George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would simply press the point that the motion to recommit offered by the minority is not germane, and it contains tax provisions and others that are outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, today is a remarkable day, because after 10 years, we are going to have an up-and-down vote on whether the poorest people in our Nation, who are working every day and, at the end of the year, end up poor, deserve a raise. That is what we are going to do today. For 10 years, we have struggled to have this vote, and now we are finally going to have it. We have had a lot of excuses why we couldn't have it. We have had votes hijacked, and we have had votes pulled off the floor, but we could never have this vote. Today, the beginning of the 100 hours, we are going to have this vote. We are going to have this vote, because this is a major concern. This is a major concern to the American society. What so many of my colleagues made clear today in the debate is that after you have stalled this vote for 10 years, this goes way beyond the dollars and cents of the minimum wage. It goes to the core values of America and economic justice and social justice and fairness and whether or not every American is going to get to participate in the American economic system and also be able to provide for their children and their families. But my colleagues didn't disappoint me today on the other side of the aisle. We have one more bump in the road. This last moment, they have offered us a motion to recommit where they say, if you offer your employees a health care plan, you can keep the minimum wage at $5.15. Now it doesn't say that health care plan has to be affordable. It doesn't say what the deductibles are, the copayments, which I am sure if you are a minimum wage worker at $5.15 today, a wage that is 10 years old, I am sure you can pay the copayments and the deductibles and the premiums. That will not be a problem. What is it you don't understand about being poor? What is it you don't understand? You are stuck at $5.15 in today's world. You can't buy the gasoline to go to work, the bread to put on the table, the milk out of the refrigerator. Your utilities are going up. The rent is going up. Now you say, by the way, if you can pay for a health care plan, you can stay at the minimum wage, you lucky ducky. I don't think that is what America was talking about when 89 percent of them said they want this Congress to raise the minimum wage, not trade it in, not trade it in. They didn't ask us to trade in the increase in the minimum wage for some phantom health care proposal. You know what the average premium is for a family? The average premium is $10,880. Okay. That is good plans and bad plans together. Cut it in half. You are at the minimum wage. You have got to pay $5,000? Cut it in half again. You are at the minimum wage. You can pay another $2,000 for your health care? I don't think so. I don't think so. Let us get on with the Nation's business, with the people's business, and with the minimum-wage workers' business. Let us reject this motion and pass this bill now.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to give voice to tens of millions of Americans throughout our country who are looking for an end to the war in Iraq. I rise on behalf of our brave soldiers on our battlefield who have done everything our country has asked of them under terrible circumstances and who have made terrible sacrifices. I rise on behalf of their families who have suffered great losses and who worry day and night for their safety and for the loved ones still in combat. I rise this evening to call on our President to give the Nation what it has deserved, a viable plan to safely bring this war to an end, to redeploy the American forces out of Iraq, and turn the future of Iraq over to the Iraqi people once and for all. President Bush is soon expected to call for an escalation to the war in Iraq, seeking to deploy an additional 20,000 troops into combat. The President's plan would be just the latest in a series of flawed and tragic decisions that he has made regarding Iraq. The President was advised at the outset of the war by one of his top generals to send a large American force in order to win. President Bush rejected that idea, and since then he has tried at different times a surge of American troops in an effort to win the war. Now, each time that effort has failed. Now he appears ready to defy the odds and take great risks with the lives of others in order to try his plan one more time. The President has failed to make a compelling case for adding more troops into what is clearly the greatest American foreign policy disaster in half a century or even longer. I applaud the efforts of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have called for a new course in Iraq. On Friday they wrote: ``Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next 4 to 6 months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.'' I implore the President to seriously consider these views, and I implore him to also consider the views of the current and former military and political leaders of his own administration who have openly questioned sending additional troops to Iraq. For instance, on December 17 in 2006, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.'' On November 15 General Abizaid expressed, ``I've met with every divisional commander. General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I said, `In your professional opinion, if we were to bring more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no.'' The war in Iraq is a mistake from the beginning, and I voted against authorizing this war. But regardless of one's position then, clearly there is no sound basis now for increasing America's military presence in Iraq. The war has claimed the lives of over 3,000 American soldiers and has wounded more than 20,000, and it has clearly become a civil war. It is unconscionable to ask one more American soldier to fight and die in a civil war in Iraq. The President must engage key nations like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and others in an effort to create a political solution in Iraq. The Nation opposes the ongoing war in America. There is still time for the President to change course, to reconsider his call for 20,000 more troops in Iraq, and to begin the redeployment of our troops and our forces now. I salute those who continue to serve in Iraq. I salute their families and pledge to them my unyielding support and respect as we try to safely bring the war to an end. Mr. President, listen to the people of the Nation which you govern. They have spoken, and they have spoken overwhelmingly. They reject the prolonging of the war in Iraq. They want our soldiers redeployed and brought home safely, and they want it done now. Please, Mr. President, listen to the people of this Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the Mare Island Original 21ers for their efforts to end racial discrimination at Mare Island Naval Shipyard. On Nov. 17, 1962, twenty-one African American workers at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, CA, took a historic step by filing a racial discrimination complaint with President Kennedy's newly created Committee on Equal Job Opportunities. The complaint quickly helped lead to sweeping changes locally at the shipyard and nationally at military installations, including early Affirmative Action-type programs. All the men wanted was a wage comparable to their white co-workers and to be treated equally. What they started was a chain reaction that reverberated around the country. The group would become known as the Mare Island Original 21ers, and would forever change the base's social landscape. Despite these pioneering steps, their early civil rights efforts remain in obscurity. 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 of newspaper articles by Vallejo Times Herald reporter Matthias Gafni. Their story is typical of the time. Vallejo was a Navy town, and a separated one. With its naval shipyard, Vallejo has always had a population reflecting a wide range of ethnic backgrounds; but it was not always harmonious. In the late 1950s 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. At every phase of each work day they faced discrimination. By 1960 the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy and the African American workers were losing patience. In March 1961, President Kennedy issued an executive order establishing a sweeping, government-wide Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. Twenty-one workers began organizing under the leadership of Willie Long, meeting in complete secrecy to protect their safety and their jobs. A complaint was drafted and twenty-five workers ultimately signed it. The complaint covered deplorable conditions for black workers, involving promotions, the apprenticeship program, and general unfair treatment. The shipyard commander found no pattern of discrimination, but President Kennedy's committee was inundated with similar complaints from around the country and changes were finally made after several years. Almost everyone who signed the original complaint was promoted to supervisor and fortunately escaped any of the serious reprisals they feared. Their quiet but risky fight for equal treatment helped change our Nation. 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, Jimmie 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. Madam Speaker, in tribute to these men and their fight for equal rights, it is proper for us, and it is indeed my honor, to formally recognize the Mare Island Original 21ers, and thank them for their heroic actions.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, as part of this first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, I am proud to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. The introduction of this bill provides Congress with a long-overdue opportunity to stand up for the dignity of those 5.6 million workers in the United States making minimum wage, or near minimum wage. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 would increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour in three steps over two years. Under this bill, sixty days after enactment, the wage would rise from the current $5.15 per hour to $5.85 per hour. One year later, it would rise to $6.55. And a year after that, it would finally rise to $7.25 per hour. The bill also extends federal minimum wage coverage, under a separate timetable, to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For almost a decade, the federal minimum wage has remained at just $5.15 an hour. The nation's poorest workers have suffered through the longest period in the history of the law without a pay raise. As a result of congressional inaction, the real value of the minimum wage has hit a 51-year low. If the rate remains unchanged in 2007, a minimum wage employee working full-time will earn only $10,712, which is $5,888 less than the $16,600 needed to lift a family of three out of poverty. This is unconscionable. These Americans have suffered at poverty wages for far too long. It is time for Congress to demonstrate that it values hard work. Nearly 13 million American workers will see their pay rise as a result of the Fair Minimum Wage Act--5.6 million workers directly and 7.4 million workers indirectly. This number includes 7.7 million women, 3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color. 79 percent of these workers are adults, and the majority of these workers work full- time. Families with affected workers rely on those workers for more than half of their family's income. 46 percent of child-rearing families with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those workers. If this bill becomes law, over 6.3 million children would see their parents' income rise. For a family of three this means an additional $4,400 a year, equaling 15 months worth of groceries or two years worth of health care for these families. It will mean greater dignity on the job. Congress has a moral duty to raise the minimum wage. Churches, synagogues, and other faith groups are calling on Congress to support the Fair Minimum Wage Act. In this country, an average CEO earns more before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage worker earns all year. This is a moral outrage in the richest country on earth. With the costs of health insurance, gasoline, and college tuition increasing, it is important, now more than ever, that we raise the minimum wage so that these hard working Americans are able to meet basic human needs. Raising the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do, it is also economically prudent. Increasing the minimum wage will help boost the economy as a whole, putting more money into the hands of those people who need it and will spend it--indeed, spend it on basic necessities. Last year, some 665 economists, including several Nobel Laureates, signed a statement in support of raising the minimum wage. As they explained, the ``minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage is also an important tool in fighting poverty.'' Raising the minimum wage is critical to fighting the middle class squeeze in this country. America's middle class is this country's economic backbone. It is what makes us strong. Yet the middle class is shrinking. Since 2001, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million, to 37 million. More than one in six American children now lives in poverty. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is an important first step for this new Congress in its efforts to stand up for the middle class and to stem the squeeze.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by Congressman Radanovich to implement a practical agreement to revive our State's second-longest river. This is a remarkable accomplishment, and I congratulate the parties who have worked tirelessly to get to this point. When we debated and passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act in the early 1990s, we anticipated a program to reestablish the San Joaquin River's salmon run that was eliminated by the construction of Friant Dam. But bringing about something as momentous as this agreement is easier said than done. This settlement has been literally decades in the making, and I think we should all be very glad we're at this point, rather than watching another several years of litigation and argument. It took a collaborative effort to bring this settlement about, and I'd like to take a moment to recognize the leaders of this effort. Congressman Radanovich and Senator Dianne Feinstein took the lead in directing the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Friant water users to settle the 18-year legal dispute, and in negotiating the legislation to implement their settlement. Attorney Hal Candee has shepherded NRDC's effort to reverse 60 years of destruction on the San Joaquin, and Friant's counsel, Dan Dooley, ensured that the river could flow without devastating his farmers. My hat is off to each of the parties who have made this happen. There is still a lot of work to be done before the salmon can return to the San Joaquin River again, and I look forward to working in the 110th Congress and beyond to help move the restoration efforts forward. I will also make sure that this worthy effort does not detract from other ongoing restoration efforts, like the important work taking place on the Trinity River in northern California. There is still much to be done in order to implement and fund the 2000 Record of Decision for Trinity River restoration, and I intend to work with my colleagues to restore that river and its fishery, including the resources that the United States holds in trust for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. Again, I want to thank those who have led in this collaborative effort, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to settle a very long legal dispute and finally to bring salmon back to the once- great San Joaquin River.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER

Mr. GEORGE MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill H. Res. 1091, to condemn Iran's commitment to hold an international Holocaust- denial conference. Recent reports that the Iranian government is sponsoring a Holocaust- denial conference are deeply disturbing and offensive. Over the course of the last year, the tirades and actions of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government have included calling the Holocaust a myth and holding an international contest for cartoons about the Nazi genocide. President Ahmadinejad has also called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' and his anti-Semitic rhetoric and this conference are clearly part of an ongoing campaign to attack the Jewish people and Israel by any possible means. We live in a time in world history when we desperately need increased cooperation and understanding between nations and peoples in order to help reduce, not exacerbate, hostilities and tensions that can lead to deadly conflict. There is no place for these state-sponsored anti-Israel and anti- Semitic provocations. And there is no justification, of course, for a conference on whether or not the Holocaust ever occurred. We all know that it did. To suggest otherwise is a repugnant and inflammatory action that is deeply disturbing to the Jewish people and to all people who had to endure the atrocities of World War II and all genocides that have occurred before and since. I join my colleagues and the world community in rejecting and denouncing this effort to fan the flames of hatred.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart, I rise to pay tribute to the life of former California State Senator John A. Nejedly who died on September 19, 2006. For more than 35 years, Senator Nejedly dedicated his life to serving the people of California and his Contra Costa County community. As a California State Senator, Mr. Nejedly was a brilliant leader in environmental policy and following his career in the senate, he was a relentless advocate for disadvantaged youths in Contra Costa County and throughout California. John A. Nejedly was born on October 22, 1914, in Oakland, California, and had been a resident of Walnut Creek since 1938. He graduated from the University of California with a Bachelor of Science degree and in 1941 earned his law degree from Boalt School of Law. His ties to the University were especially strong and the gold sweater he wore as a symbol of his devotion to Cal soon became his trademark. In 1942, with World War II at hand, John Nejedly became an intelligence officer in the Army Air Force and served as a Japanese language officer until his honorable discharge in 1946. Shortly after the war, John opened his law firm and was soon after appointed to the position of City Attorney for the city of Walnut Creek and Deputy District Attorney for Contra Costa County. He worked diligently in this capacity for 12 years before being elected Contra Costa County District Attorney. In 1969, District Attorney Nejedly was elected to the California State Senate. John served the people of the 7th Senate District with distinction for 11 years. As a State senator, he wrote some of California's most important environmental laws and in the process became one of our State's principal water policy experts. He also helped create one of California's greatest urban park institutions for Contra Costa County. Renowned for his art of persuasion, John was instrumental in securing our precious resources for generations to come and, as a result, in 1966 he was named one of ten ``Outstanding Americans in the Field of Conservation''. Senator Nejedly retired from public office in 1980 and followed his passion of helping disadvantaged youth full time. He donated 80 acres of landing California's Sierra Mountains to provide a camp for the Boy Scouts and created the Contra Costa Youth Council to assist disabled, and underpivileged youth take pleasure in the outdoors. In addition, he funded a generous scholarship to help minority adults today who will never forget the generosity and compassion John Nejedly showed them in their youth. Throughout his life, John was magnificent leader. Whether it was water, open space or parks he was a pioneer. He was a true public servant. To John's children, Mary Piepho, his sons, Jim and John, his stepson, Greg, and his grandchildren I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared not only by those who knew John personally but also by all those who have been touched by the work he has done. We will be forever grateful for the integrity, compassion and generosity with which he sought to make our community, the State of California, and our country, a better place for all of us. We are extremely grateful to John's family for sharing him with us for so many years.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rev. Angelo D'Agostino, a hero and a pioneer in the fight against AIDS in Africa. I was deeply saddened when I heard news of Father D'Agostino's death. I met Father D'Agostino on my trip to Kenya in 2000 and I became a firm believer in his AIDS orphans and families programs. He was a friend and a champion in the fight against AIDS. Constantly fighting the small battles on the front lines of the war against AIDS, he was responsible for improving the lives of many young Kenyans devastated by the scourge of AIDS. Father D'Agostino, a Jesuit priest, was sent to Kenya to coordinate the refugee work of the Jesuits. Through his work, he was exposed to the AIDS-affected population of the country. All over Kenya, children were orphaned as AIDS claimed the lives of their parents; leaving the children alone, abandoned and in many cases HIV positive. He was deeply disturbed by the devastating effect of the disease on children and the community and knew that helping these children and families was his mission. Father D'Agostino dedicated his life to making a better life for those suffering the devastating effects of the horrible disease. He founded the Nyumbani Orphanage with three children in 1992 and expanded it into a community for children and adults alike. The Nyumbani organization is also involved in community-based programs such as Leo Toto (meaning to raise a child), which are set up to provide outreach services to HIV-positive children and their families in the Nairobi area. His tireless efforts to better the lives of those touched by AIDS were widely successful. Father D'Agostino believed that every individual had a right to an education. He successfully sued the Kenyan Government, forcing them to repeal a law banning HIV positive children from public schools. Under Father D'Agostino's leadership, Nyumbani became the first place in Africa to import hugely discounted AIDS drugs. It also has the most advanced blood diagnostic laboratory in Kenya. Father D'Agostino was truly a hero and a pioneer in the fight against the scourge of AIDS. He believed that every HIV positive and AIDS inflicted child and family, no matter how poor or meager their existence, deserved the chance to live a better life. He was a model for those who wish to dedicate themselves to improving the lives of others. I admire his work and commitment in serving children marginalized by society. He will be missed.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will help the San Francisco Bay Area to solve its water challenges. My bill, ``The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006,'' will provide local agencies with the Federal partner that they need in order to implement an ambitious and forward-thinking regional water recycling program. We put the tools for these Federal-local water recycling partnerships in place with the historic Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, which not only included my Central Valley Project Improvement Act but featured a provision now known simply as the ``Title XVI'' water recycling program. Across the country--and especially throughout the West and California--people recognize the critical need for water recycling as a means of drought-proofing and increasing our reliable water supply. Accordingly, the Title XVI program has been embraced not only by policymakers, local agencies, and water managers but by many within the Bureau of Reclamation, from the staff level to regional directors. Unfortunately, even though people on the ground understand the need for these recycling partnerships, the Bureau of Reclamation's official position is to oppose nearly every project proposed under Title XVI. As recently as this week, the Administration testified against two water recycling projects in the House Water and Power subcommittee. This opposition from the Administration has made it very difficult for local agencies to get the Federal support and funding that they deserve. Instead of providing Federal cost sharing and technical support to local water recycling projects, the Bureau has effectively let proposals under the existing Title XVI program pile up. This is a shame. These projects are the future of water supply, and it's high time the Bureau joined that future. The best water recycling and reclamation projects are sustainable, scalable, reliable, and meet local needs with a local funding source. Unlike major dams and storage projects, water recycling projects do not have to cost billions of dollars, they don't destroy rivers--in fact, they can ease the pressure on natural waterways --and they don't trigger decades of litigation. In addition, traditional storage projects based on major dams and reservoirs have to spend the last dollar, pour the last ounce of concrete, and line the last canal before a single drop of water comes through the tap. But water recycling is modular and incremental, meaning that as each piece of the system is put in place, you can serve more people and more industries; you don't have to wait years to see results, and you can build on your successes by easily expanding the infrastructure to meet new needs. I hope that under the new Reclamation commissioner and the new Secretary of the Interior we will see a new commitment to the Title XVI program and to these clean solutions to water conflicts. It is very clear to me and to most others who follow these issues that the Bureau has struggled to keep pace in the modem era of water policy. In future Congresses, I am hopeful that we will review the agency's mission and its budget to determine that it is headed in the right direction. There is increasing awareness in Congress regarding the importance of water recycling, and an increasing commitment to improving Title XVI so that it works for everyone. For instance, I am very glad that my colleagues, Representative Napolitano, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Feinstein, have taken the lead in introducing legislation to reform the Title XVI program. Their new bipartisan, bicameral proposal, entitled ``Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act,'' is a wise one. First, their bill makes it perfectly clear that the Bureau of Reclamation's role includes creating new water supplies by reclamation and recycling. Second, as Senator Feinstein summarized it in her introductory statement, the legislation ``establishes firm deadlines, a clear process, and very specific criteria by which project reviews are to be conducted.'' This will help ensure that deserving projects don't get left on the shelf. This legislation is sound, and I hope to work with my colleagues to implement it. And with the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006 that I am introducing today, I am applying the principles of the ``Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act'' to the San Francisco Bay Area. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a collaboration of public utilities that helps to meet our region's and state's growing water needs through a set of recycling and reclamation projects. As the program agencies wrote in a letter to me this summer: ``The regional approach ensures that potential projects with the greatest regional and statewide benefit receive the highest priority and support for implementation.'' The projects in this coalition have been repeatedly vetted, both internally at the local level and by the Bureau of Reclamation. The 2004 CALFED authorization directed the Department of the Interior to assess these projects' feasibility under Title XVI. That report, released this-year, stated that many of the Bay Area projects ``were very close to meeting the requirements,'' but that none passed all the Federal tests. Unfortunately, like other deserving Title XVI proposals across the West, that could have been where these projects stalled. We need to encourage communities who are trying to meet water demands with innovative technologies. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006, which is the result of a long process of deliberation and communication with those local agencies, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the six Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program projects that are closest to completion. Each community with a project will be eligible to receive 20 percent of the project's construction cost. Constructing all six of these projects will bring online nearly 10,000 acre-feet per year of reliable dry-year water supply. To produce the same amount of water with a traditional dam and reservoir project, you would need a dedicated facility that stored 47,500 acre-feet of water. Projects included in the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006 are located in the City of Palo Alto; in the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch through the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD); in the North Coast County Water District; in Redwood City in partnership with the South Bayside System Authority; and in the City of Gilroy in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Although these worthy projects have supplied local funding, and secured matching State funding, they still need the Federal partner to step up. That's why my legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate in these six projects. I know for a fact that Pittsburg, in my district, has worked diligently, along with Delta Diablo, to move through each step of the existing Title XVI process. This legislation gives them the assurance that the Federal partner will be there for them at the end to help implement their viable, feasible, and laudable project. There is a clear Federal interest in these projects, as there is in the other successful regional recycling programs like those of Southern California. A good water recycling program stretches existing supplies and provides certainty to all of the water users in the area; conflict can be reduced even in a critically dry year. As we all know, a stable and reliable regional water supply makes good neighbors. This very small Federal investment in the Bay Area Water Recycling Program will yield massive dividends to the Bay Area over time. Every gallon of recycled water that goes towards irrigating a golf course or highway median--or for commercial or industrial use--is a gallon of water that didn't need to be pulled from the troubled Bay-Delta. These programs are a fiscal and environmental win-win, and encouraging them is sound federal policy. I'm glad to be able to help them with this new bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I again would like to commend Representative Napolitano and Senators. Feinstein and Murkowski for their leadership.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding. Madam Speaker, here we are, close to adjournment, maybe 48 hours from now the Congress will go home for the elections, and we will leave millions of Americans who work at the minimum wage, who are stuck at a poverty wage, because of the failure of this Congress to address that issue. What that means is that for those millions of Americans who go to work every day, all year long, at the end of the year they will end up poor. They end up with the inability to provide for their families, to provide for their health care, to provide for their transportation and the education of their families. Why is that so? Because for 10 years, the Republicans in the Congress have successfully fought any increase in the minimum wage, and they have done it proudly. They believe that these people aren't entitled to any more money than the minimum wage that they are receiving today. Now, that minimum wage has less purchasing power than at any time in the 50 years we have had the minimum wage. These people are falling behind every day, every month. We just saw yesterday in the newspapers that health care costs went up 7 percent. We know what has happened to families with energy costs. We know what has happened with utility costs. We know what has happened with educational costs and with the price of groceries. All of these things have gone up in these people's lives, but what hasn't gone up is the wages they work at. The Republican Party is apparently perfectly content, even though we have the votes to pass the minimum wage, we have the votes in the Senate to pass the minimum wage, they are completely content to go home without an increase in the minimum wage. It is shameful, it is sinful, the treatment of these people and the families in which they reside. The Republicans cannot see their way clear to put a clean vote on the minimum wage up or down on the floor of the Congress so that we can increase the financial capabilities of these families. When you have the testimony of people like the Wal-Mart Corporation, which prides itself in presenting to America everyday low prices, theoretically, the least expensive place you can shop for the goods that they carry, they are now asking for an increase in the minimum wage because they say that the people who are coming to their stores simply don't have sufficient moneys to provide for the necessities of life. They don't have the money to buy the necessities they need, even in their stores. That is an indication of how important an increase in the minimum wage is. The other terrible tragedy is that the Republicans refuse to roll back the raid on student aid that they engaged in earlier this year, when they took $12 billion out of the student aid accounts. They didn't recycle that money for the well-being of students to lessen the financial burden of families who are trying to put their children through school. They didn't do any of that. They took that $12 billion and they put it over here to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this Nation. That is the investment they made. They took $12 billion that the Congress and the government has been using to finance student aid programs, and they moved it into tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. They do that at a time when the basic Pell Grant for the most needy students, it only covers 30 percent of college costs today. When it was enacted, it covered 70 percent, and it has fallen behind. The President had pledged to raise the Pell Grant to $5,100. Five years later, that hasn't been done. The President has broken his promise. We have been asking that we increase the Pell Grant to $5,100 to make it easier for students, and to take that $12 billion they took out of the student aid account and recycle it into the loan programs for students so that we can continue to try to help students meet the cost of debt. Congresswoman Matsui talked about the average student today graduating with debt of some $17,500. We are now seeing a significant number of students who are perfectly qualified to go to college, to take advantage of college education, and they are not doing so, or they are postponing it because they are worried about whether or not they will be able to manage the debt when they graduate or whether they will be able to assemble the resources to go to college on a current basis. That is a tragedy for this country. At a time when we talk about the competitiveness of this Nation, at a time when we talk about the need to have an educated population, to deal with innovation, to deal with discovery, to deal with the future economy, we are foreclosing the higher educational opportunity for hundreds of thousands of students because of the debt, because of the cost. Because of the actions of the Republicans in this session of the Congress and the refusal to roll it back, students will now be paying 6.8 percent on their loans instead of 3.4 percent. Parents will be paying 8.5 percent instead of 4.25 percent. This is a tragedy. This is the tragedy of the Republicans' failure to address the needs of middle-income Americans who are struggling to educate their kids, to pay their energy bills, and minimum wage families who are simply struggling to survive in America today. It is a tragedy and a blight on this session of the Republican leadership in this Congress.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, for 10 years the Republicans have kept hardworking Americans away from an increase in the minimum wage. Over 7 million people who get up in the morning every day and go to work, all day long, all week long, all month long and all year long, and at the end of that year they end up in poverty. At the end of that year they end up with the inability to provide for their families. For 10 years, the Republicans have fought an increase in the minimum wage. For 10 years the Republicans have made it official policy of this country that people who get up and go to work every day will end up in poverty. It is a poverty wage. And the Republicans are proud of it. The majority leader boasts that he has fought this his entire public life, and yet these people are stuck at 1950 wages. But what is not stuck at 1950 is the price of groceries, the price of gasoline to go to work, the price of housing, and the price of health care. There is no relief for these hardworking Americans. There is no relief for their families because the Republicans refuse to entertain a clean vote on the minimum wage. A clean vote, so 7 million Americans could start to have an increase in their yearly take-home pay. That is what the Republicans refuse. There is 72 hours left in this session. The Republicans can decide to do the decent thing, to provide a minimum wage increase for hardworking Americans. But the Republicans won't do that because they are not a party of decency. They have chosen to put these people into poverty and to keep them in poverty year after year after year. Yet they have chosen to have eight pay raises for Members of Congress at the same time they have chosen to keep hardworking Americans in poverty. That's what the Republicans promise hardworking Americans, you end up in poverty.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take up H.R. 2429, the Fair Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Once again, the Republicans block a vote on the minimum wage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, all Members of Congress support the effort to thwart international terrorism and make Americans safe. But there are right ways and wrong ways to carry out that critical effort. The military commissions bill before us today is the wrong way, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. The Geneva Convention protects Americans everywhere. Congress should not alter our international obligations in an election-year rush ordered by Karl Rove's partisan strategy shop. We cannot use international law to justify America's actions when it suits our purposes and ignore it when it does not. America has given its word to the rest of the world that we win abide by the Geneva Conventions. Redefining our interpretation of the Geneva Convention is a slippery slope. Consider the words of the Navy's own Judge Advocate General, who testified to Congress on the possible implications of altering America's commitment to the Geneva conventions: ``I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that, if it's good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us, and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our servicemen or servicewomen were taken and held as a detainee.'' Beyond military personnel, the Geneva Conventions also protect those not in uniform--special forces personnel, diplomatic personnel, CIA agents, contractors, journalists, missionaries, relief workers and all other civilians. Changing our commitment to this treaty could endanger them, as well. In addition to my concerns about our commitment to the Geneva Conventions, there is a real possibility that this bill will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court in ``Rasul v. Bush'' decided that detainees have habeas corpus rights. And well established case law lays out that legislation depriving federal courts of jurisdiction does not effect currently pending cases. And nine former federal judges recently wrote: ``Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in depriving the federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees. . . . If one goal of the provision is to bring these cases to a speedy conclusion, we can assure you from our considerable experience that eliminating habeas would be counterproductive.'' Sacrificing our principles makes us neither safe nor free. In fact, there is some evidence that sacrificing our principles in this bill may make us less safe. Just yesterday, the President declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate--or NTE--which, news accounts say, details that U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere has increased the spread of terrorism, making America less safe. One of the key reasons outlined in the NTE for this conclusion was that, entrenched grievances of injustice help create an anti-U.S. sentiment among Muslims that terrorist groups exploit to recruit new members and grow the jihadist movement--the images of and stories about detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib; the unexplained death of prisoners at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan; the denial of habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo bay; the use of extraordinary rendition to kidnap suspected enemies of the state anywhere in the world; and secret CIA prisons. These incidents have all helped spread anti-U.S. sentient around the world. This has alienated us from friends and allies and added to the list of grievances terrorist groups like al Qaeda use to recruit new jihadists. The President should have the best possible intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States and our allies. And those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist acts should be brought to justice, tried, and punished accordingly, and their convictions should be upheld by our courts. Sadly, this legislation does not accomplish any of those things. For that reason, I encourage my colleague to vote against its passage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislative package, which will reauthorize important international fish and wildlife conservation programs and will expand national parks and wildlife refuges. In particular, I want to draw special attention to the Great Ape Conservation Act. The reauthorization that's before us today was introduced by Senator Jeffords last June, following a bill that I introduced in May 2005 with Rep. Baird. It has now been more than 5 years since the Great Ape Conservation Act was signed into law. In that time, this program has helped protect threatened primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. I'm very pleased that the House is now poised to pass this reauthorization, which is needed to continue progress in this important field. As the Fish and Wildlife Service testified in the Resources Committee last June, ``Much of the success of the Great Ape Conservation Act has been a direct result of the unique small project focus on on-the-ground conservation projects in Africa and Asia.'' The funds provided by the Great Ape Conservation Act have gone to such diverse projects as: protecting chimpanzee habitat from logging operations; establishing anti-poaching enforcement units; starting conservation education programs; coordinating gibbon population surveys and threat assessments; and implementing ape health monitoring programs. Like the other Multinational Species programs, Federal funds under the Great Ape Conservation Act are distributed as matching grants, meaning that the expense for these projects is shared between the Federal government and project partners. This match requirement has leveraged over $7.7 million in non-federal contributions over the period of 2001-2005 and has more than doubled the actual funding for conservation projects. But despite the ongoing successes of the Act, the threats to these noble primates continue, and time is not on our side. Press accounts and reports from the field indicate that these species continue to be placed in jeopardy by habitat loss, poaching, logging, and the bush meat trade. The bill before us today specifically authorizes funding to address these root causes of threats to great apes. The contributions of the Great Ape Conservation Act have been very important in the international efforts to protect and conserve the great apes of Africa and Asia, but there is much work yet to be done. Accordingly, today's bill extends the program's authorization through the year 2010. As I said when I introduced the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000, the task ahead is daunting. But the ecological consequences of not acting are far more tragic if it means that great apes will cease to exist in the wild. I want to thank the Resources Committee staff, especially Dave Jansen, for their work in shepherding this bill through the House, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Vallejo Symphony Orchestra as it celebrates its 75th season, 2006-2007. The mission of the Vallejo Symphony Orchestra, VSO, is to present performances of symphonic music of the highest possible artistic excellence for the citizens of Vallejo and all of Solano County; to cultivate and nurture the appreciation and enjoyment of classical music in people of all ages; and to serve and shape the musical, cultural, and educational interests of the people of Vallejo and Solano County. The VSO engages guest artists of national and international renown so Solano County residents can enjoy them in live performance. The VSO sends its musicians to perform in public schools so children may experience and learn about live classical music. The Vallejo Symphony, seventh oldest symphony orchestra in California, traces its roots to the early days of the Great Depression, when a small group of community leaders determined that local musicians needed a showcase for their talents and that other members of the community would be enriched by attending live performances of timeless music. On February 21, 1931, a 60-piece orchestra conducted by Julius Weyland made its debut in the auditorium of the city's newly dedicated Veterans Memorial Building. Concerts were presented throughout the decade with Mr. Weyland and George Trombley conducting the orchestra during these formative years. Activity lessened, then ceased during World War II until 1946, when the Vallejo Symphony was revitalized under the auspices of the Vallejo Recreation District and the Adult Education Department. Dr. Orley See became its conductor at that time. In 1951, Virl M. Swan took the conductor's baton to lead the orchestra until 1961, when Dr. George Wargo began his 21-year career as music director and conductor. The sixties saw the independence of the orchestra established, a subscription concert series launched, and supportive fundraising activities begun by the Symphony Association's board of directors. During the following decade, artistic goals for the orchestra were set, and an annual Major Gifts Campaign was established to support a professional orchestra and expand the concert season. The 1980s saw a dramatic improvement in the quality of the orchestra and programming when David Ramadanoff, a former associate conductor of the San Francisco Symphony and winner of the 1980 Leopold Stokowski Conducting Award, accepted the position of music director and conductor. Under his dynamic leadership, the Vallejo Symphony has developed into an urban orchestra of regional importance, attracting some of the finest musicians in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1983 the VSO became completely professional. In 1993 the orchestra visited Vallejo's sister city of Akashi, Japan. In 1997 the VSO hosted the West Coast premiere of Hannibal's concert opera ``African Portraits.'' Hannibal spent the week in Vallejo public schools with students. The Vallejo Symphony now performs a four-concert subscription season and an annual Summer Pops concert each Fourth of July. As part of its commitment to the musical experience of Solano County's children, the orchestra performs youth concerts for the elementary school children of Vallejo, and presents its popular series of intimate, entertaining and educational mini-concerts in elementary schools throughout the county. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we recognize the Vallejo Symphony Orchestra for its many contributions to the Vallejo community and wish its members many more years of outstanding performances.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it was with deep sadness that I learned of the passing of Mrs. Bernice King-Hill on July 18, 2006. For more than 30 years Bernice ``Bea'' King-Hill faithfully served the community of her church and the city of Richmond, California. For her church group, Mrs. Hill was a social worker and teacher of great capacity and compassion. For the people of Richmond and Contra Costa County, she was a dedicated leader who gave of herself to the community with sincerity, commitment, and strength. Bernice Hill was born on August 31, 1924, in Mobile, Alabama, and raised, along with her four siblings and their nine cousins, by the late Joe West and Georgia King-West. For her advanced degree, Mrs. Hill attended the Nannie H. Burroughs Religious School in Washington, DC, and the Tuskegee Institute in Tuskegee, Alabama. By 1955, Mrs. Hill had moved to Oakland, California, in the San Francisco Bay Area and begun what was to be a 30-year career of service. Since 1955, Mrs. Hill worked for our community in the various capacities of service, education, non-profit work, administration, and religious counsel. For 5 years, Mrs. Hill owned and operated B-Nolas Fine Foods which served the schools and the medical centers in the community of Berkeley. Since then, Mrs. Hill held many different positions within the community beginning with her work as founder and director of the non-profit Senior Extension Center in Richmond, California. She was also a manager for the Contra Costa County nutrition program for several years during this period. Mrs. Hill served on the Advisory Council for Aging as well as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Ladies Auxiliary, 761st Tank Battalion, Post 8399, for which she was the president. More recently, Bernice Hill served on the Board of Children's Council in Richmond, California, and as the Administrative Assistant to Senior Legislators of California under Carolyn Ashe Stokes. Mrs. Hill was also the Chairperson of the Progressive District Association and Senior Citizen Department as well as a teacher for the California State Baptist Convention. During these many years, Mrs. Hill pursued her religious service with the same devotion and selflessness that marked her professional work. Her service to the religious community at the Bethlehem Missionary Baptist Church included passionate and dedicated work as a teacher for the church's Sunday School, the Baptist Training Union, and the Ester Circle of the General Missionary Society. Throughout her many years of service to the people of our district, Mrs. Hill maintained her direction and independence. She was hardworking with a unique honesty and heart yet she was never afraid to challenge those who sought to exploit her or her effort. She believed in self-responsibility and forgiveness and she not only built her work on these values, but also inspired them in others. Her goddaughters Leona Sims and Nola Pyle are fine examples of her commitment and integrity. Her home will go to the Senior Extension Center to continue her legacy. To Bernice Hill's family and friends, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared not only by those who knew Mrs. Hill but also by all those who have been touched by the work she has done. We will be forever grateful for the courage, compassion, and integrity with which she sought to make our community, and our country, a better place for all of us. We are so grateful to Mrs. Hill's family and church for sharing her with us for so many years.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is rather interesting that this legislation comes up with no hearings, no discussion with the school districts, no discussion with local authorities who have the obligations to meet the demands that we cavalierly talk about here. This Court decision I believe is 1985. That is what school districts have been struggling with is to try to put in a policy that meets the test of reasonableness and also protects them in terms of liability and the teacher in terms of liabilities. We cited Columbine here. I can't believe there is a school district in Colorado that doesn't have a policy dealing with guns on campus in compliance with Federal law where there is zero tolerance for guns on campus or you can lose your funding. Paducah, Kentucky, and the tragedy there, I can't believe there is a school district in Kentucky that has not responded in the years since those tragedies. The fact of the matter is every school district in the country has a policy like this because they can, in fact, be sued for not having a policy, for not taking reasonable steps to protect their students and faculty and staff. Here we have the United States Congress apparently read a report of statistics and studies of all of the activities which is illegal under State and Federal law. They have read that now and have decided 10, 20 years later that the school districts are not doing anything, are not taking action, and the Federal Government has to tell them to take this action. It is incredibly arrogant and an insult to people who every day live on the front lines for the protection of those students and those faculty members and those staff members and for those children whose charge they have to think that somehow they have not developed the best policy they possibly can within the confines of the fourth amendment, within the confines of their State interpretation of State laws. That is what school districts struggle with all of the time. That is what they do for a living. Those are the measures they can take. This idea that somehow if you codify this Supreme Court decision, the TLO decision, that somehow if you codify this and they are immune from liability, no, they are not. Someone would go to the court and decide it was an unreasonable search, and you will be right back with liability, just as is done all of the time under the fourth amendment. What school districts have tried to do is to build a policy over a period of years to try to make it the most effective policy and also make sure that they are not exposing the district and others to all kinds of different liabilities, but to have an effective policy. Does anybody here suggest that is not their purpose? Does anybody suggest that they have not done this since Columbine, they have not done this since Paducah, or they have not done this since the shootings in Oregon? Of course they have. And you know what, they would probably be in a much better standing if you would keep cutting the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, if you quit cutting the money that is available to them in education so they could make these policies even more effective, and they could spend even more time with the students working on why these behavior patterns should not be allowed, why schools should be a safe place, why schools should not be allowed to be the street. There should be bright lines between the schools and streets. That is what schools are seeking to do all the time. But here is the Federal Government 10, 20 years later after the policy was announced saying, I guess you are not doing anything, and we are going to tell you to do it. We are going to tell you to do it this way or the highway. It just doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't comport with what all of us know is going on in the districts that we represent. Either that, or you have never visited a school, you have never talked to a school administrator, or never talked to a superintendent or a teacher. The fact of the matter is that they struggle with this all of the time, and they do it within the confines of the decision that you say is controlling. They know that. That is why they hire attorneys. That is why the policy parties that are responsible for coming up with this, that is why they oppose this. But this will be the Congress who tells them, do it our way, that is the only way; and now we will have to go back through all of these policies and start over from ground zero. It just doesn't make any sense. It denies what we all know is, in fact, taking place in school districts and schools all over this country every day as those individuals struggle to keep those educational institutions safe for the students who are attending them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as one of the original cosponsors of the Zero Tolerance for Guns and Weapons in Schools, I have long supported the effort to make our schools safer, and, in fact, schools are among the safest places in our entire society for children, but this legislation, I do not quite understand what it is trying to do. The suggestion here is that if we just pass this law, that somehow schools will become safer. The fact of the matter is every school district, every State has a policy with respect to the bringing onto campus of drugs, which it is illegal to have on campus, off campus, in your own home or anywhere else, and the use in bringing on weapons, which we have a very strong zero tolerance policy against the bringing of any guns or weapons onto school sites. It seems to me that this legislation is somehow founded in the idea that if the Congress just votes, this will, in fact, happen. Tragically, what we have seen is while people are asking us to vote on this policy, which is already in place in most school districts, or all school districts in all of the States in accordance with the State court decisions and in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions, what we have is that the Republicans are masking the fact that what they do is they keep gutting the Safe and Drug-Free School Grants to the States. They cut those grants from $437 million in 2005 to $346 million in 2006, and the House Republicans want to cut them even further to $310 million next year. So the very funds that this Congress has determined and we worked in partnership with States and school districts over the last several years to make our schools safer, to help educate children about the dangers not only of the drugs and of weapons and various kinds of social behavior, they are now in the process of cutting those, but they want to pass a law that says to do what we have as a matter of existing policy, except that this law, in fact, exposes the district to much more litigation now because now, under the guise of this law, they have to go back through, and if a student is searched under this law, the questions are raised all over again which many districts have tried to settle under State law, under State court interpretations, so that they can have a policy that works, that the schools are on notice of, and the students are on notice of, and that the parents are on notice of. The fact of the matter is that the policy appears to be working across this country. So, when we get all done with this, I think what we have with this legislation is an effort to try and cover what are the more serious votes taken by this Congress to slash the funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools legislation. Also, this legislation, if it were to be passed into law, fails to take into account additional legal standards that have been imposed by State courts. A uniform search policy can cause difficulties for school districts and would require it to establish policies to address requirements of H.R. 5295, as well as legal standards that apply to respective jurisdictions. The Congressional Research Service adds that enacting Federal legislation with respect to school-based searches could, therefore, interfere with areas of traditional State and local responsibility, of which there is no showing that the States and local school authorities are not meeting their responsibilities to their students, to the teachers, to the staff in the schools, to the parents and to the communities. The question is, I guess, just a question of whether or not you think you trust the Congress more simply to pass a law, of which there have been no hearings and no discussion with local officials about how to do this, or whether you trust the people who are running the schools--the school boards, the school administrators, the principals, the district superintendents--who, in fact, have the responsibility for the safety of the children of their districts and of their schools. It is not much more complicated than that, and you do not have to take it from me, because the fact is that the National School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National PTA and the Great City Council Schools all oppose this legislation. Why do they oppose this legislation? Because this legislation only makes it a very difficult job that they have been working at and policies for the safety of our students that they have been refining over the last decade. This legislation just throws all of that open to new interpretations, to new exposure to liability on the questions of their actions that they take on a daily basis to keep our schools safe, to keep our children safe. They understand this policy. They have developed these policies they have done in conjunction with the communities that they represent. Now Congress wants to fly over on suspension without hearings and drop down a new policy, one size sort of fits all, for all of these school districts, for all of the schools, when in fact the people we represent in our communities have been working on these policies a long time before this legislation was ever suggested. They have been working on them successfully, they have been working on them within the intricacies of State and Federal law, and they have developed the policies in cooperation with the communities and with the parents. And I would hope that we would reject this legislation, and we would let those who have to take the responsibility, those who absorb the liability for their actions, and those who have local cooperation within their communities on engaging these policies, that they would in fact be allowed to go forward and continue those policies, and we would heed the concerns of the Congressional Research Service that we now have a Federal policy that, if it was to pass, requires this kind of reaction by all of the States to see whether or not they comply with this Federal law when in fact they are already complying with the efforts in their communities to keep their schools safe. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the sacrifice of the Filipino veterans of WWII. America owes a great debt of gratitude to these brave veterans, who risked life and limb fighting off Japanese aggression in the War of the Pacific. These brave soldiers, who were outmanned and outgunned, helped hold Japanese forces at bay for 2 years, preventing enemy victories in other parts of the Pacific theater. Following the surrender of Allied forces on the island, Filipino veterans were subjected to some of the harshest treatment in WWII's recorded history. This is perhaps best symbolized by the Bataan Death March, where over 10,000 veterans--both American and Filipino, side by side--gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. That is why I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Daryl Issa, for offering H. Res. 622. This important resolution, ``Reaffirms, recognizes, and honors the Filipino World War II veterans for their defense of American democracy and important contribution to the victorious outcome of World War II.'' And while I proudly support Mr. Issa's efforts here today, I must point out that there is much more work left to be accomplished in fully honoring and recognizing the sacrifices of our brave Filipino WWII veterans. Sadly, Madam Speaker, as many of these veterans enter the sunset of their years, America has yet to fully extend health and survivor benefits to them and to their spouses. Filipino veterans did not abandon America in her hour of need. Nor should we abandon them in theirs. Congress must pass legislation to correct this inequity immediately. Several bills that more fully honor the sacrifices of these brave veterans, including, H.R. 302, the Filipino Equity Act, introduced by my colleague and fellow Californian Bob Filner, are pending before this House. H.R. 302 would restore all benefits promised to Filipino veterans. I call on the leadership of this House to bring H.R. 302 to the floor for a full vote before we adjourn this fall. The words of this resolution are well deserved and welcomed by all who honor the sacrifices by Filipino veterans of WWII. But it is time we match our words with action.