George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would just say that this is about whether or not we continue in the direction that the Republican pension bill takes us where the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation said the bill made the system less secure, where the Congressional Budget Office said it made the system less secure, and now what we do not have are the protections on cash balance plans which make it less secure. If we keep going in that direction, if we keep following the Republicans, America's retirement benefits will be less and less secure. Their retirement will be in greater and greater jeopardy. We can change the direction. We can go in another direction. The Senate voted 97-2 to provide these kinds of protections. This is not some crazy partisan idea. This was a big bipartisan bill with Senator Lott and others on this bill, and it is about protecting people's pensions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who has been working this issue longer than anyone else in the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to make clear I think the gentleman misunderstands the nature of the motion. This is not about whether you have hybrid plans or cash balance plans. We made that very clear. We simply want those plans to protect the older workers that stand to lose a great deal of benefits. For younger workers there is some suggestion these plans may be better. It is interesting that 40 percent of the workers in these plans never get to a benefit even under this. But at a minimum, it ought to be clear that older workers are not going to suffer irreparable economic harm in terms of their retirement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act. The Senate appointed conferees on March 3 and the House on March 8, and yet 1 month later it appears almost no progress has been made. In fact, I actually would say that the conference seems to have gone backwards. Senator Enzi, the conference chair, promised that there would be an open and bipartisan conference; Mr. Leader Boehner promised the same. Instead, both meetings have been held in secret by a small group of Republican conferees. There are a lot of important issues pending in the pension conference. Every day employers are dumping their pension plans and millions of workers are deeply worried about their retirement security and whether or not they will have sufficient funds for their retirement to support their families. One of the key issues pending in the conference is whether or not older workers will be protected when employers convert their traditional defined benefit plans to a so- called cash balance plan. It is a critical issue for millions of American workers, and it is not a new issue to this House. During the 1990s, hundreds of large employers switched to these cash balance plans, including IBM, whose conversion was ruled illegal. As many as 8 million workers have been affected by these conversions, many of them, perhaps half of them, experienced deep cuts in their pension benefits as a result of these conversions. Let's be clear. Companies promised these benefits to these workers. These workers earned these benefits. Then with some paperwork and a little fancy accounting footwork, companies slashed the benefits of these workers. How did the companies do it? First, the benefits of the traditional pension plan are based upon the worker's pay at the end of their careers and when they are earning the most. Cash balance plans, on the other hand, are based on worker's average pay over the course of their career. With just a simple change on how benefits are calculated, companies can devastate the retirement nest eggs of hard-working employees, workers who gave up wages, who gave up vacation days, who gave up all kinds of benefits as they balanced out their pension plans. Yet we now see companies unilaterally essentially destroying the pension benefits that those workers are entitled to. Older workers under these conversions can lose up to half, half of their expected retirement benefits. Don't take my word for it. That is according to the Government Accountability Office. They tell us that that is what happens to older workers. This chart shows exactly what happens. This is what would happen to the workers who went into the workforce at age 25 and worked for a company. They would see their traditional retirement benefits continue to go up. With a cash balance plan, the retirement benefits go down. For the older workers, this is what they stand to lose. For anyone over about the age of 46, 47 years old, they have a substantial change in the pension benefit that they were counting on. Obviously, for these workers out here, at age 55, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to see how they would recover a sufficient amount of savings to provide for the retirement that they were planning on at that time. And it gets worse if you are 60 years old. So anybody after 45 years of age is greatly disadvantaged under these plans. And that is what is going on in the pension conference committee, is whether or not we will have the opportunity to provide for those older workers. What we now see is that IBM did this and the court stopped those conversions in 1999. The House voted overwhelmingly on several occasions in support of amendments urging the protection of older workers. The Bush administration first tried to lift the moratorium and legalize these conversions. But after 218 Members of the House or the Congress urged the President to reconsider, he withdrew that proposal. The Bush administration changed its position and has submitted proposals that do more to help the older workers. As part of the pension funding reform legislative debate, Senators Baucus, Kennedy, Frist, Grassley, Hatch and Lott brokered a compromise. The compromise largely follows the Bush administration proposal and was passed by the Senate 97-2. This motion to instruct that I am offering today urges the conferees to support the Senate compromise on protecting older workers in the cash balance conversion. The House-passed bill contains no protection for older workers and would actually legalize some of the worst employer practices that jeopardizes worker retirement security and their retirement nest eggs. The AARP, the AFL-CIO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Legislative Retirees Network, and the Pension Rights Center all support this motion. The AARP opposes any pension funding reform bill that does not protect older workers affected by these cash balance conversions. The House of Representatives has already voted three times to require the Treasury Department to protect older workers from age discrimination in cash balance conversions. In 2002, the amendment passed by a vote of 308-121; in 2003, it passed 258-160; and in 2004, it passed 237-162. Mr. Speaker, obviously this House has recognized the unfairness of the cash balance plans to older workers and that older workers ought to be protected. We believe that older workers ought to be given a choice. That is what the Congress did when it changed its pension plan. That is what Secretary of Commerce Snow said that he did when he was running his company, when he sat on the board of other companies, because he said that was the fair thing to do. The Bush administration has come around to that position. The only place where we don't hold that position is under the Republican-passed bill on the pensions that is now in the conference committee. That is why this motion to instruct is important, so that we can make sure that, at a minimum, we can exit that conference committee with the Senate-passed provisions that passed 97-2 to help protect, not perfect, but to help protect older workers who are subject to these dramatic changes by their employers, and who have very little opportunity to recover that nest egg of retirement benefits that they were counting on, that they worked hard to earn, that they negotiated with their employers and now simply, by a unilateral action, are ripped away from them. It is not fair, it is not ethical, it is not right, and this Congress ought to stand up and change it to protect those older workers. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2830, 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 to agree to the provisions contained in the Senate amendment regarding the prohibition of wearaway in connection with conversions to cash balance plans and the establishment of procedures affecting participants' benefits in connection with the conversion to such plans and not to agree to the provisions contained in title VII of the bill as passed the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, later today this House will have an opportunity to reverse one of the more egregious things that we have done, or those who voted for it have done, against the interest of America's economy, of America's institutions of higher education, for the students who are attending them, and the families that are supporting them. And that was when earlier this year in the budget reconciliation bill, this Congress, under Republican leadership, cut $12 billion out of the student aid accounts and foisted a higher cost onto students and their families at the exact time when the increased cost of college education is outstripping the ability of those families to afford that education. We are starting to see an increasing number of young people who are fully qualified, who would fully benefit from a college education who are now deciding maybe they can't do it because they can't afford it. The exact purpose of the Federal Government's involvement in helping to finance higher education for America's students is to make sure that no qualified student is turned away from that opportunity because of cost. So today, in our substitute, we will have the opportunity to make a down payment on reversing those costs for those families and those students most in need. And what we will do is we will cut the new interest rate that is going to go into place in July at 6.8 percent on these loans. We would reduce that to 3.4 percent, and this would be a down payment for 1 year. We obviously hope that the Congress would follow on and continue that effort so that these students can afford that education. It is just incredible what was done in that budget reconciliation. Over 70 percent of the net savings that comes from excessive fees that we identify, and excessive interest rates that are charged to families and to students, rather than return what are identified as excessive rates to those families so they can help pay for their college education, we took those, the Congress took those, the Republicans took those and gave them in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country. So these people will continue to pay excessive interest rates, but they will not get it returned to them. It will go to pay for the tax cuts. They want to say it is for deficit reduction. It wasn't for deficit reduction. It was to pay for the tax cuts, either the tax cuts for the oil companies or the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. So it is very important that all Members give very serious consideration to this substitute. It will be offered by myself and Mr. Kildee, Mr. Bobby Scott, Danny Davis, and Mr. Grijalva as a way of doing this. It also provides for establishing a new predominantly black-serving institutions program to boost college preparation rates among low-income black students, and it also provides for increasing the tribal college minimum grants. It stabilizes tribal college construction to ensure that the funds for construction under the Higher Education Act are guaranteed. It takes a number of the provisions that are in the underlying bill that help Hispanic teaching institutions and gets rid of the single- lender rule so that people can have an option about where they go to refinance and renegotiate their college loans. But it is a very important substitute. It is, in fact, a down payment on behalf of American students, on behalf of America's families, and on behalf of America's economy. It is about economic and national security because it ensures that young Americans with a lot of talent will not be shut out of college because of the increased cost imposed upon them by the Republicans' actions earlier this year in the Budget Reconciliation Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for entering into these colloquies, especially the colloquy on the question of intellectual properties and the protection of intellectual properties. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I would simply say that I think with the substitute that we will be voting on here in a few minutes and the other votes, and finally the vote on final passage, that we will have a clear choice in this House. I would hope that Members of the House would join a very broad array of education organizations across the country, from the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees, to the American Federation of Teachers, the American Medical Students Association, the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, Lutheran Educational Conference, Minnesota's Private Colleges, the National Association of College Admission Counselors, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Education Association, the Service Employees Union, State Public Interest Research Group, St. Mary's College in California, my father's alma mater, as a matter of fact, the United States Students Association, the University of Michigan Women's College Coalition, to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and joining the organizations like NAICU that say that they will not support this legislation, but like myself and others, they want to continue to work with the chairman as this legislation moves forward into a conference committee, hopefully soon with the Senate. But I think the correct vote here at this time for America's families who are struggling to pay for the cost of college, for the students who are struggling to pay for the cost of college, and for the contribution that these students, should they successfully complete their college education, the contribution that they will make to our society and to our economy, it is most important that we take this step provided in the substitute to make a down payment on reversing that raid on student aid and making a down payment on the future of these students, their families, our communities and this country. There is no other way to do it, because with the current aid that we are providing, and the increases in the costs that will come on line on July 1, because of the actions this Congress took just a couple of months ago, I know they want to divorce these two bills, but they are both parts of the Higher Education Act in this Congress. Because of the actions they took, these families, unless you vote for the substitute, they will be saddled with higher interest costs. Those families are being put on notice now as they are seeking out the loans necessary to pay for that education. Mr. Chairman, I think we should send them some good news as they gather around that kitchen table to try to determine whether or not they will be able to take the opportunity available to them in this country for a college education, an opportunity that should never, ever be foreclosed, simply because somebody cannot afford to take advantage of it. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the substitute, and to vote no on the bill on final passage, and as I say, to join a very wide array of educational organizations, private, public, small, large, all across this country that have very serious problems with this legislation. Let's not turn it into the missed opportunity that we believe it is.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the chairman for the purpose of these colloquies.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, do I have 5 minutes?

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the committee, we have come to the end of this debate, and we must address a fundamental distinction between these bills. One of these bills recognizes the affordability gap, if you will, between the cost of a college education and the struggles of American families and students to purchase that education. I appreciate all the discussion by the previous speakers as to how they have authorized an increase in the cap and they have done all this. The fact of the matter is, there is no money for that authorization. The President promised that he was going to raise it to $5,100, no money has been forthcoming. In fact, if you look over the last 5 years, there is $16 billion in additional spending for education that is over and above what the Republicans have reported out of the appropriations cycle over those last 5 years. So this promise of additional money some time in the future if you vote for this authorization is brought to you by the very same people who, over the last 5 years, have been cutting education over and over and over. And that is why you see this gap, this gap between the cost of an education and the ability of a family to pay for it and what a full-time Pell grant means to these students, that we are down now to about 30 percent of the real cost of that education. What does that mean? That means that these students are struggling and in many instances fully qualified students are not able to take advantage of going to college. That is just unacceptable in this country. They said that they did not do more of this because they did not think it was totally the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay for an education. Well, let me explain to them, students are deeper in debt. Families are deeper in debt. They are borrowing more money than ever. You have raised the limits on how much they can borrow because they have to borrow. More students are working more hours to try to make up for the money that they cannot borrow, the money that they do not get in grants. And what we are suggesting is for the students and the families in the most need, in the most need, that we roll back the increased cost that you are going to saddle them with in July and go to a 3.4 percent interest rate rather than a 6.8 percent interest rate. There is no way to suggest that somehow this would make it totally the responsibility of the Federal Government. That is laughable around every kitchen table in America. As families are sitting down with their young people and trying to put their aid packages together, the loans, the grants, the borrowing, the family contribution, the work of their students, to see whether or not they can acquire a 2-year or 4-year education, they would laugh in your face if you said, well, this is all the responsibility of the Federal Government. No. The Federal Government made a decision after World War II that we thought that people should not be turned away from college because they cannot afford it. And that is the people that we are trying to help, and that is the people, those most in need, that we are trying to help with this substitute, with Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Scott, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kildee, and myself, because those are the people who tragically and unfortunately and unnecessarily are making a decision. The other charge was that the only thing I could suggest where you could pay for this was tax cuts to the wealthy. I will give you another one. How about the tax cuts to the oil companies that you did in the energy bill? Maybe you can take those oil companies that have world record-breaking profits and maybe you could ask them to give back some of the tax cuts you gave to them last month or the month before and use that to help pay for the education of those families and children most in need. So this legislation just shows two real differences between the parties: The party that continues to cut education almost $16 billion more than what Congress finally reported out because the Democrats took them dragging and screaming, and the party that is going to decide that we are going to help these families. And we are either going to roll back that raid on student aid with this down payment or you are going to neglect the needs of these families and students. And I hope that people will vote for the substitute and against the bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. The Democratic substitute has been made in order to address some critical shortcomings in the underlying bill. My cosponsors, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Grijalva, join me in offering this substitute. First and foremost, this substitute will make a downpayment on the first year's effort to reduce college costs to those students most in need by cutting the interest rate, the new fixed rate interest rate, in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in July of this year. This will be the first effort to reverse the most egregious action that this Republican-led Congress did to America's families and to the students and children who are trying to pursue a college education when they took $12.5 billion out of the student aid accounts, took it and whisked it away to tax cuts for the oil companies, tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country, and raised the cost of education to America's families and students at a time when the cost of education is outstripping the ability of those families to pay for it. This amendment would also establish a new predominantly black-serving institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low- income black students, including students in rural areas who attend 2- year colleges. It creates a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution program and significantly simplifies the student aid application process by creating a simplified and short application, repeals the anti-consumer single lender rule so that borrowers can choose with which lender they want to consolidate their loans, and does a number of other things in the underlying bill. But the critical point here is to reverse the rate on student aid, to reverse the largest cuts in the history of the program. Why do we say that is necessary? Because here is the situation. This is the trend line on the percentage of the college education that a maximum Pell Grant will cover. In 2000, it was about 41 percent. Now what we see is it is drifting down to 30 percent, and it is headed down to 27 percent because of that. In this legislation, the Republicans will tell you that they have authorized an additional $200 on the Pell Grant. That will barely have any effect on this graph. But more importantly, last night, their Budget Committee did not report out a budget that has that money in it. So it is interesting rhetoric, but it does not have any money for these same low-income students that are losing their ability to cover the cost of an education. It used to be, this year and last year, if this student worked full time during the summer, if this student worked part time during school, they could cover this gap. That is no longer true. This year, they are not going to be able to cover it with the jobs that most students have during the school year, and that gap is getting worse and it is widening. That is why it is essential that we vote for the substitute amendment to make a downpayment on reversing the new costs that are imposed on these families and these students who are struggling to purchase an education. That raid on student aid last year was the most expensive raid to families in the history of this program. They can talk all they want about the additional money going to Pell Grant, it is an entitlement program, but the fact of the matter is the money that students are getting is covering a lower percentage of the cost that they encounter when they go to school. This is a fundamental determination. Pick your side, folks. You can be on the side of tax cuts for the oil companies, or you can decide you are going to help families and students that are struggling to get what is now absolutely essential to their future participation in America's economy. As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was not your race, not your ethnicity, not your religion, they wanted to know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today, those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college education is going to have to become as common as a high school education. But if families can cannot meet this gap, if they cannot provide that money, if the government will not help, you are talking about millions of students who are not going to be able to participate. That is not good for those students, it is not good for those families, it is not good for the economy, and it is not good for America. This is a chance to reverse that action. This is a chance to make a downpayment on reducing the cost, increasing the affordability. All of the studies tell us that the increasing costs are outrunning the ability of families and students to pay for that education. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just say it is an interesting academic study, and I am sure some of the information would be of interest to people, but why don't you just have the Department of Education periodically sort of select some universities and test it, rather than putting the burden on every university, whether large or small, rich or poor, private or public that has to submit this information on an annual basis where in fact there may not have been any complaints or there is support for that policy, if it has been publicly reviewed or however they handle it. The suggestion here that every university would have to go through this process is just kind of a mindless Federal Government approach to imposing these burdens on people without consideration of the cost, the need, the results, or any of the rest of it. I thought we were getting away from that policy. Talk about one-size-fits-all; here is one-size- fits-all. And when they say, well, we don't do that, who is going to check that that is really true? Yet you start this whole process. And I would say, by the way, that the names aren't redacted. The Social Security numbers are not redacted.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That was a 6.8 cap with a variable rate underneath.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I oppose this amendment and I hope most of the Members of the House will also oppose this amendment. The issues that are called into question in this amendment, the use of, the gentleman said preferences, but of any data, any factors in deciding the makeup of a university student body has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that quotas are unlawful, but universities have a right to a diverse student population, and they are allowed to use a diverse range of factors in compiling that university. I believe that the King amendment goes beyond that decision, and the amendment also does not provide for the protection of student privacy. In fact, it does just the opposite of that. The fact of the matter is this information is already available to those parties who are interested. They can get it through the Freedom of Information Act or the universities, obviously. At least in our State, they are continuously discussing operating and changing and reviewing their admissions policy because they are in constant determination of trying to provide diverse opportunities to a diverse population of qualified students. I would hope that we would reject this amendment. It is interesting that we just had an amendment we adopted to reduce paperwork, and now we are going to put on a whole new set of requirements of annual reports and different kinds of data and how it has to be collected and weighed and all the rest of it, with no showing that it has been improperly done or anything wrong has happened. We are just going to load down the universities. Mr. McKeon has an effort where he is trying to reduce the cost of higher education by making sure universities are not engaged in those practices that are not necessary and that drive up the cost. And this comes along, outside of the Supreme Court decisions, outside the current practices of universities and suggests that somehow they should just continue to develop this information with no showing or grievance. If a person has a grievance or showing, or people are interested from an academic point of view, from a social policy point of view, or from any point of view, the fact of the matter is that the information is currently available. I would hope that we would reject this amendment when it comes to a vote in the House. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Kildee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, they could go to their own districts. This is common across the country. Young people are being held in locked detention because of the simple fact that we cannot get a diagnosis. We cannot put together a treatment plan because they are on a waiting list for the services. They do not get services. In many cases, those services have been ordered, but they do not get them. They get a waiting list, and you are right, then we pay this exorbitant cost to keep them in there, but more importantly, denying them the treatment that they need. So, increasing the number of providers so that we can address these concerns and these problems that young people have is just absolutely important. The idea of making these providers eligible for loan forgiveness is a service to our community, and I am sure that the House will support this amendment.