George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his control in this debate.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, when United Airlines announced it was going to go into bankruptcy, the Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce planned an e-hearing so those people who were most affected by the termination of that plan and the bankruptcy of that company would have an opportunity to talk to their representatives in Congress. We were not going to have a hearing on this problem, and these people could not come to Washington and testify. So we opened up the Internet to them, and we received thousands of replies from people telling us their life stories. The amazing thing about it was how many of these people were using their retirement to care for another member of their family. It could be a spouse with an illness, it could be a child, a grandchild, and all of a sudden, half of their pensions were evaporated into the bankruptcy of United Airlines. Mr. Kenneth Schmidt, a long-time employee of United from Goodyear, Arizona, wrote, ``Dear Congressman, I had worked at United for 38 years when I retired in February of 2003. My job as a mechanic was always a source of pride to me. I worked midnights for many years, and in doing so, I missed many of my family gatherings and holidays. This was what I chose to do in life, and I did it with no complaints. But now I am faced with large cuts in my retirement benefits. My retirement should be a time for taking it easy, traveling and enjoying my `golden years.' If this cut happens, both my wife and I will be forced to reenter the work world, probably full time if our medical insurance is also affected. This is a sad time in this country for all the workers who are relying on a pension to ease their lives and make this time relaxing and enjoyable. The stress that is being created by the turn of events is not healthy for anyone. Please try and help all retirees and future retirees out of this most unfortunate set of troubles.'' What the problem is is that this legislation does nothing for the Kenneth Schmidts of the world, he and his family. It does nothing to keep companies from simply making a business decision that they can throw the company into bankruptcy, get rid of the retirement and health care obligations to retirees and move along. This is not some unusual practice to bring shame upon a company. The steel companies did it. The airlines have done it. There is a question of whether the automobile industry will go this way. It is really not completely about their pensions. It is about a decision of a business plan. It is about competition and a change in the marketplace. But the fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, there is no showing. United did not have to show that for these pension plans they would be a solvent company. In fact, the people from the PBGC wrote and said that they thought the flight attendant plan could be salvaged, and in fact, maybe the others could. But the decision was made and they went into bankruptcy without a hearing on that issue. Companies should have to exhaust all of their attempts to try to save the retirement plans of these Americans, these people who have worked hard. Remember, these pension plans, they traded pay. They traded health care benefits. They traded vacation days for this pension plan. That was the agreement and the guarantee. Now, unilaterally, the company gets up and walks away from it. And to rub salt into their wounds, there were pilots required by the laws of this Nation to retire earlier. They take an additional hit on their pension because they are early retirees, not because they wanted to stop flying but because the law says they have to retire. So we have pension plans that could have been salvaged and people who are being punished because of the Federal law in terms of their early retirements, and this bill does nothing to fix that. We do that in our motion to recommit. We address the concerns of the flight attendants. We address the concerns of the early retirees, and we address the concerns of the airlines, but it does not do that in the majority bill because they want to go off and use those people as trading chips, the retirement nest eggs of these hardworking Americans, in the conference committee. I urge Members to vote against this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, when we are starting to deal with the pension plans that protect America's retirements, one of the things we should do is to make a decision not to do any harm. But the fact of the matter is that this bill makes things worse in many ways for many pensioners in this country and many future pensioners. First and foremost, we created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to be there to protect some of the retiree benefits of people if pension plans went bust or the corporations went bust. We are now told that this legislation makes that problem worse. The speaker who was just in the well said there was some $23 billion in deficit in that plan. And what we now see is a Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that this makes it at least $9 billion worse over the next decade. So while we narrow the deficit, in fact we see that we increase this agency's deficit problems. This is an agency that can look out into the future and can see up to $100 billion of liabilities possibly coming their way. Maybe some of them will not come because of this bill, but many of them will come because of this bill, because this bill, in fact, makes it easier, makes it easier to terminate plans. It makes it easier to put plans into bankruptcy. It certainly does not make it any more difficult to put into bankruptcy as we saw with United Airlines. So what does that mean? That means that a plan that was designed, an insurance policy that was designed for when companies went out of business, now companies can take their pension plans, the retirement nest eggs of their workers, and put them into bankruptcy, and the company can go merrily on its way. I do not choose that term lightly, ``merrily on its way,'' because after what we saw after years and decades of manipulating the pension plans of United Airlines, about not being truthful with the employees, not being truthful with the public, not being truthful with the shareholders about their liabilities, they put them into bankruptcy. Those workers had given back billions of dollars in wage concessions, retirement concessions to try to keep that airline afloat. They were not able to because they went into bankruptcy. Yesterday, we learned that the top executives of that corporation have now petitioned the court to distribute $235 million in stock to those very same executives that ran this corporation into the ground, that they are going to get $235 million in stock. The employees who had all of the concessions, all of the cutbacks, the employees are going to be required to service, maintain, run and staff those airlines, start all over, having fallen and been cast to the floor. That is what is wrong with this legislation. It treats those in the corporate suites entirely differently than it takes care of the workers on the shop floor or on the airlines or in the repair facilities. That is the problem with it is that we see that this plan simply does not provide the kinds of protections necessary, the kinds of protections that are necessary for those employees who have worked so terribly long for those corporations, who invested their entire lives in these corporations. Plus the fact that it also makes it, and we are told by a number of the employer groups, this is what makes it more likely that the companies will terminate their plans, that they will freeze their plans. What does that mean? That means a lots of people who may be 50, 55 years old today, just as we found out with the cash balance plans, this makes it easier to do a cash balance, a lot of people who are working today are going to find out that they will not have a retirement nest egg that they have been planning on. They will not be able to carry out the standard of living that they were anticipating to provide for their families. That is what this legislation does. It makes those kinds of decisions much easier, much easier for the companies to do that. What does that mean? That means that America is going to end up with a poorer retired population than they had before. That means that these people are going to have less of the kind of retirement that they had anticipated because of the acceleration of the terminations, because of the acceleration of the freezing of the plans and because of the ease which you can now go and apparently the acceptability in the business community of entering bankruptcy. We changed the personal bankruptcy laws in this Congress because we said people were using it as a convenience. It is interesting now that the corporations have decided they will use it as a convenience to redesign themselves, to reconfigure themselves, to reinvent themselves. If United Airlines is the model, the only losers will be the workers and the retirees in those corporations. That is what this legislation does not do. It does not really speak to trying to make sure that we could do all that we can to secure the retirement of current workers and of future retirees. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation when we get to that vote and understand that we should not be making the problems of America's pensioners even worse than they are today. Madam Speaker, we are facing a serious pension crisis that has already cost employees across the Nation billions of dollars in lost benefits--benefits they were told were ironclad. If you calculate just the losses employees suffered in the Nation's four largest pension terminations it exceeds $6 billion in earned defined benefit promises. Let's be clear what is happening to our retirement system--this Enron the sequel. This is Enron 2 with a vengeance. This is a national disgrace. This bill does absolutely nothing about companies who decide to use the Federal Government to dump and run on their promises to employees. Exploiting loopholes in our pension and bankruptcy laws, clever lawyers have turned a Federal agency that was supposed to be a last resort for companies that were closing shop, into a dumping ground for companies to ditch unwanted promises to reward investors at the expense of employees and taxpayers. So powerful is this gaping hole in our pension protections, companies can now exact major wage and benefit concession by merely threatening to terminate their pension plan. Folks, if you want help fast forward to the new Wal-Mart economy-- this is your bill. If you want to further weaken employees' hand in the battle for fair wages and benefits, this is your bill. If you want to stand by and watch as companies freeze, downgrade or drop their pension plans, this is your bill. Last summer thousands of United Airline employees--mechanics, flight attendants, and pilots--lost billions in irreplaceable pension savings that changed their lives forever. These families--denied the courtesy of even a single hearing before the Education and Workforce Committee-- participated in an online hearing Democrats sponsored. Over 1,000 participated in this unique online hearing and their powerful voices were heard. They wrote to us about the personal and financial devastation resulting from the loss of promised benefits, and the lost opportunity to earn future benefits. Listen to Kenneth Schmidt, a long-time employee of United from Goodyear, AZ, who wrote: Dear Congressmen, I had worked for United for 38 years when I retired in February of 2003. My job as a mechanic was always a source of pride to me. I worked midnights for many years, with doing so I missed out on many family gatherings, holidays, etc. This was what I chose to do in life, and I did it with no complaints. But, now I am faced with large cuts to my retirement benefits. My retirement should be a time of taking it easy, traveling, and enjoying my ``Golden Years''. If this cut happens both my wife and I will be forced to reenter the work world, probably full time, if our medical insurance is also affected. This is a sad time in this country for all the workers who are relying on a pension to ease their lives, and make this time relaxing, and enjoyable. The stress that is being created by this turn in events is not healthy for anyone. Please try and help all retirees, and future retirees out of this most unfortunate set of troubles. Guess what this bill says to Kenneth Schmidt and the millions of future Ken Schmidt's who have suffered from broken pension promises: Too bad, tough luck. You're on your own. How can it be that tens of thousand of United Airlines employees like Ken Schmidt lose billions of dollars in promise benefits, and we do nothing? For example, we all know that United Airlines was permitted to terminate its flight attendants plans without ever having to show it was necessary to continue operating the company. The plan was terminated despite the testimony of a government hired economist who concluded the United plan was affordable and should be continued. This bill does nothing for them. The Democratic substitute--denied by the Republican leadership--would have restored the United plan until the company showed it couldn't afford it. This bill does nothing for thousands of pilots whose benefits are cut by half or more by the Federal Government when a plan is terminated. When a plan is taken over by the PBGC after termination by its sponsor, the PBGC is required by law to impose a heavy penalty of those who retire at age 60--even airline pilots who are forced to retire at age 60 under Federal law. Our substitute fixes this injustice and allows pilots to get the same maximum PBGC benefit other workers receive. H.R. 2830 rejects the Senate bill provisions that provide urgent relief to companies like Delta and Northwest airlines so these companies don't terminate their plans. Our Democratic substitute includes this urgently needed relief. If you want to let the hard-earned pensions of airline employees across the Nation crumble into a heap of broken promises like United and USAirways, this is your bill. Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of H.R. 2830 have referred to it as a ``pension reform bill.'' They say it will reform the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation that's already $23 billion in the red and going up. And they say it will turn around $450 billion in underfunding reported by the Nation's pension plans. In truth, this bill not only fails to tackle pension reform, it actually hastens the unraveling of the PBGC and defined benefit plans. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says about this bill: ``H.R. 2830 would actually increase the PBGC's 10 year net costs by $9 billion, or by about 14 percent compared to with what it would be under current policy.'' The PBGC found the same--that H.R. 2830 would mean billions more red ink to its agency over current law. How can a bill be reforming a system if it is increasing the PBGC's red ink over current law? It can't, and that's why this bill is a sham. This bill also repeals two long-standing, bedrock protections for employees that, if permitted to pass, will haunt employees for years to come. First, this bill overrides discrimination laws against older, existing workers for cash balance plans without any transition protections. It means that older workers will face up to what the GAO calculated would be up to a 50 percent cut in their benefits. These angry constituents will be calling the offices of Members of Congress in droves--just like thousands of IBM employees who spent years seeking to rectify deep cuts in pension benefits from a cash balance conversion. They will ask why Congress permitted companies to slash their benefits with no transition protections, no option to stay in the traditional plans, with no legal recourse. Tough luck to them, according to H.R. 2830. By contrast, the bipartisan Senate bill has significant protections for older workers, but this bill rejects them all. This bill is also larded up with lots of special interest perks, but none as pernicious as the repeal of the longstanding prohibition on conflicted investment advice. Federal pension law has always required investment advice to employees to be on the level--free from self- interested, tainted financial advice. No more. This bill gives a sweetheart deal to investment houses by allowing them to offer conflicted investment advice to employees so long as they disclose to them that fix is in. And of course, it ignores years of mutual fund financial scandals involving padded fees and commissions, secret market timing, late trading, and more uncovered by the SEC, Elliot Spitzer, and other State attorneys general. Here is what Arthur Levitt, former SEC chairman, says about the Boehner/Thomas investment advice provision. . . . I have reservations when . . . advice comes from the very same mutual fund company whose products are for sale to a plans participants. One of my bedrock principles of investing is that advice should come from mutual parties with no axe to grind. Financial journalist Jane Bryant Quinn and NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer have also expressed strong opposition to this change. It's amazing that we don't lift a finger for the Ken Schmidts of the world, but we pull out all the stops to reverse a 30-year bedrock protection for employees for mutual funds and investment firms' lobbyists. By contrast, the Senate bill does not include this repeal and goes further to actually strengthen the independent advice employees receive. This bill does nothing to ensure fair treatment between workers and executives. Under this bill, if an employer does not fund its pension plan above 80 percent, then the workers get punished by benefit limits. What's the penalty for the executives who ran the plan down between 60 percent and 80 percent? Zero? If an employer does not fund above 60 percent, the bill requires more benefits limits for workers. For executives, only a weak provision for new executive compensation, with loopholes that allow the companies to promise future golden parachutes. This bill doesn't reform our pensions; it actually hastens the pension crisis according to two independent Federal agencies. Rather than encouraging companies to keep their defined benefit plan in place, it encourages companies to freeze, downgrade or drop their pension plans altogether. It gives the green light to companies who want to dump and run, and opens new loopholes for mutual funds to steer employees into investments that feather their own nests at the expense of employees. It overrules age discrimination laws to slash the pensions of older workers and other existing employees. And it launches new, punishing benefit cuts for employees of underfunded pension plans, while letting the very executives who ran the company and the pension plan into the ground off the hook. And it does nothing to address the urgent crisis of our airline companies and employees--where jobs and the hard-earned retirement benefits of hundreds of thousands of Americans hang in the balance. I urge you to oppose this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit on behalf of myself and Congressman Cardin.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all his hard work on the Rules Committee. It is rather interesting, and Mr. McGovern has alluded to this a number of times, but it is interesting today as we watch with great anxiety and anticipation and a sense of celebration as Iraqis run the gauntlet of violence to go out and vote for democracy, at the same time the Republicans in the House of Representatives close down democracy in the people's House. Republicans, a number of them stood up here today and said this is a very complex bill. This is the most important bill that may come before this Congress because it affects millions of Americans' livelihoods and retirements, but it has to come under a closed rule. It cannot withstand debate, it cannot withstand amendments, and it cannot withstand changes. That is the death of democracy in the people's House. So let us applaud it in Iraq today, but let us understand what is happening here, the gradual glacial process of destroying debate on the floor of the House of Representatives and the right of Members. Mr. Visclosky wanted to talk about people who were being impacted by these policies who were losing their jobs and losing their workplace and losing their retirement benefits, but he was not going to be allowed to offer those amendments to have that amendment because of the autocratic nature of the Republican leadership in this House. They cannot stand democracy, they cannot stand open rules, and they cannot stand open debate. Because it is their way, as Mr. McGovern says, or the highway. This Republican pension bill is the greatest assault on the middle class standard of living in the history of Congress because this bill accelerates the process by which millions of American workers will lose the retirement nest eggs that they were counting on. They will lose the security of their golden years, if you will, because of the accounts that they were counting on. And it need not happen. It is not just about the organized plans, UAW or the Teamsters or the building trades. This is about millions of Americans who do not have the benefit of a union, who do not have the benefit of collective bargaining, because in a survey of the major employers by the Benefits Association, 60 percent of those people say that this bill will cause them to freeze their plans, freeze their retirement benefits. You can continue to work, but you will not continue to get any retirement, additional retirement benefits. What does the CBO say about this bill? It says it makes this problem $9 billion worse for the Pension Guaranty Corporation. What does the Pension Guaranty Corporation say about this bill? That it will make it billions of dollars worse over the next few years. So we have made the problem worse, which is the solvency of the Pension Guaranty Corporation, and that is a corporation that protects pensions that now is anticipating hundreds of billions of dollars of potential liabilities in the future. So we accelerate the problem and we diminish the capacities of the government to deal with this and the ability of the private sector to deal with it. And interestingly enough, we make it easier for corporations to simply get rid of these pension benefits without negotiations just as United Airlines did. We were told that a couple of those plans possibly could have been saved, according to the Pension Guaranty Corporation. Two days later they were put into bankruptcy. This pension plan was designed when corporations went out of business. The gentleman from Indiana is here. When Studebaker went out of business we created this because there was no more company. Yesterday in USA Today United Airlines announced it is coming out of bankruptcy and a couple of hundred executives are going to take 15 percent ownership in the company and they are going to leave bankruptcy with $285 million in their pocket, in their pocket. And those workers who gave back their pensions, gave back their wages year after year after year to help this airline which was mismanaged and run into the ground, they leave with nothing. You say, oh, they have a job. Well, the people who are responsible, the executives for running this company, they leave with stock bonuses. That is what this bill does. It continues this problem, this absolute problem of corruption of the rights of people to protect their retirements.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution for many of the reasons that my colleagues have cited. The fact of the matter is, we have the blueprint for what needs to be done on the oceans. $10 million was spent developing it. We have another one from the private sector, from the Pew Foundation, led by our former colleague Leon Panetta. I think they spent over $4 million. The Resources Committee has a budget of $14 million. If there are five other committees, most of their budgets are larger than ours, so you are approaching almost $100 million in public moneys that are available to deal with this issue. And yet we are going to create a task force to study a study and spend another $400,000. Either the place is so terribly bureaucratized that it cannot respond or it does not want to respond. The fact of the matter is, we can do this through a select committee and end up with a legislative product, or we can do this through a task force and end up with a study of a study recommending to the committees, that have not shown any interest to date, that they should do something about the oceans. You are right, the oceans are far too important to be left to that mechanism. But the fact of the matter is, this task force does not take this any further down the road. This is about action. As Mr. Farr said, it is about leadership. We have the expertise in the committees. When we did the energy bill, the Speaker told us that the energy bill would be on the floor by a certain date. The Commerce Committee did their part, the Ways and Means Committee did their part. Transportation did their part. Resources did their part. We saw the bill on Monday. We talked about it on Wednesday, voted on it on Friday. It was on the floor the following week. Not a great process, but they obviously wanted to do something to have an energy bill on the floor. We have done that in other cases. Here they simply do not want to do it. They really just do not want to do this to protect the oceans, because it requires a commitment of resources. It requires a national commitment to protect the oceans, and the Republican Congress is not interested in doing that. If they wanted to do it, they would do it. They simply do not want to do it. But what they want to do now is just throw some additional money at it to kind of kick the can down the road. The emotions are too important to be kicked down the road. This should be addressed by this Congress. We have had a year, and nothing has happened. So now we are going to spend another 6 months and the ball is not going to get advanced very far, other than politically, and then we are going to be back telling the committees they should do something about the oceans. We just spent $15 million telling the committees they should do something about the oceans. So this is about whether you have the will to do something about the oceans, whether you have the political ability to do something about the oceans and the leadership to do something about the oceans, or you do not. It just does not make any sense. This system, I guess, should become more flexible to deal with, because almost all of the tasks now that the Congress deals with cut across committee jurisdiction lines. So we ought to become more flexible to deal with it. We should not just be throwing more money at it to pretend like we are doing something to advance this incredibly important, incredibly urgent oceans agenda. This task force does not deal with that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Richmond Steelers Football Team as they return from the National Youth Football Pigskin League Tournament in Las Vegas. About 128 teams from around the country compete in the Tournament. I am proud to represent them in Congress. The Richmond Steelers, 200 boys and one girl, under the direction of Head Coach Fred Harris, have long been a story of success in the history of national youth football. The Steelers have won five consecutive California state youth football titles and have compiled a 59-3 record over that span. The team reached their highest mark last year as they took first place in the Midget Division of the Pigskin Tournament. More than the trophies, the Steelers represent salvation for children who otherwise face numerous hardships. In August 2004, players were devastated by the murder of Terrance Kelley, a former Steelers player and De La Salle High School football star who was on his way to the University of Oregon on a football scholarship. In August of this year, the day before the team's first practice game, beloved Midget coach Waleed Elahi was shot and killed. Waleed and his brother Khalid started an early morning breakfast program to ensure that players had a nutritious meal each morning before going to school. This year, the opportunity to defend their title was nearly stripped from the Steelers, as they lacked the funds to travel to Las Vegas for the championship games. The team receives no outside funding and relies on membership fees and donations to survive. Steelers President Adrian Muhammad, when asked about the team's situation, said that unless there was a miracle, the team would not be able to afford the trip. However, miracles still do happen. Once word got out, the community responded, and donations came pouring in. Residents and businesses from Contra Costa County banded together to help the team raise $30,000 in just a few weeks. With such an overwhelming response, the Steelers were able to make the trip. The Steelers returned to Richmond with four honors, a first place trophy won by the Pee Wees, two second place trophies won by the Midgets and the Mighty Mites, and the Junior Midget's third place bronze medals. However, for these children and the community at large, the fact that the trip was even made possible is every bit as important as the outcome of the games. The individuals, businesses and community organizations of Richmond pooled their resources and together provided the necessary funding. This effort in support of our children represents the very best in community spirit and is an example of hope that we can all celebrate. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the journey that the coaches and players of the Richmond Steelers, and the community in which they live, have traveled this year. Please join me in celebrating their success.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, a little over 24 hours ago, an American military hero suggested to this country that this Congress should debate the policy, the current policy in Iraq. He had some suggestions on how that policy should be changed. He believed, as we believe him, that he was doing this for the sake of our troops, for the sake of our country, for security in the Middle East, and the security of this country. In those 24 hours, he has come under unrelenting attack, characterizing him as an individual, as a Member of Congress, as to his motives, as to what he proposed, as opposed to what he said he proposed. Those attacks came from the President of the United States, from the Vice President of the United States, from the Speaker of the House, and from so many Members of this body who challenged his patriotism, challenged his character and challenged his integrity because he simply dared to kick open the doors of Congress and suggest that we debate the pressing question of this Nation that the people of this Nation want us to debate. Not that he would win that debate, but that he wanted that debate to take place, and that for that, all of his years of service to this country were openly challenged and mis-char- acter-ized and slandered. I do not know where we went wrong. I do not know where we went wrong because I went through the debates in this Congress in Vietnam and Central America, and Mr. Murtha and I could not be on more opposite sides of those issues. And many people I served with in the history of this Congress, but never in those debates did people assassinate the character of one another. We challenged the evidence, we challenged the assumptions. We challenged what was said, but we never ever, ever, did this to one another because we respected one another, having differing views coming from different parts of the country with different backgrounds. Where did we go wrong? Maybe tonight Mr. Murtha gave us another gift. Sometimes when you hit bottom, you change the ways you do business. Maybe Mr. Murtha gave us this. After all that he suffered over this last 48 hours, maybe this Congress will be a better place, because everyone sitting in this Congress knows who knows Jack Murtha what has been said about him in the last 24 hours could not be further from the truth. That man is a hero. That man is a hero to this Nation. You know it and the whole Nation knows it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, last week the Republicans were unable to pass this bill because of the severity of the cuts. They have since then done a lot of horse trading about those cuts and apparently, now tonight, they have the votes. But the one thing that remained consistent throughout all of that horse trading was they never lost their appetite to raise the cost of student loans. According to the CBO, this budget will add almost $8 billion in new cost onto the backs of students and onto their parents as they borrow money to pay for higher education, a higher education that is absolutely essential today to fully participate in the American economy. They will add almost $5 billion in new consolidation loan fees and higher interest rates that go directly to those students borrowing money. They mandated a 1 percent insurance fee, $1.47 billion, on the backs of these students. Repealing the lower interest rate caps, $505 million to these students. A 1.5 percent origination fee, $350 million to these students. So that the average student today who borrows $17,500, you will increase their cost of that loan, and that education $5,800. Not according to me, but according to the Congressional Budget Office. You can say all you want, but none of you apparently raised your hand and said, How about helping the students? How about reducing the taxes on the students? How about reducing the $8 billion in new taxes on these students? Students who are going to Kansas, they are going to UT, 30 students here are going to Georgetown. Nobody raised their hand on behalf of these students or their families who are going deeper and deeper in debt. Just 2 weeks ago, we got a report that the cost of a college education is outstripping the ability of middle-class families to pay for it, and certainly lower income families to pay for it. Earlier this day, you took away the promise of this President to increase the Pell grant by $50. He originally promised to raise it to $5,100. But, no, you couldn't keep that promise, the President couldn't keep his, you didn't keep his promise, nobody kept the promise to the students. Somehow you are just not able to keep your promises. What happens is that these students here are punished because of your inability to keep your promises. No, the House is not out of order, you are out of order because you are hurting the students of this Nation, you are hurting their families, you are piling on the debt, you are piling on the interest rates, you are increasing the cost to the students and to their families. You ought to be ashamed of it. Because the taxes that these kids are going to have to pay and their families pay are way beyond what is fair to do to them. It is a tragedy, an absolute tragedy that you would do this to young people. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for all of his work on the legislation, and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for all of his work. Like so many others who have already spoken, it is clear they were not dealt a very fair hand, or the hand that they needed, to take care of needs of this country. I am most disappointed in the funding of No Child Left Behind. At a time when school districts are entering into the most expensive part of No Child Left Behind, when they are being required to restructure entire school districts, entire schools, when they are trying to meet the demand and the requirement of a law that we have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, which requires substantial retraining of teachers, the attracting of new teachers, the paying of incentives for teachers to go to the most difficult schools, at that very time the Federal Government walks away from the commitment under No Child Left Behind. The Federal Government starts to decrease its participation when the States and the school districts and our schools need it more than ever. It really shows such little confidence in the future of our young children. It shows such little confidence in the ability of our school districts to restructure themselves to meet the demands being placed upon them. We see cuts here in technology grants that are absolutely essential for the future education of our children. We see teacher quality grants cut. Those are absolutely essential to improve the quality of our teachers in our classroom so they can engage in that kind of professionalism. What is most startling is that these cuts in education come at a time when, I am not saying put more money in education, Mr. Obey is not telling you that, but the American business community is telling you this is the most crucial thing you can do. The American Electronics Association, made up of some of the most successful companies in the history of this country, their number one priority was to fully fund No Child Left Behind. The Semiconductor Association: fully fund No Child Left Behind, put money into graduate school education, put money into highly qualified teachers. And this budget goes in exactly the other direction. We do not have the confidence that is necessary and demanded of this country in the future and the confidence in these young people and the necessary investments to be made in them. It is so discouraging to see the lack of confidence in our young people that this budget demonstrates.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the managers of the bill jointly submit this statement to explain and clarify the intent of certain provisions contained within the legislation. With respect to amendments made to the Occupational Safety and Health, OSH, Act in section 311 of the legislation, the managers recognize the historic and unique nature of this disaster inflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and is taking the extraordinary step of authorizing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to use volunteers in light of the historic scope of that devastation. Section 311 of the bill is intended to allow OSHA to utilize qualified safety professionals as volunteers to assist in a variety of projects targeting health and safety identified by OSHA. It is the managers' expectation and intent that these volunteers would be qualified by virtue of experience, and would need little additional training based on their professional work experience or other recognized safety training prior to being deployed in needed areas. With respect to section 312's providing authority to the Secretary to purchase and distribute equipment and supplies to public or private entities engaged in projects related to worker safety, it is the intent of the managers that these funds be used to assist in relief and recovery efforts, and not be used to pay private entities to comply with preexisting requirements or obligations under the OSH Act. Finally, with respect to title III, subtitle A, the Pension Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act of 2005, it is the managers' expectation and intention that the Secretary will exercise the authority provided under that section judiciously and upon careful consideration of the appropriateness of any waiver, suspension, or exemption authorized thereunder.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last week, President Bush said it was irresponsible for people to rewrite the way the war began, and the White House communications director said the American people expect an honest debate. I could not agree with both statements more. Then, yesterday, the President donned his flight jacket and suggested that he was going to attack his critics and, in fact, attacked his critics rather than contribute to the honest debate. The American people need to know, after the dramatic failure of intelligence, just how that intelligence was used, how it was emphasized, how it was manipulated, and who was the source of much of the intelligence that this administration used to hook people into the war in Iraq. Did they use the intelligence provided by Mr. Chalabi, who was on our payroll, and by Mr. Chalabi's defectors, who paid and bribed to provide that intelligence to the administration? Did the administration, and this goes to the crux of the question: Did the administration do the due diligence that was necessary before they made the decision to put American men and women in harm's way into Iraq? Did they look at the case and make the case that this was an imminent threat to the security of the United States? So far, we do not have the answers to those questions. We know that there was a concerted effort within the Department of Defense, within the administration to push us into the war in Iraq. We now need to know how that was done. We need that honest debate. We do not need the President to continue to attack his critics. The American people are entitled to that debate. They are entitled to the results of the investigations that were promised 17 months ago, and nothing has happened from those investigations.