George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I think that is an important point. When the Federal Government made the decision to change to the TSP system, which is turning out to be a very successful system, we provided this kind of transition. What the conference committee is about to impose on the American working public no Member of Congress would impose on themselves. They would be asking for some kind of transition, some kind of hold-harmless so that people would be protected who are older, who have more years into the system, because they don't have the ability to gather other income. And I think the gentleman makes a very important point that, once again, life is different inside of the Beltway than it is outside of the Beltway. And the people outside of the Beltway have a lot less ability to try to make up for that lost savings to manage their retirement. I thank the gentleman for making the point. I continue to yield.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I just want to again thank him for the point that this pension bill cannot be considered in a vacuum. The very same people who are going to be punished as a result of companies that convert to cash balance that will not provide this kind of protection, they can do it voluntarily, but they will not, and many of them won't, and the gentleman has struggled with companies who thought that they didn't have to. These are the same people that are getting their retirement health care benefits cut back, that are having trouble with or are going to have trouble with paying for prescription drugs. Today, people are continuing to work and people say to people, you know, just save more money. Well, as we know, most people, the average American working person has a great deal of difficulty saving. And to now tell them to save, if you are 50 years old, according to the GAO, you will lose about $238 a month. If you are 40 years old, you will lose about $188 a month. If you are 50 years old, this has to be net savings that you are going to have to try to save. You'd have to save, before your retirement, a net $40,000, outside of your rent, outside of your house payment, outside of your kids, outside of everything else, if you could get 5 percent return on your money. Where does the American family go to get that kind of money that Congress is about to take away from them? Where do they go? Most families, both people are working. And if you are 50 years old, it is highly unlikely that you are going to go out and find a job that is going to replace this loss of savings. So when people say, well, we can't guarantee the expectations of these workers. No, what we are guaranteeing is a contract that this worker made with the company and the company made with the worker. We understand the benefits and the changes for younger workers, and this isn't about being against cash balance plans. It is about fairness. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The idea, again, the suggestion is somehow, when the Senate passed this, 97-3, and when we voted overwhelmingly in a motion to instruct to do this, that somehow you are trying to reserve the status quo. The fact is that CSX, a very successful railroad company, Verizon Telecom, the Federal Government, Motorola, Dow Chemical, Federal Express, Wells Fargo, these are not slacking companies. These are leaders in their industry. They all realized billions of dollars in savings. They also took care of their older workers. And that is what we are asking that this conference committee do. You do not have to throw these older workers onto the wood pile. They can be protected. The company can realize billions of dollars over the life of the pension plans in savings that they can reinvest in their company, and they can change their pension plans. We just ask that you don't decimate older workers. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The vote was 97-3.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It was 97-2. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Let me inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I would hope that when this vote comes on Monday, that the House would, once again, reaffirm its obligation and its commitment to older workers in this country. This is a defining moment for these workers. This is a defining moment about what kind of retirement many workers in this country who have been working for 20 or 30 years in a company, what kind of retirement they will have. Will they have the retirement that was promised to them and that they have expected and that they have built their financial planning around, that they have built the decisions today about tomorrow around their families, their children, and others? That is really what this is about. The gentleman is quite correct. They are quite close. They have been working very hard. It has been a one-party bill, but they have been working very hard, the Members of the House in this conference committee, and they are very close. They are just also very wrong. They are very wrong in how they treat the older workers of this country because, as we see from the GAO report, under the GAO report, under the plan that the Republicans want to bring to the floor, if the conversion plan is done the way it is allowed under the conference report, which will be Federal law, the average 50-year-old worker will lose about $238 in income each and every month of their retirement plan. The question that most Members of Congress will not ask is, Where does that worker, where does that family, go to make up that income? Where do you go to earn the 40, the 60, the $80,000 you have to have over your retirement life to get that yield back? Most people cannot accumulate that kind of money in a 5- or 10-year period of time. So these workers who are under assault in terms of the retirement health care benefits, their retirement benefits, where do they go? We know what the savings rate is. We keep telling America to save more. And the fact of the matter is most American families at the end of the month have very little left to save. It is simply not there. Can Congress be that insensitive to how most of America lives? Most of America is bombarded with advice from Money Magazine, from CNN, from Lou Dobbs, from all these people about how to save for your retirement. And they try. Some could do better. But for many families they are doing the best they can. But one of the bedrocks for many people in their fifties is knowing that they have a retirement plan that they thought they could count on. But the fact of the matter is when they pick up and read the business section of the newspaper, they read the headlines of the newspaper, they see that some of the biggest, most reliable corporations in the country are changing their pension plans. United Airlines just went into bankruptcy. Without any showing of desperate need, they just got rid of the plan for their employees. Talk to those fight attendants when you fly home tonight or you fly home tomorrow. Talk to those pilots and realize the extent to which their retirements have been devastated, absolutely devastated. But it has happened to people in all of the industries around the country. And all that we are saying is follow the model by companies that have done it the right way, companies like Verizon, companies like Federal Express, companies like Wells Fargo Bank, Honeywell. There is a way you can do this and you can realize billions of dollars of savings, which are necessary. These plans are going to be changed, but they ought to be changed in a way that protects the older workers. That is why the AARP, the American Association of Retired People, is so dead set against this provision. It recognizes the impact this is going to have on future retirees. It recognizes the impact it is going to have on current workers and on their ability to plan for their retirement. They want to act like this is a carefully crafted pension plan and anybody who wants to suggest another alternative is only for the status quo and does not care about pensions. The Senate voted 97-2 to treat these older workers right. It is the Republican leadership that has stepped in and twisted that away. We didn't get a chance to vote on that in the House. When I finally did get a vote after the bill passed, the House voted overwhelmingly to protect older workers. Another class of workers who are at risk in this pension plan are the taxpayers. We now see that PBGC is telling us that current law is a better deal for the taxpayers than the plan they are coming up with to the tune of about $2 billion over the next decade. Don't shake your head. It is right here. You guys had this information for months. We just had to get it under a FOIA agreement under your wonderful bipartisan arrangements. So there is a lot to be concerned about with this pension plan. It is going to have a lot of bells and whistles, a lot of tax breaks. It is going to have more things than a monkey going to the circus. And a lot of people are going to vote for it. But what it is not going to have, it is not going to have protection for older workers. And Members of Congress ought to understand that when those older workers start to come to you, as their pension plans are dramatically changed by companies with no obligation to protect workers 50 and over, they are going to want to know where you were, and this is a vote which will tell them where you stand on this. And, hopefully, you will influence the pension conference, because this can be done. As we said, the Senate, after long deliberations on the pension bill, they voted 97-2 to do it the right way. So I would hope that people would support this motion to instruct. I would hope they understand what this truly means to working people in this country and to their families and to their retirement. It is a devastating picture when you meet your constituents who have lost their retirement, who have lost big chunks of their retirement, and they come up and they talk to you at the shopping center, they talk to you at the grocery store, they talk to you at a town hall, and they tell you what it means to their plans. We were all stunned as a nation when pensioners got their plans wiped out and devastated by Enron. We called those people criminals. Here we call them legislators, because people are going to get a devastating hit on their pensions and we are going to say it is the law. There we said it was a crime. We said it was a crime.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You have plenty of time on your side. You say it is a crime.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What are you doing to people? What are you doing to people? You have controlled the conference. You control the White House. You control the House. You control the Senate. Control your time. The fact of the matter is this is the same thing. We are making a conscious decision, a conscious decision, to rip away these pension benefits from these workers. And the most devastating thing about this decision is it is not necessary. You can have massive pension reform to the benefit of the employees, to the benefit of the employers, to the benefit of the shareholders, without devastating the older workers. So why don't we do it right? Why don't we do it in a humane way? Why don't we do it right, recognizing the situation that America's older workers find themselves in, people 50, 55, 60 years old? What are they going to do? Take a second job for their retirement? Maybe their spouse can go out and take a third job for their retirement? That is not the way we should treat American citizens. That is not the way we should treat taxpayers. And that is not the way we should treat hardworking American families who simply do not have enough money to make up for this kind of devastating cut in their retirement. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct. It will be up sometime, I believe, Monday; and I would strongly encourage you to vote ``aye'' on this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, we are here today because the Republican leadership has made a stunning decision that it thwart the will, a bipartisan will of the House of Representatives, a bipartisan majority will of the House of Representatives to increase the minimum wage. They have decided that they are not going to follow the rules of democracy. They are not going to let this body reflect over 80 percent of the American people that believe that the minimum wage that is stuck at 1997 levels should be brought up to date for those workers who work hard every day. In fact, when the Appropriations Committee spoke on a bipartisan majority, they refused to bring the bill to the floor, because it had an increase in the minimum wage that was put there by Mr. Obey and Mr. Hoyer. We just see last week, 26 Members of the Republican Party of this House wrote the majority leader demanding action before we leave in August. Two Members of the Republicans voted for our motion on the previous question and we will offer it again today. So what we now understand is there is a majority. If we want to strip somebody of authority, maybe we ought to strip the Republican majority in this House of its authority to block the democratic will of both Members of this House who are duly elected under the Constitution and reflecting the will of the American people to increase the minimum wage. Forget stripping the Court of its authority. Let us strip the Republican leadership. Just last week the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, completely misrepresented the record on the minimum wage when he suggested that he had never heard from the Democrats about the minimum wage in an odd- numbered year. Now, maybe Mr. Boehner doesn't know odd from even. But the fact of the matter is we introduced a minimum wage bill in 1997. I believe that is an odd-numbered year. We introduced a bill in 1999, another odd year; 2001, another odd year; 2005 an odd year. We wrote to Mr. Boehner, as the chairman of that committee, time and again in 1991, asking for hearings and a markup. We asked again in October of 1999. In March of 2001 we sent Mr. Boehner letters from the members of the committee again asking for actions; in March of 2001 and in July of 2001. There have been numerous events calling upon the majority leader and the Speaker of this House to provide for an increase in the minimum wage. It goes on and on and on. I have 30 here that I would like to enter into the Record. I suspect there are hundreds where the Democrats have asked time and time again this leadership to provide us an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. Why do we do that? Because, as Mr. Obey and Mr. Hoyer pointed out, 6 million workers in this country are stuck in a wage that this Congress set in 1997. No other workers in this country are stuck at that wage except these individuals. These are people who get up every day and go to work at very difficult jobs at the lowest wage you can pay in this country legally, and they go every day and every week and every month. At the end of the year, at the end of the year, they end up poor. By official action of this Congress, they end up poor. The gas that they buy to go to work is not at 1997 prices. The bread and the milk they buy to bring back to their families is not at 1997 prices. The health care they hope to buy someday for themselves and their family is not at 1997 prices, nor is the housing where they rent homes. These are people, because of the official action of the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives, these people must continue to be impoverished. Yet we tell them that we value their work. No, we don't. We ought to strip this Republican leadership so that these people can have economic justice so that they can share in some of the liberties and freedoms that the other side talks about so much. It is very hard to share in liberties and freedom at $5.15 an hour, very difficult to do that. But the Republicans wouldn't understand that, because they just don't understand the plight nor do they care about the plight of these workers. That is why we should raise this minimum wage. Minimum Wage Legislation Introduced By Democrats in Odd- Numbered Years 1. 105th Congress 1997: H.R. 2211 ``American Family Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1997''--Republican-controlled E&W Committee refused to take action on the bill. 2. 106th Congress 1999: H.R. 325 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1999'' 3. 107th Congress 2001: H.R. 665 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2001'' 4. 109th Congress 2005: H.R. 2429 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005'' Letters to Ed and Workforce Chairman Goodling From Ranking Democrat William Clay Requesting Action on the Minimum Wage-- in Odd-Numbered Years 5. March 1, 1999, asking for hearing and markup of minimum wage legislation. 6. October 29, 1999 Letters To Ed and Workforce Chairman Boehner from Senior Member Miller Requesting Action on the Minimum Wage--in Odd- Numbered Years 7. March 2, 2001 from all 22 Democratic Members of the Committee requesting hearings on H.R. 665 to increase the minimum wage 8. July 16, 2001 from George Miller requesting, among other things, ``immediate action to increase the minimum wage.'' Press Events/Statements/Reports--in Odd-Numbered Years 9. Ranking Member Clay Makes a Statement in Ed and Workforce Committee urging passage of the minimum wage, October 7, 1999. 10. Ranking Member Clay asks unanimous consent in the Education and Workforce Committee to bring up H.R. 325 to increase the minimum wage, November 3, 1999. 11. Democrats issue ``A Mid-Term Report Card, the Republicans Failed Labor Education and Health Care Record'' with section entitled ``Republicans Continue to Block a Fair Minimum Wage'' and notes no committee action ``[d]espite the submission to the committee's chairman for repeated written requests for a markup of minimum wage legislation . . .'' November 29, 1999 (Report). 12. Statement on the Introduction of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2001 (February 7, 2001) 13. Miller Introduces Legislation to Increase the Minimum Wage, February 27, 2003 (press release) 14. ``Bush Administration Assault on Working Families-- First 100 Days'' calls for Republicans to stop blocking an increase in the minimum wage. April 26, 2001 (Report) 15. This Christmas, Congress Should Help the Less Fortunate by Raising Minimum Wage, December 14, 2005. (press release) 16. House Again Refuses to Give Minimum Wage Workers a Raise, July 12, 2005 (press release) 17. Miller Calls for Minimum Wage Increase, May 18, 2005 (press release) Sample of Dear Colleagues Sent in Odd-Numbered Years on Minimum Wage 18. Support a Fair Increase in the Minimum Wage, January 8, 2003 (Miller) 19. Support an Increase in the Minimum Wage, January 31, 2003 (Miller) 20. Co-sponsor the Minimum Wage, February 25, 2003 (Miller) Sampling of Floor Statements (Congressional Record) on Minimum Wage by Key Democrats in Odd-Numbered Years 21. Rep. George Miller, October 25, 2005: ``Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of millions of American working men and women who are in desperate need of a raise. It has been a disgraceful 8 years since Congress last voted to raise the national minimum wage which is stuck today at only $5.15 an hour. A person making the minimum wage today would have to work for the better part of an hour just to afford a single gallon of milk or a gallon of gasoline.'' (Congressional Record, Page H9049) 22. Rep. George Miller, May 18, 2005: ``Mr. Speaker, today, together with 100 of my colleagues, we are introducing legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years. Senator Edward Kennedy is introducing identical legislation in the Senate. Two reports that are also being released today, one by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and one by the Children's Defense Fund, make obvious the importance of raising the minimum wage for workers, children, and families.'' (Congressional Record, Page E1024) 23. Rep. George Miller, February 27, 2003: ``Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to be joined by 73 of my colleagues in introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. The legislation that we are introducing today provides for a $1.50 increase in the minimum wage, in two steps. Our bill raises the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per hour to $5.90 sixty days after enactment and raises it again to $6.65 one year thereafter. In addition, the legislation extends the applicability of the minimum wage to the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Our bill is identical to legislation introduced in the other body by the Democratic Leader, Mr. Daschle, and 34 of his colleagues.'' (Congressional Record, Page E333) 24. Rep. George Miller on CNMI, July 26, 2001: ``Today, I am joined by more than 40 co-sponsors as we introduce the ``CNMI Human Dignity Act,'' which would require that the Americans living in the US/CNMI live under the same laws as all of our constituents in our home districts. This legislation would extend U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws to the US/CNMI.'' (Congressional Record, Page E1442) 25. Rep. Rob Andrews, May 23, 2001: ``That compassion is sorely lacking when there has been a commitment by the majority not to move a bill to raise the minimum wage of many of those parents that we are talking about today.'' (Congressional Record, Page H2601) 26. Rep. Major Owens, March 7, 2001: ``What we are experiencing today is the beginning of warfare on a large scale which has a psychological significance. It is very strategic. After we roll over ergonomics, it is going to be Davis-Bacon's prevailing wage act. It is going to be onward marching toward the elimination of any consideration of any minimum wage from now until this administration goes out of power.'' (Congressional Record, Page H664) 27. Rep. George Miller, November 3, 1999: ``Now the Republicans tell us that we cannot afford a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, that we cannot afford a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect our families against managed care and HMOs that deny them care, that we cannot afford a minimum wage for our low-income workers in this Nation, and that we cannot extend the fiscal security of social security by even one day. No, the Republicans still want to try to pass tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals, corporations, and special interests in this country. When in this session, in the last remaining 8 or 10 days of this session, when is it that Republicans are going to start thinking about our elderly, our children, and the working families of this Nation?'' (Congressional Record, Page H11376) 28. Rep. William Clay, June 18, 1997: ``Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an important editorial that appeared in the St. Louis Post- Dispatch, Monday, June 16, 1997. It brings to light the harsh reality of a GOP plan that deprives welfare participants of minimum wage.'' (Congressional Record, Page E1251) 29. Rep. George Miller on CNMI, April 24, 1997: ``Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to address the systematic, persistent, and inexcusable exploitation of men and women in sweatshops in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a territory of the United States of America. . . . This legislation will increase the minimum wage in the CNMI in stages until it matches the Federal level.'' (Congressional Record, Page

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2830, the pension conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2830 be instructed-- (1) to agree to the provisions contained in subsections (a) through (d) of section 601 of the Senate amendment (relating to prospective application of age discrimination, conversion, and present value assumption rules with respect to cash balance and other hybrid defined benefit plans) and not to agree with the provisions contained in title VII of the bill as passed the House (relating to benefit accrual standards); and (2) to agree to the provisions contained in section 413 of the Senate amendment (relating to computation of guaranteed benefits of airline pilots required to separate from service prior to attaining age 65), but only with respect to plan terminations occurring on or after September 11, 2001.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the offshore oil drilling legislation that passed the House last month has a lot of problems. One of its biggest failings is that the bill overrides and ignores the long-standing, bipartisan objection to new drilling off the California coast. The people of California have repeatedly made it clear that they oppose this wrong-headed approach. In fact, opposition to this legislation is unanimous in California that even in the middle of a highly charged race for Governor, the Democrats and Republicans are on the same page on this one issue. State Treasurer Phil Angelides, a Democrat, opposes the House bill, pointing out that it would remove the critical protections for California's coastline and also financially punish States that decide to protect their environment and coastal economies by continuing to oppose offshore oil drilling. The Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, sent another letter to the Senate this week restating his opposition in no uncertain terms. In his newest letter, which I am submitting for the Record, he writes: ``Our coast is not for sale, and no amount of promises of money or other incentives will alter my position on that.'' Well, I am disappointed that so many Members of the House voted against California's interests last month. Our State's Senators have strong records of spelling for the people of California, so I am not concerned about them. But I do want to make sure that the Senators from around the country realize that any legislation that opens the California coast to drilling will be a non-starter in our State and should be rejected. As the Governor wrote: ``Anything short of upholding the current moratorium in perpetuity would be unacceptable to Californians.'' Governor Schwarzenegger also wrote something very interesting: ``California has the most aggressive energy efficiency measures in the Nation. Because of our efforts, California's per capita energy use has remained nearly flat, while the nationwide energy use has increased by nearly 50 percent.'' What the Governor is telling the people of this Nation is that had you made the same choices that we made starting back in 1974 with the first fuel crisis, you would have been able to save a huge amount of energy in this country. While California has continued to grow, our per capita use has remained flat, and that is 50 percent better than the rest of the Nation. That means that not only do California consumers save a great deal of energy and they reduce the pollution to the atmosphere; they also save a great deal of money. As the other body considers the legislation that was passed out of this House this last week, I hope they will remember that energy conservation and innovative alternative approaches will guarantee us far more energy independence in the future than the shortsighted House bill that will require the ruining of the coastlines of this great Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, earlier today we had a motion to instruct on the vocational education conference, and the motion to instruct was about the minimum wage and about the need of 6 million people who work at the minimum wage for an increase in that minimum wage. These individuals have been stuck at $5.15 since 1997. They are earning 1997 wages in the year 2006. Over 80 percent of Americans from all across the country, obviously if it is 80 percent of Americans, from every walk of life, from every social economic strata, believes that these people are entitled to an increase in their wages, and they believe that out of fairness, they believe that out of a sense of fair play for these individuals. They know when they look at their own life, be they middle class or be they rich, the fact of the matter is they recognize that costs have gone up, that the cost of food has gone up, that the cost of bread has gone up, that the cost of milk has gone up, that the cost of education has gone up, that the cost of utilities has gone up, the cost of gasoline of course has soared. And these people in many ways are dependent, whether it is on public transit or whether it is on their own automobiles, it costs them more to go to work. And so America understands this very clearly. But the critical piece to getting these people the minimum wage is to get the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives to understand the morality of this decision to provide for a minimum wage, because these people are working under a Federal minimum wage that was imposed in 1997. And until the Republican leadership decides to go forward, these people will not get that increase in the wages that they so desperately need. Now, there is a glimmer of hope, because today 64 Republicans made the decision to support the motion to instruct. I assume they understood that this motion to instruct will not become law. I hope they didn't vote for it because it won't become law; I hope that it wasn't about posturing. I talked to many of them before the vote and after the vote, and they told me that they wanted to speak and vote on the minimum wage and to send a message. And they did that today. Hopefully that message will start to be received by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and they will schedule a minimum-wage bill for an up or down vote on this House floor, and we will get to speak our wills and hopefully we will reflect what the American people want us to do, and that is to give these people an increase in the minimum wage. So I would hope that this vote that was taken today will be the beginning of the Republican leadership walking toward that decision to provide for an increase in the minimum wage. I would hope that they would do that because it is the right thing to do. I would hope that they would do that without tricking up the bill, without making the bill so that it can pass the House but it can't get passed in the Senate or it won't get done in conference. I hope they will do it soon enough so that it can become the law of the land. We all understand the political games that can be played, but these political games are tragically almost lethal to these families. These people go to work every day for a whole year and they end up with $10,700, and out of that $10,700 not only are they substantially below the official poverty line, so you are making a decision that the official minimum wage in this country will keep these individuals locked in poverty. That is not the only part of it. It means that those people, those people will have more difficulty in providing the necessities for their families, for their children, because many of these minimum wage workers have children who rely on that wage as a means of holding the household together. So as rents have continued to go up and energy has continued to go up and telecommunications has gone up, all of these things have gone up, these people struggle with this every day. I dare say most of us in Congress, we work an 8-hour day or 10-hour day or 12-hour day, but when we go home we are done. These people have a second job. They have to figure out how to economically hold their household together, how to provide for their children, how to provide food and rent and health care and all of these things together on $10,700 a year. That is difficult. That is tough. I hope that today's vote with 64 Republicans sending a message to their leadership that they want to speak out, they want to vote on the minimum wage, that the Republican leadership will respond in kind and give the House of Representatives the vote that the American people desire.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday night I will join the many friends of Jim Ghielmetti in celebrating an event that millions of Americans will share over the coming years. The baby boomers are turning 60, and there is nothing they can do about it. Jim's birthday is May 15th, but I think his wonderful wife Laurie wanted to give him a few months to adjust before he faced his many friends who will gather in San Francisco to wish him well. I share a May birthday but a year earlier so I had the pleasure of being ahead of Jim and the boomers. It has now been almost 30 years since I was introduced to a young builder in my congressional district. Sid Lippow, our mutual friend who introduced us, said that he thought it was important for us to get to know one another. He said that we could give balance to each other and that we were the future of our professions, me in politics and Jim in homebuilding. But as Sid said, Jim was about building more than homes, he was building communities. For these 30 years we have indeed added balance to one another. Most of the time after long debates over a wide range of issues, from endangered species, the future of Social Security, community planning, the right level of taxation, and so many other topics. We have argued about them in one another's homes, in restaurants and at the kids' soccer games. Through it all we have remained the best of friends. Jim Ghielmetti has come a long way since those early days when he was learning his profession while working for Shapell Industries of Northern California. In 1983 he struck out on his own and founded Signature Properties. Today, under his leadership, the company has built more than 6,000 homes, with another 3,500 homes currently in the planning or design phases. Signature is well known throughout the greater Bay Area and Sacramento regions for its diverse product offerings in both urban and suburban settings, its commercial and mixed-use projects and its master-planned communities. True to my first introduction to Jim, he was building more than houses. He has given an extraordinary amount of his time to making the Bay Area a better community. Since 1994, Jim Ghielmetti has focused on local transportation issues by chairing the Transportation Committee of the Tri-Valley Business Council. The Transportation Committee addresses such issues as toll roads, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) expansion to the Tri-Valley area and obtaining matching federal funds for expansion of Interstates 580 and 680. For the last 5 years, Jim has served on the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Council. The Bay Area Council is an organization that aggressively addresses the challenges that affect the economic well- being and quality of life in the nine Bay Area counties. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the Policy Advisory Board for the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2000, Jim served on the Governor's Commission for the 21st Century, a group charged with developing a blueprint for California to follow in addressing transportation, housing, environmental and other issues of the 21st century. In 2003, Jim was appointed to the California State Transportation Commission. Jim Ghielmetti has been an outstanding citizen participant in the public policy debates in our region and in our State. Homebuilding is what Jim Ghielmetti does, but his family tells us who he is. Jim and his wife Laurie, a very successful businesswoman in the design field, have been partners in life and in business. They have raised two great sons, Michael and Brian, and recently a grandson Matteo. Michael, specializing in creative urban infill, is working with Jim at Signature Properties, and Brian is in New York doing urban renovations. Jim and Laurie and all of us are very proud of them both. These are just some of the reasons why so many of Jim's friends will be coming together to wish him a very happy birthday with so many more to come. This birthday may be a shock to Jim, but I can assure him that all of us are very glad that he has had these 60 years and wish him many more to come.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise as we consider going to conference with the Senate on the Vocational Education Improvement Act, something that I think we should do and which I support and have been working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House and in the Senate to bring that conference to a successful conclusion, but I also rise not just in support of going to conference but also in support of a motion where we will have the ability to stand up for the dignity of 6.5 million workers in the United States making the minimum wage or near minimum-wage pay. This motion instructs the conferees to make it clear that when the bill states its purpose is to prepare students for highways jobs, that in no event should those jobs pay less than $7.25 an hour. The minimum wage today is just $5.15 an hour, and for nearly 10 years the Republican leadership has stood in the way of a raise for America's lowest wage workers. That is a shame, it is an insult, and it is a moral outrage. This is the year when Members of Congress from both parties should come together and show how serious they are about raising the minimum wage and that they are serious about valuing hard work. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that the Fair Standards Labor Act, containing the minimum wage, was passed in 1938 to alleviate poverty. Yet now the minimum wage condemns workers to a life of poverty for themselves and for their children. That is what we do when we fail to raise the minimum wage. We put the Federal stamp of approval, the congressional stamp of approval, if you will, on the wages of those individuals, so that even though they go to work every day, every week, every month, and all year long, they will not be able to raise themselves out of poverty. That is just unacceptable for this Nation, which is the beacon to the world about economic opportunity, which is the beacon to the world about understanding what it means to have every citizen participate in our society. If they work those 52 weeks a year, they will only earn $10,700, which is $5,000 per year below the poverty line for a family of three. The current minimum wage will not even support a single worker and a single child above poverty. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour will mean an additional $4,370 a year to help minimum- wage earners support their families. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you support this act, but here are the facts. Here are the facts. Those workers today are stuck at 1997 wages. By Federal law, their wage is $5.15 an hour. That wage was secured by the Congress of the United States on a bipartisan vote to raise that wage to $5.15. Since that time, the Republican Congress has refused to entertain an increase in that minimum wage. Now, what do we have here? We have the fact that the price of milk since that time has gone up 24 percent, bread is up 25 percent, college is up 77 percent, health insurance is up 97 percent, and regular gasoline is up 136 percent. The fact of the matter is that this minimum-wage worker, after 1 hour's work, cannot stop alongside a gas station and get a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk at the same time. Their wages simply will not support that. That is the problem that we have, is that we have people stuck at a federally mandated minimum wage from the year 1997. None of us are in 1997 today. This is 2006. And the fact of the matter is that these people who have made a conscious decision to go to work every day are so badly disadvantaged that they cannot raise themselves above the poverty line. Now, I know that this Republican conference is led by Mr. Boehner, a very good friend of mine, and he is proud of this statement: ``I have been in this business for 25 years, and I have never voted for an increase in the minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our conference is opposed to it.'' Well, that may be true, but I do not believe that a vast majority of this Congress is opposed to it. And what we have been asking is to have a vote on the floor on the minimum wage. If this Congress continues to listen to Leader Boehner, and the fact is he has always been opposed to it, so if they had listened to him workers would be back to wages set in 1973. They would be working for $3.35 an hour as the minimum wage and paying 2006 prices for bread and for milk and for gasoline and for health coverage and all the rest of that. That is why this is imperative. This is not a simple economic decision. This is a decision of values. This is a decision about our country and about these people, about 6 million people, many of whom are supporting children, many who are making major contributions to the total income of their families. This is about whether or not we value their work and we value them as full participants in American society. This is also about understanding that you cannot build a strong and rich country on the backs of poor people. It simply will not work. Around the country we see where democracy flags and lags because of the fact there is such a disparity in those countries between rich and poor. We know. We have charted it. And when you get to the levels of disparity that America is starting to approach now between rich and poor, basic fundamental democracy is threatened. That doesn't mean it will disappear in America, but we have to understand what it does to the institutions of freedom and liberty and democracy when people aren't full participants in our society. Again, these people have made the decision that they are going to go to work every day and they are going to try their darnedest to support their families, to support their children and to meet their needs. It has been said for a long time by business that if you do this, you will kill jobs; that you will hurt the people you are trying to support. Well, let us again remember what we are doing here. We are trying to bring a wage that is stuck in 1997 forward to 2006, and we are going to do it over a 2-year period. It has gotten to such a point that the business community is starting to be divided on this. Here you have the largest employer, I believe in the United States, Wal-Mart, and not a company that I am used to quoting, but Wal-Mart has said that America needs a raise in the minimum wage for these people who are earning too little; so little that even shopping at Wal-Mart, at every day low prices as they advertise, these people cannot purchase the basic necessities for their families. They are unable to do that. That is the kind of economic situation these people find themselves in. Again, they do not find themselves in that situation because they are working at a minimum wage that was increased in the year 2000 or 2003, 2004, or 2005, and now we want to update it to 2006 and 2007. This is a minimum wage which these people are earning which was set in 1997. So that is the reason that I make this motion to instruct the conferees, because vocational education is becoming an ever more important part of a pathway for students to career opportunities, to increased earnings opportunity, and in the Senate bill we can make sure that the purpose of this bill is to achieve high wages. In the House bill we have no such language, and I am asking that we instruct that there be language that what we mean is that in no event should this lead to wages that are less than $7.25 an hour, which would be the case if the bill that was voted on in the Health and Human Services Appropriation Act, offered by Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Obey, if that became law, because then in two jumps we would get to $7.25. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would just say, only my Republican colleagues would think that $7.25 an hour is a high wage for working people. In fact, in the motion to instruct he knows it is ``not less than $7.25 an hour.'' My colleague has also said that this is neither the time nor the place. We haven't been able to find out since 1997 where is the time and where is the place to raise the minimum wage for 6 million American workers. That is what the American public wants to know, that is what the American public supports our doing, but we have been unable to find out from the Republican leadership. All we get from the Republican leadership is ``no.'' When it passed in the Appropriations Committee, the bill has not come to the floor because it has the minimum wage in it. Then when those same people had to vote in another Appropriations Committee, the Republican leadership got them to change their votes against the minimum wage. Our committee has had no hearings and they are not reporting the bill. Where is the time and where is the place? Where do these 6 million poor workers, where do they go to make their case to this Republican Congress? Where is that time and where is that place? Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for joining us in the debate on the minimum wage. And with that I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.