not to bring it to a vote because they wanted to deny American workers access to the minimum wage. I consider this a new beginning and a new Congress, but I must say I cannot let the history that the gentleman from California laid out for us to suggest that that is the record. The gentleman has said numerous times in his opening statement that this is a colossal missed opportunity. Let me tell you what a colossal missed opportunity is. For the last 10 years, the Republican leadership in this House fought tooth and nail to avoid any, any opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. The only time they thought the poorest workers in America were worth an increase in the minimum wage was if they could tie it to a tax cut for the wealthiest people in the United States. So they never really were interested in it. They wanted to use the power of the sense of fairness that the American public had about the treatment of the poorest workers. They wanted to use that power, that sense of outrage, that sense of immorality that they had about what the Republicans were doing, to drive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. They said they were going to pass the bill and send it to the President's desk. We said it was going to die in the Senate, and it died in the Senate. And here today we see the same proposal being made. They are going to suggest that later today they are going to couple minimum wage with the wonderful health care plan for workers. Their own CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says that more than 75 percent of the small business workers, over 20 million workers and their dependents, would see their health insurance premiums increase as a result of this proposal. So now they are going to give these workers an increase in the minimum wage, but then they are going to increase their premiums for health insurance. What a wonderful gift from the Republican Party. Can't you just give these workers an increase and be done with it? They have been working at a 10-year-old minimum wage, but they are paying 2007 bread prices and milk prices and energy prices and rentals. Where is the decency? Where is the decency to give these workers what they are entitled to, what everybody knows that they should have? Not only that, but then we find out with this wonderful health plan that some 8 million workers who are currently insured will probably lose their insurance. So now they are going to, if you get insurance, they are going to increase the premiums. If you have insurance, you may lose your insurance. This isn't what America thinks makes the economy fair. What they think makes the economy fair is an increase in the minimum wage. As you all know, this is the longest period in history of law without a wage increase. During that time, the minimum wage has dropped to its lowest buying power in 51 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 would increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over three steps over the next 2 years. Raising the minimum wage is critical to fighting the middle-class squeeze in this country. Fifty-nine percent of American workers state that they have to work harder to earn a decent living than they did 20 or 30 years ago. Since 2001, the median household incomes have fallen by $1,300. Wages and salaries make up the lowest share of the economy in nearly six decades. Meanwhile, corporate profits, CEO buyouts, golden parachutes, golden handshakes and golden hellos take hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars out of the same corporations that say they can't give an increase to their workers. While the economy is growing and the wealth of its Nation is increasing, more Americans are struggling to pay their bills. Over the last 5 years, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased from 5.4 million to 37 million. One in six children now lives in poverty. Since 2000, prices of education, gasoline and health care have all greatly outpaced inflation. Raising the minimum wage is an important first step for the Congress in its efforts to stand up for middle class and to stem the middle-class squeeze. This raise will make a real, critical difference to millions of people's lives, and that is what America understands. You pass the minimum wage, and you dramatically change life for millions of people. Does it solve their economic problems? Does it solve the economic stress? No, it doesn't. But it changes their lives. For a family of three, increasing the minimum wage will mean an additional $4,400 a year, equaling 15 months of groceries or 2 years' worth of health care. That is a change in the standing of these people's lives. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in 2009, taking into account the increases in family earned income tax credit will take those people who are 11 percent below the poverty level line and move them to 5 percent above the poverty line. Still close to the poverty line but beginning to make this economy fair.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).