George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we and the American public found out that the Bush administration once again has not been telling us the truth about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. It now appears it is going to cost over a trillion dollars. When they debated it on the floor of Congress, they said it was going to cost $300 billion, and at the same time, of course, the administration and the Republican leadership kept the people from coming forward with the real information that they thought it was going to cost $600 billion. Now it is over a trillion dollars. Where is the Republican outrage? Where is the Republican commitment to balance budgets and fiscal responsibility? No, they have instead chosen to lower their voices. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that those Members with independent voices in the Republican Caucus lost their positions. Those who had independent voices on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs lost their chairmanship and their positions. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who spoke out independently on behalf of America's veterans lost his chairmanship and even his position on that committee. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what has happened to those independent voices for the good of this Nation and the Republican Party.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, very often when we are out among the people we represent and holding town hall meetings and meeting with various organizations, we are asked the question, Why do you not run the government like a business? Unfortunately, today, there is some evidence that we are running it like a business, but we are running it like some of the worst businesses in America. Today, what we see, as the Republicans gain seats in the House of Representatives, as the Republicans get more and more control of the House of Representatives, there is less and less space for honest debate in the House. There are less opportunities for the minority to offer amendments, to offer bipartisan changes to legislation to come to the floor. If we put together a bipartisan coalition that the Republican leadership does not like, they simply are not allowed to offer that amendment. This is at a time when young men and women are dying to bring democracy to Afghanistan and to Iraq, and yet we cannot find that democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. It does appear, as the old saying says, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; and that is the situation we have come to. We now have the House that has an ethics process that reeks of favoritism, reeks of conflicts of interest, reeks of punishment of those who dare to look at the evidence and make an independent judgment. We now see that those individuals are taken off the committee. The chairman of the committee is sacked for no apparent reason. There was a unanimous vote in the committee in the last session of the Congress three times to admonish the majority leader of the House. The committee apparently looked at the evidence, listened to the witnesses, and on a unanimous basis decided that that action was warranted. We then see that those individuals who participated, or several of those individuals, including the chairman who participated in that unanimous decision, were taken off the committee. This starts to look like the businesses that have terrified the American people, the Enrons, the WorldComs, where we see what happens is the CEO starts to appoint his friends to the board of directors. They start to cook the books, they start to steal the shareholders money, they start to mislead the investment communities. What we see here is that apparently the majority leader did not like the outcome of the actions by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and so they started to change the rules. There apparently is some anticipation that the majority leader could be subject to an indictment out of the State of Texas. As a result of that, there was an effort to change the rules; and in fact, the rules were changed within the Republican Caucus to say that, if indicted, that leader could continue to serve, or a leader in the position of leadership could continue to serve. Of course, that was a voice vote and a secret caucus. When that vote was exposed to daylight, when they found out that vote was going to be challenged by our side of the aisle, by the Democrats in the House, they, of course, changed that action because it would not stand up under scrutiny; but they did not do anything. Unlike the old rules, the investigation would have proceeded because the committee is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. It would have proceeded. Now, unless one person from one party or another crosses the party lines and agrees to the investigation, the investigation dies. We now have the situation where the party that may have somebody under investigation, in effect, has a veto. That is not the ethics process that the public is entitled to or the Members of the House are entitled to. We now see that that is the rules of the House. We now also see that in the replacement of the Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we have two Members of the committee who have contributed to the defense fund for the majority leader. If they are called upon to undertake an investigation, because apparently that matter is still pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, they will be in a position of having to decide whether to proceed or not, and they have already cast their vote with their contribution to that defense fund. So we now have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that is severely conflicted with respect to its duty to the people of the country and to the Members of this House. Mr. Speaker, this is not what the people's House should look like. This is not how the people's business should be done, whether it is about allowing space for true and honest political debate, as many Members on the floor today earlier argued for the ability to talk about the asylum provisions in the bill that we will vote tomorrow, but the time was not allotted to do that. The time was not allotted to have that kind of discussion that affects so many people. Why did they do that? Because they do not want the discussion. As our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), said, it appears that they know they can win the vote, they just do not believe they can win the debate. Time and again we see that happening. As severe as that problem is with respect to closing down democracy in the House, the changing and the corrupting of the ethics process is far more severe because our first obligation is to make sure that Congress does, in fact, do its business in an ethical fashion, not in a corrupt fashion, and that Members of Congress are held to an ethical standard that justifies their support by the people of their districts.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues and the sponsors of this resolution and my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), from the committee in congratulating and celebrating the contributions of Catholic Schools and certainly their theme of this year which is ``Faith in Every Student.'' It is something that those of us who have attended Catholic Schools understand is at the very core of Catholic education. Not only is it the faith in every student, but it is the dignity of every one of us as God's children, recognizing whether they be poor, whether they be rich, whether they be working or unemployed, whether they be young or old, each of us carries with us a dignity given to us by God and recognizing our responsibility to one another. As the Catholic Schools have told us very often, we cannot operate in a solitary world. We must operate within the community. And operating within the community has taught us, those of us who have gone to that school and certainly many of us who have not, that we have obligations. We have obligations to reach down and give a hand up to people who need it. We have an obligation to put our arm around somebody who is in need of comforting and stabilizing in a time of crises. These are the basic tenets that you learn in Catholic School. When you learn that in Catholic School, hopefully you are able to carry it through the rest of your life. I know, as one who has spent most of my life in public service, have recognized those tenets when I have been engaged in the problems of families at risk and children at risk. When I was chair of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families in this Congress, we spent a great deal of time with Catholic organizations talking about what do we do for the very young, what do we do for the adolescents. It was the Catholic Church that said, if you are going to start this committee, it was going to be the committee on children and families. They insisted that youth be in the title of that committee because they said, for far too often, public policy has been afraid to confront and discuss and try to deal with the problems of adolescents and teenagers at risk and the kinds of policies that this Congress could call into play and that this Nation could use to help those young people as they go through a troubling time in their life and a challenging time in their life and a risky time in their life. That turn out to be the right move. That turned out to be the right contribution as we had the opportunity to try and see what we could do to better support those young people. Many of my colleagues and all of us are very proud of our time in Catholic Schools. In the Miller families, Catholic Schools run very deep, from my grandfather, to my father, to my sisters who went to Saint Catherine's, to myself who went to Bellermine High School under the Jesuits. My one son went to Gonzaga and another to De La Salle and to my grandchildren who are at Holy Trinity in Sacramento. We understand the importance of this education. We understand the importance of the moral education and what we can take away from our time in Catholic School, what our grandchildren can take away. That is why we rise on this floor to support and to congratulate the Catholic Schools and the contributions that they make to American society, an important contribution to American society, recognizing our obligations to one another to create a community where each and every one of us has the opportunity to thrive, and recognizing so very often that sometimes people are not thriving and that sometimes it is almost through no fault of their own and we have an obligation to help those individuals also. Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to the Catholic Schools in recognition of their contributions. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to recognize Judy Hart who is retiring after a 27-year career with the National Park Service. Judy Hart is the first superintendent of Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California. The legislation creating the new national park was signed by the President October 24, 2000, and Ms. Hart began as Superintendent on January 15, 2001. Prior to becoming Superintendent Judy coordinated the study for the new park. Judy has been instrumental in moving the Rosie the Riveter National Park from concept to reality. She is the latest in a long list of remarkable women whose contributions here have shaped American history. She has devoted the last 4 years of her career to laying the foundation for a National Park that is not only a part of Richmond's unique heritage, but that also symbolizes a national effort to recognize the women whose important Home Front contributions helped win World War II and also changed the way our Nation thinks about civil rights, child care, health care and labor rights. Judy has skillfully brought together a large group of partners to make this effort a success. The challenges Judy has faced and the obstacles she has overcome are even more remarkable because, as a ``partnership park,'' all of the land and buildings are owned by entities other than the National Park Service, and the federal funds available for start-up are limited. Working with a number of grants, volunteers and her public and private donors, Judy will turn over to her successor a sound structure on which to build. Her accomplishments at RRNP include the following: overseeing the implementation of the General Management Plan process which she also is coordinating with the City of Richmond's general plan amendment; worked with the Port of Richmond to open Shipyard #3 to visitors; worked on the National Register nominations for all structures but one within the Park; and developed Phases one and two for oral histories of home front workers. Over 9,000 Rosies have contacted the Park to share their names and short stories. After connecting with the Park, over 2,000 Rosies have written out the whole story of their home front adventures, up to 55 typed pages from one Rosie. Over 2,000 Rosies have donated their precious mementos, treasured for over 50 years, and now delivered to the safekeeping of the Park. Her career in the Park Service spans 27 years. Prior to moving to California for this new position, Ms. Hart worked for 12 years in the Washington, D.C. headquarters. She was the first National Program Coordinator for the National Heritage Areas which are partnership areas privately owned and managed in cooperation with the NPS. Previous to that Ms. Hart developed the Conservation Study Institute, now operated in partnership with the University of Vermont and the new Marsh Billings National Historical Park in Woodstock, Vermont. Ms. Hart served in the Washington Office of Legislation for 6 years, supporting the creation of Petroglyphs National Monument, Marsh Billings National Historical Park, the Mary McLeod Bethune National Historic Site, and Manzanar National Historic Site, as well as many other park units. Ms. Hart lived for 6 years in Seneca Falls, NY, and was the first superintendent of the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, after suggesting the idea, working on the study and working on the legislation. Prior to that Ms. Hart worked on park legislation out of the Regional office in Boston, MA. Prior to her career with the Park Service, Ms. Hart worked for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, City of Boston, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as Director of the Bureau of Relocation. She also worked for the Federal Highway Administration on Environmental Impact Statement reviews. She began her career in publishing at Little, Brown and Company, and as a company newsletter editor for the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, both in Boston. Her graduate degree is in English Literature from Cornell University, and her graduate degree is a Master of Arts in law from Goddard College in Vermont. Mr. Speaker, because of Ms. Hart's many contributions to preserving and interpreting our Nation's history, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to recognize her today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my support to Sandra L. Seeno, a community leader and friend who will be formally recognized on February 4, 2005, at the grand opening of the Center for Immunobiology and Vaccine Development at Children's Hospital in Oakland, California. Ms. Seeno has been an ardent supporter of Children's Hospital and Research Center at Oakland for more than 20 years. She is committed to promoting Children's Hospital and ensuring the delivery of high-quality pediatric care. Ms. Seeno has also worked to maintain Children's Hospital as a nationally recognized research program with highly qualified primary care providers and strong education and teaching programs. For the past 2 years Ms. Seeno has served as a member of the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute (CHORI) Advisory Board, which was established to promote CHORI to philanthropic, scientific and business communities. Over the past year she has been particularly dedicated to supporting the completion of the Institute's new Center for Immunobiology and Vaccine Development (CIVD). Ms. Seeno's service as a community advisor has been instrumental in present and future development strategies for the Children's Hospital and Research Center Foundation. Along with her husband, Albert D. Seeno, Jr. she has helped oversee the charitable arm of the Albert D. Seeno, Jr. Family Foundation and helped to bring about new projects such as the grand opening of the Center for Immunobiology and Vaccine Development. I congratulate Ms. Seeno for her hard work and dedication to the community and the Children's Hospital and Research Center at Oakland.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Superintendent Glenn R. Fuller who has retired after thirty- two years of service in the National Park Service. During his career Glenn R. Fuller worked in several national parks including Grand Canyon National Park as a back-country district ranger doing search and rescue; Cape Cod National Seashore as a Park Ranger; Rocky Mountain National Park as a Park Technician; Golden Gate National Recreation Area as a Park Ranger; and Site Manager at Muir Woods National Park. He is also a retired law enforcement officer. Glenn became Park Superintendent at Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site in November 1993. In December 2001, he was promoted to Superintendent of O'Neill NHS, John Muir National Historic Site, and Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial. Glenn's accomplishments are many and varied including the following: Successfully negotiating after fourteen years a settlement agreement with the Kuss Road Homeowners allowing access to Eugene O'Neill NHS. The agreement was signed in 1994. Developing the treatment plan for the Cultural Landscape Report at Eugene O'Neill NHS. This included installation of a deer fence, new irrigation system and removal of hazardous and non-historic trees and shrubs. Contracting in 2000 with a commercial video company to produce a video tour of areas in the Tao House that are not accessible to wheelchair users. Securing funding and requesting a Site Assessment for Livestock Pond Wetland Restoration at Eugene O'Neill NHS. Collaborating with Contra Costa County, Friends of Alhambra Creek, and neighbors on the Strenzel Lane Erosion and Sediment Reduction Projects Stability of Alhambra Creek at the John Muir family gravesite. Securing funds and initiating the Environmental Assessment and Fire Management Plan for John Muir NHS and Eugene O'Neill NHS. Securing funds and initiating Environmental Assessments for two large construction projects at John Muir NHS. One project is to create a new parking and staging area on Franklin Canyon Road. This will allow multiple school buses and visitors to park safely and provide a staging area for the entrance at Mt. Wanda. The other project improves the back entrance to the park on Canyon Way and access through the Highway 4 tunnel. Successfully negotiating with the Navy and Army an agreement for access to the Port Chicago National Memorial. For eleven years, the National Park Service has been trying to get this agreement and, after a concerted effort during the last three years, an agreement was signed November 24, 2004. Port Chicago and the story the Memorial tells has been a personal and professional commitment of Glenn's. He has long believed that the story is of national significance that needs to reach all Americans. Glenn has, within existing resources, managed to share that story with hundreds of people in the years since the Memorial was created. Most especially, Glenn has coordinated the public observance of the anniversary of the explosion for the past ten years. Glenn is largely responsible for the overwhelming success of the 60th anniversary ceremony of the 1944 Port Chicago explosion and the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Memorial. The ceremony was a mix of speeches, recognition, personal letters from relatives who were stationed at Port Chicago in 1944 and personal accounts of the injustice to black sailors during World War II. Glenn is an active member of the San Francisco Network Inventory and Monitoring Program which provides natural resource management for both John Muir NHS and Eugene O'Neill NHS. Under Glenn's watch the park now has a new soil map, Vegetation Management Plan and Watershed Management Plan, moth and butterfly inventories, plans to remove unused fire roads, and containment of invasive plants. Mr. Speaker, because of Glenn Fuller's many contributions to our nation's history and his commitment to the National Park Service, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to recognize him today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Billie Middleton as she retires as Executive Director of Youth and Family Services after twenty-two years. Billie Middleton has served her entire professional career in the provision of public mental health services beginning in human services. She obtained her Masters of Science Degree in Clinical Psychology from San Francisco State University, graduating as an Honor Student of the Department, and Summa Cum Laude. She later obtained her Marriage and Family Therapy License. Mrs. Middleton began working in outpatient mental health programs and later focused her work on adolescents; for three and a half years she directed residential treatment programs for emotionally disturbed, and drug and alcohol-using adolescents. In 1982 she decided to develop a private practice as a psychotherapist. She also spent a year as a consultant in organizational psychology. In the early 1980s Mrs. Middleton went to work as a Program Counselor/Coordinator for a fledgling organization called Youth and Family Services (YFS) in her hometown of Benicia. YFS was incorporated as a private non-profit in the State of California with an annual budget of $10,000. Mrs. Middleton later became the Executive Director and twenty-two years later YFS has a budget of three million dollars and a staff of fifty-six employees. In addition to her leadership of YFS, Mrs. Middleton has always found creative ways to change systems and fund and provide services. She has served on many committees including the Solano County Children's Network as vice president; Chair of the Solano County Drug and Alcohol Advisory Board; a founding member of Fighting Back Partnership; served on the City of Vacaville Youth Roundtable; the Benicia Youth Action Task Force; the Child Abuse Prevention Council; and the Mental Health Children's System of Care Redesign Committee. She also served on the Community Services Task Force which is an arm of the Solano Coalition for Better Health. Mrs. Middleton was also the principal force behind the formation of the Solano County Community Cancer Task Force. Her vision of ``Building Relationships, Building Community'' has guided her work throughout her career. Mrs. Middleton believes that relationships and community are critical for healthy development, and are what heals problems. This was part of the original strategic plan of YFS that services dealing with substance abuse have to be multi- faceted, family-focused and be strongly rooted in the community with organizations working collaboratively to solve problems. Mr. Speaker, because of Mrs. Middleton's innumerable contributions to her community and the residents of Solano County, it is proper for us, and it is my honor, to recognize her today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to recognize Judy Hart who is retiring after a twenty- seven year career with the National Park Service. Judy Hart has served as the first superintendent of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California. My legislation creating the new national park was signed into law by President Clinton on October 24, 2000, and Ms. Hart began as Superintendent on January 15, 2001. Prior to becoming Superintendent, Judy coordinated the study for the new park. She has devoted the last four years of her career to laying the foundation for this national park. The Rosie Park recognizes the City of Richmond and its unique heritage as the epicenter of a national effort to memorialize and interpret the contribution of the Home Front. Many of the experiences that began in Richmond not only helped to win World War II but also changed the way the nation thought about civil rights, child care, health care and labor rights. The challenges Judy has faced, and the obstacles she has overcome, are even more remarkable because, as a ``partnership park,'' all of the land and buildings are owned by entities other than the National Park Service. In addition, the federal funds available for start-up are limited. Working with a number of grants, volunteers and her public and private donors, Judy will turn over to her successor a sound structure on which to build. She made an incomparable contribution to moving the RRNP from concept to reality. Her accomplishments at RRNP include working with many partners to accomplish the following: oversaw the implementation of the General Management Plan process which she also is coordinating with the City of Richmond's general plan amendment; worked with the Port of Richmond to open Shipyard #3 to visitors; none of the historic structures have been torn down even though every structure in the Park legislation has been threatened with demolition; National Register nominations will shortly be completed for all structures but one within the Park; developed Phases one and two for oral histories of home front workers. In addition, over 9,000 Rosies have contacted the Park to share their names and short stories. After connecting with the Park, over 2,000 Rosies have written out the whole story of their home front adventures, up to 55 typed pages from one Rosie. Over 2,000 Rosies have donated their precious mementos, treasured for over 50 years and now delivered to the safekeeping of the Park. Volunteer hours went from 0 in 2003 to over 3,000 hours in 2004. Judy Hart's career in the Park Service spans 27 years. Prior to moving to California for this new position, Ms. Hart worked for 12 years in the Washington, D.C. headquarters. She was the first National Program Coordinator for the National Heritage Areas which are partnership areas privately owned and managed in cooperation with the NPS. Previous to that Ms. Hart developed the Conservation Study Institute, now operated in partnership with the University of Vermont and the new Marsh Billings National Historical Park in Woodstock, Vermont. Ms. Hart served in the Washington office of Legislation for 6 years, supporting the creation of Petroglyphs National Monument, Marsh Billings National Historical Park, the Mary McLeod Bethune National Historic Site, and Manzanar National Historic Site, as well as many other park units. Ms. Hart lived for 6 years in Seneca Falls, NY and was the first superintendent of the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, after suggesting the idea, working on the study and working on the legislation. Prior to that, Ms. Hart worked on park legislation out of the NPS Regional office in Boston, MA. Prior to her career with the Park Service, Ms. Hart worked for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, City of Boston, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as Director of the Bureau of Relocation. She also worked for the Federal Highway Administration on Environmental Impact Statement reviews. She began her career in publishing at Little, Brown and Company, and as a company newsletter editor for the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, both in Boston. Her graduate degree is in English Literature from Cornell University, and her graduate degree is a Master of Arts in law from Goddard College in Vermont. Mr. Speaker, because of Ms. Hart's many contributions to preserving and interpreting our nation's history, I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognize her unique contributions, especially to the Rosie the Riveter National Park, and to ask all Members of the House to join me in wishing her well in the years to come.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the nation was relieved that on January 7, Edgar Ray Killen was arraigned for the 1964 murder of three civil rights martyrs--Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Chaney. The brutal murders of these three men, who were registering African-American voters in Mississippi during the 1964 Freedom Summer campaign, helped to galvanize the civil rights movement in the nation and centuries of legal and de facto mistreatment of our fellow citizens. In 1967, Killen was one of several men charged with violating the advocates' civil rights, but an all-white jury failed to convict Killen and only lightly sentenced 7 of the men involved. Prosecution in connection with the 1964 killings lay dormant for 40 years and would have continued to do so had Sarah Siegel, Allison Nichols, and Brittany Saltiel, students at Chicago's Stevenson High School, not prompted a reopening of the case. Mr. Speaker, these young women chose the 1964 Goodman-Schwerner- Chaney case as the subject of their project for the National History Day competition last year. As many of our colleagues know, NHD programs target over half a million students throughout this country, promoting the teaching and study of American history. Entries to its yearly contest are chosen at the school, city and state level and consist of presentations of topics in American history based on themes developed by NHD. Students may prepare research papers, storyboards, video documentaries or performances on their subject. The reopening of this long-dormant civil rights case demonstrates the NHD's dramatic impact on American historical literacy, and illustrates better than any other development the impact of the study of history on student understanding of and ability to affect world events. Through the creation and promotion of dynamic, participation-driven programs, NHD has changed the way that teachers present American history. Students who engage in NHD programs enjoy a boost in historical literacy and interest in matters of key historical interest. Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased that the Congress recently authorized federal support for the National History Day program. Under P.L. 108-474, the Secretary of Education may award grants to the NHD program, and we are very hopeful that he will do so. I know that we are joined in that wish by thousands of administrators, teachers, students and historians around the country who share our pride in NHD and in the work of these, and many other talented young students. With the added support of federal funding, NHD will be able to expand its commendable work of promoting historical literacy in our nation's schools. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sarah, Allison and Brittany for their work in publicizing the Goodman-Schwerner-Chaney case. Their research has not only improved our understanding of history; it has helped make history.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules package. Every House Member should vote to put the House on record against ethical and procedural abuses that contaminate this institution. The stench of special interest corruption is overwhelming Congress, and repulsing the public. It is time the House Rules reflected the ethical standards and common sense of the American people. I came to this House 30 years ago, and our historic incoming class brought with it one of the strongest tides of reform ever seen: rules were changed, chairmen were replaced, procedures were modernized so that the voice of the people was heard, and respected, in this House of the people. Ten years ago, the Republicans took control of the House, promising a new era of reform. To read the national newspapers, it is evident to everyone--except themselves--that the Republicans have betrayed their promise of reform. They have tolerated misconduct and enshrined special interests as never before. Today, we give them, and all Members, an opportunity to restore public trust by voting for two commonsense amendments to the House rules. First, no sitting Member should negotiate for a new job with any organization that has had business before his or her committee for a year. That's not hard to understood: no one should be shaping public policy with an eye on a future private sector salary. Second, no bill should be brought to the House floor unless Members have had 3 days to read it first. That's not hard to understand: we should not be passing bills that are hundreds of pages in length-- sometimes over 1,000 pages--without ever having seen what is in the bill. Ronald Reagan thought it was a bad idea; surely today's House Republicans can agree. Let's be honest about it: 99 percent of the American people outside the Beltway will agree with both of these principles--no negotiating for new jobs with special interests; Members should know what they are voting on before it becomes law. We shouldn't even have to have a debate. But we do. Less than a month ago, the Nation was stunned to learn that the committee chairman who had fashioned a blatantly pro-drug industry, anti-senior, anti-consumer prescription drug law was retiring and taking a job with the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, our former colleague assumes his job with PhRMA today, just as we are taking our oaths of office. Mr. Tauzin will reportedly be earning a salary nearly 13 times what he earned when he wrote that pro-industry bill--one of the best paid lobbyists in Washington. He earned it. That prescription drug law will enrich him, but it takes billions of dollars out of the pockets of America's senior citizens--by prohibiting them from purchasing cheaper drugs from Canada, and by prohibiting the Federal Government from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry--his new employer--for lower drug prices. That's worth billions to the drug industry. While the deal was not announced until last month, the discussions began a year ago, as was widely reported at the time. In fact, a top aide to the Republican leadership was quoted last January 24 on CNN.com as saying that Republican Congressman Tauzin's negotiation with PhARMA ``doesn't look very good.'' It doesn't look ``very good'' today either, as millions of seniors face higher drug prices thanks to the Tauzin bill, and Bill Tauzin takes office to improve the tattered image of the drug industry. We all know this stinks. And so do our constituents. Let's put an end to it today by barring negotiations for private jobs by Members of Congress. That's what our constituents would want us to do. And at the same time, let's put an end to the outrageous practice of voting on complex and lengthy bills before Congress has had time to read them--bills like that prescription drug bill Bill Tauzin wrote while he was listening to PhARMA's whispers in his ears. Isn't it bad enough that Republicans majority writes the bills in secret, without input from the Democrats who represent 48 percent of the country? Without scrutiny by the press? Without review by the public Must we also vote on secret legislation, without reading it, without knowing the tax breaks and earmarked spending for special interests that have been stuck in without any review? I urge all Members to put party aside and vote the way your constituents would want you to vote: an end to private job negotiations while serving in public office, and full disclosure of the contents of legislation before we vote. Mr. Speaker, I also vigorously oppose the proposed rule change that would allow an ethics investigation to end after 45 days of the Ethics Committee of five Democrats and five Republicans remained deadlocked. Today, the Republicans are once again putting partisan politicians ahead of ethics by moving forward with their plan to shield their embattled majority leader--Tom DeLay--from any further investigation. The goal of this change is to block the Ethics Committee from considering pending and future matters that could prove to be damaging to their party. Under the present rules, if the chair and the ranking minority member of the Ethics Committee cannot agree whether to investigate a complaint, the committee begins an initial investigation into the matter. But, under the Republicans' proposed rule change, the Republican chairman of the Ethics Committee--who is handpicked by the Speaker-- could simply refuse to examine a complaint. After 45 days, the complaint would be dropped, without even an initial investigation into the matter. This new rule would allow Republicans to block pending ethics matters and prevent future investigations from moving forward. And the reason is very simple: there are at least two matters currently pending against Republican leaders, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Contrary to this morning's press reports, the Republicans haven't backed away from their attempts to shield DeLay from further investigation, they've simply become a little more deceptive in how they're doing it. Last year, when the Ethics Committee admonished DeLay three times, it deferred action on another serious charge--his role in funneling illegal soft money into Texas races through his State PAC--until after the investigation against him had been completed. The rule change now proposed by his Republican colleagues would allow the Republican chairman of the committee to block any further investigation of DeLay's activities, shielding the minority leader from further admonishments even if he is indicted by a grand jury. Also pending is an investigation of Republican lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and former DeLay staffer, Michael Scanlon, and their ties to several Republican members. Changing the ethics rules would permit the Republicans to halt any investigation of the Abramoff scandal and the Members who could be implicated in their outrageous looting of Native Americans. I urge a ``no'' vote on this unbalanced and improper rules package.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in my 30 years in the Congress you have the honor and the privilege of meeting so many people from so many different walks of life, not just my colleagues that I have served with in the House of Representatives but obviously the people that I represent and the people who come to the Nation's capital to seek our help in so many endeavors that they are engaged in their families and their livelihoods, but there are a few who are very special. They stand out in our professional life. They stand out as our peers and our colleagues. Bob Matsui was a very special person, for all of the reasons that my colleagues have said here tonight. We all know that at his core was the gold standard in conviction, in morality and integrity and in giving us the unvarnished truth from time to time when we did not agree with him. I think that is one of the reasons we were so fond of him. When you had a disagreement with him, he sought you out and he wanted to discuss it with you, face-to-face, person-to-person, colleague-to-colleague, trying to work out the difficulties to make this a better country, but when you discussed it with him, you understood that he was clinging to principle, and he was clinging to integrity because it was the core of his existence. Many have referred to the fact of this family's experience in the internment camp, and I do not think there is any question but that gave him a compass to set a course on the issues of social justice and opportunity in this society and civil rights. It is unparalleled, I think. We all work in these fields, and we have some outstanding individuals in this Congress that I have served with over 30 years who have fought these fights. Bob was one of those. I had the opportunity to work with him on the reparations bill and in the Manzanar Historic Monument bill of one of the internment camps so that this country could remember what happened in the Tule Lake and the other internment centers. I do not know what else to say except that this is the loss of a really, really special person who was a wonderful friend, who was a great, great credit to this institution and who leaves behind a magnificent legacy along with a magnificent family, a family that no spouse or father could have been more proud of than he was of Doris and Brian and daughter-in-law Amy and this new granddaughter Anna. To see him and Doris at public events, engaged in their community and the partnership that they had and their conferring back and forth on the issues and the battles that he was engaged in, was a wonderful experience. I am going to miss him greatly. I think this country is going to miss him even more.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and, as we all understand, the Committee on Appropriations plays the cards that they are dealt. In this instance, they have been dealt a set of cards with a great big deficit and not much room to work. I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for the effort they have made to bring this bill together, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his stewardship of this committee. I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the figures for education. From kindergarten to college, this legislation disappoints America's children, its families and its educators. In title I education, we see a reduction of almost 50 percent or a little over 50 percent of the money that the President asked for that is not in this legislation. In special education, where we have constantly pledged that we were going to move toward full funding, and in fact provide full funding, this year we see now we have backtracked on the effort that was being made, because almost $600 million is cut out of that request for an additional $1 billion. There are after-school funding cuts, and some 85,000 students will lose their Pell Grants and tens of thousands of others will because of the eligibility reconfigurations by the administration. A bad bill from kindergarten to college.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by also thanking people because I think many people are surprised, myself included, that we are here today. This has been a rather toxic season in the political arena and in this Congress. There is not a lot of evidence that there is a lot of bipartisan action taking place in the Congress of the United States. But in this committee on this subject we were able to work through all of those environmental concerns about the atmosphere and arrive at legislation that is going to be very good for those children with special needs. And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our chairman, for all of his time, his effort, his political skill within his caucus and I think within my caucus, too, to get us to this point. And to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who, as we all know, is absolutely committed to getting good legislation on the books, to write good law, and to do it on behalf of our Nation's school children to see that they get a good opportunity at the education that should be offered to them. I want to thank Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Judd Gregg for their cooperation in deciding even before the election that we would take a shot at getting this passed before this session closed down, and we were able to do it. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) on our side, who managed this legislation for the minority, who took it from the early days when it was clearly very confrontational, to smoothing out some of the rough spots and finally helping us arrive at the compromised positions that maintain the integrity of IDEA, to also improve IDEA and make sure that our commitment to these young children and their educational opportunities are clear as a matter of Federal law. I want to thank the staff on our side, Alex Nock and Alice Cain, Ruth Friedman and Lloyd Hoowich, for all of their help. This was long hours by the staff. And on the Republican side, David Cleary, Sally Lovejoy, Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce for all of their help in working with people on the Democratic side. And on the Senate Republican side, Denzel McGuire, Bill Lucia; Senate Democrats Connie Garner, Roberto Rodriguez, and Michael Yudin for their help. This would not have been done had these people not been able to come together and work their way through bills that were different in many ways. But the fact of the matter was it did happen, and I think the children with special needs who need this law are going to be well served, as are their parents, as are their schools, and as are their teachers. I have a special connection to this law because I was in Congress and served as one of the original authors of this law when it was first passed in 1974. And in 1974 when we surveyed the Nation's schools and the State systems of school, we found that children were, on an ordinary basis, on a regular basis, excluded from the classrooms of this Nation. They were put into basements. They were put into segregated schools. They were put into separate classrooms. They were not allowed to come into classrooms if they were in a wheelchair, if they needed assistance for their physical disabilities; and a dramatic percentage of minority students, were labeled as retarded, were labeled as having an inability to take advantage of an education in numbers that defied any statistical understanding that any population would be labeled in that fashion. Hundreds of thousands of children mislabeled and therefore not allowed to go to the schools of this Nation. And at that time we passed the Education for all Handicapped Children, as it was called in those days. And from that time forward, this law has become one of the basic civil rights laws of this Nation for those children with special needs, for their families, and for those schools, recognizing the commitment that this Congress made to these children and their families, that they would get a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to make sure that, where possible, these children would be in the mainstream classrooms of our Nation's schools. They would be able to participate with their peers on a regular basis. They would be able to enjoy the benefits of that educational opportunity, that no longer by simple reason of their special needs would they be segregated, no longer by reason of their special needs would they be discriminated against. This has not been a smooth road to make sure that these children would have educational opportunity and have access to that free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. It has been a struggle. It has been a struggle for our school districts. It has been a struggle for our taxpayers. It has been a struggle for the families of these children. But each and every time we have made progress, and we do so again with this legislation. We make sure that they will, in fact, have qualified teachers. But we make sure that we do not drive the teachers from the teaching field by the law that we have passed here. We have provided that kind of flexibility so we can have the best of both worlds. We can have qualified teachers, and we can make it workable for those teachers and for the school districts. We make sure that those children who might act out in class, who might be a discipline problem can be separated from the general population if they are a danger, but we also make sure that we do not discontinue their educational opportunities in that separate setting, however restrictive it might be. And there is a process for doing that, both to protect that child, to protect their educational opportunity, and to protect the general school population, a very important change. We make sure that, while trying to enforce this law, that we make every effort to make sure that the child has access to a workable, individualized education plan. But we also want to make sure that, in the enforcement of those efforts, we do not engage in frivolous lawsuits, we do not engage in trying to extort the school district into positions. So we make sure that you can have access to those programs, but you do not get to take advantage of the taxpayers and the efforts that are being made. From 1974 onward, I have had hundreds and hundreds of parents who have come to me and said, or written to me from all over the country, that, but for this law, my child would not have gotten an education; but for this law, my child would not have been able to be in the public schools. Some of those were long letters of the detailed effort by parents, taking months and thousands of dollars, to challenge the right of their child to be in an educational setting, along with the rest of the schoolchildren in this Nation. But it is this law that made it possible, and it is law that we extend with this reauthorization. It is this law that we extend the civil rights protections of our Constitution to the Nation's schoolchildren, to those children with special needs, and it is this law that gives their parents a voice and a say in the direction of their education. It is this law that makes sure that the educational establishments of this country respond to those needs. And it is this law that tries to provide the means to work that out by offering alternative dispute resolution, by offering mediation, by offering a means by which parents and teachers and school personnel can sit down together and, at the end of that day, that child will have a chance at that educational opportunity, and the district will be in a position to provide it. But there is something that is still lacking in this law, and that is the funding of this legislation. This is the funding of this legislation. Back in 1974, we said we would pick up 40 percent of the excess cost of the education of these children, and we have not done it. We have not done it as Democrats. We have not done it as Republicans. In the last few years, we have made a rather substantial march on that effort, but we still never get there under the budget. Yet we have Members of Congress voting for full funding and mandatory funding of special education. We have Members signing letters to the President asking for full funding of special education. We have votes in the Senate, a majority, bipartisan votes demanding full funding for special education. But somehow we can never get there. And even in this legislation, I am glad to see that we have laid out a roadmap for over the next 7 years, I believe it is, we will arrive at full funding. But I am worried that later tonight, as we pass an omnibus appropriations bill, we will not even meet the target in this legislation before the ink is dry or even before the President has signed it. The President said he has not fully funded No Child Left Behind because he did not read the bill. I want the President to read this bill, because the compact with these parents and with this Congress is that we are going to reach full funding in 7 years. And if we do not, if we do not, the full educational opportunity for these students and for the other students is not going to be realized because the funding is not following this legislation. It is very important that that happen and that we start to keep our commitments on special education, that we start to keep our commitments on No Child Left Behind. It is not enough, and we cannot continue the practice. We did it when we were in control. It is not enough to put figures into authorizations and tell people that is the law, that is what we have done, and then look behind and say we never intended to do that. We should say what we mean, and we should mean what we say. If we cannot do it in 7 years, then tell the public when we are going to do it. But this is the statement of the Congress that we will reach full funding in those 7 years, and I think that is most important. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial from this morning's Washington Post. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2004] Making Progress It is a rare piece of legislation nowadays that makes it through the House and the Senate, let alone a House-Senate conference, without ill will, partisan shouting and layers of added pork. For that reason alone, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, now heading toward the House and Senate floors, deserve a moment's attention. From the beginning, Republicans, Democrats and advocates were all part of the debate about this law, which reauthorizes the federal rules and funding for special education. Staffers for Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate education committee, as well as those working for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), the ranking Democratic member, also solicited the opinions of outsiders who were not part or organized groups, to better understand the real problems faced by students, parents and teachers. Congressional offices on the House side, notably those of Reps. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and George Miller (D-Calif.), did the same. The result is a law that doesn't address every problem with special education but that does grapple with some of the tougher ones. Unlike most education bills, this one involves civil rights issues, namely the right of disabled students to receive appropriate, free education, just like other children. While reinforcing this principle, the law also addresses, for example, the contentious question of whether schools can discipline or expel unruly students with disabilities: they can, but only after an appropriate process and only if they ensure that the special services the child was receiving are not discontinued. While attitudes cannot be legislated, the law also tries to reduce some of the adversarial tension that has built up between schools and parents in recent years by reducing paperwork, by providing alternatives to litigation and by eliminating some of the more trivial bureaucratic requirements. The law also brings special education in line with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, establishing the qualifications required for special education teachers, providing funding for teachers to get those qualifications if they don't have them already and taking some steps toward establishing alternatives to assess the progress of disabled children. Ultimately, the test for Congress is not whether this bill finally becomes law, which seems likely, but whether the goodwill surrounding it continues. The special education debate is not over, nor should it be. It is legitimate to ask about the costs of this law, both in terms of time and money; equally, it is legitimate to ask whether schools comply with it because they genuinely believe that special education is worthwhile or because they have to. The answers to both questions will affect the quality of the education all children receive. As different lessons are learned about what works best, for disabled children and for schools, legislators will need to keep the law flexible, and their naturally partisan tempers under control. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee--the gentleman from Delaware, the gentlewoman from California, and the gentleman from Ohio--for all of their hard work on this legislation and their genuine efforts to make this a bipartisan bill. IDEA is a program that is very important to me personally. I was one of the original authors of the legislation in 1975 that made an historic commitment to the special needs children of the country--and their parents--to assure them the opportunity for a public education that would allow them to take full advantage of their gifts and have a full opportunity to participate in American society. In opposed the IDEA bill passed by the House last year because I believed it undermined that bond between Congress and the special needs community. For me and for millions of American families, IDEA is more than an education law; it is a pact that never again will we abandon special needs children and cut them off from the educational services they need and deserve. While I voted against the House version of the bill, I am pleased that the conference committee reversed many of the House positions opposed by longtime supporters of IDEA. As a result, I support the conference report before us today because it maintains the basic civil rights of children with disabilities and their families. I am hopeful that our changes will improve their quality and access to a free and appropriate education. One of the most important decisions we had to make in conference was whether or not children could be, in effect, punished because of their disability. I am very pleased that we took the necessary steps to ensure that children cannot be unfairly punished. We had the good sense to include one of the most important provisions in current law: The manifestation determination requirement that school districts consider whether a child's behavior was the result of their disability when considering disciplinary action. It is only fair to consider whether the child could control their behavior and whether they could understand the consequences of their behavior. These questions are clearly relevant and I am pleased that they will continue to be treated as relevant. Our agreement also ensures that children who are subject to discipline cannot be put in alternative placements for unlimited periods of time and that, if suspended, they will continue to receive educational services. These measures will help these children continue on the path toward graduation rather than dropping out--and provide for the safety of other children and school personnel. Let me also mention two improvements to current law that I believe are particularly beneficial. First, I am pleased that the conference report addresses long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and enforcement. The Department of Education is required to monitor key IDEA issues. These issues include making sure States educate children in the least restrictive environment and take steps to prevent minority students, from being disproportionately identified, as is too often the case. Once identified, these children are more likely to be placed in lower quality, substantially segregated environments and are more likely to be suspended or expelled. When a State is out of compliance for two years, our agreement requires the Secretary to take an enforcement action. These changes give the Department of Education the means to both identify problems and the authority and tools necessary to help solve them through a range of options, including advice, technical assistance, and support. Second, I support the improved outreach and services for children who--through no fault of their own--move and change schools frequently. It is only right that we take steps that protect the 500,000 children in foster care and the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness each year. Children who are homeless suffer from disabilities nearly four times more than children who are from stable homes, but they have great difficulty accessing special education services. Even when they have Individualized Education Plans, their IEPs often have not moved with them and the process must start over. After months without adequate services, a child may regress so far that she or he can lost a whole school year. Our agreement improves coordination between schools and ensures that the child's IEP must transfer with them and be used until the new school district and parent can develop a new IEP. Despite these important improvements, a fundamental problem continues to jeopardize all of our best efforts. Congress continues to ignore our 30-year old pledge to fully fund this law. When we originally passed it in 1975, we made a simple promise: The Federal government would provide states with 40 percent of the total costs of special education--not 100 percent--just 40 percent. But we have never fulfilled our promise. As of today, we are providing nearly 20 percent of special education costs--less than half of what we promised three decades ago. Our conference report tries to help. I'm pleased that it recommits Congress to providing States with the full 40 percent by laying our authorization levels each year that would allow us to meet the goal by the year 2011. Obviously, this is not as soon as I would like or our children need, but at least it is a blueprint for getting us there. But the blueprint involves substantial increases each year, including this year--and I am dismayed that this year's increase may already be in jeopardy. We must mean what we say and say what we mean--it's time to put our money where our mouth is and appropriate these funds once and for all. I urge all of my colleagues, especially those on the appropriations committee, to make this a top priority. What could possibly be a better investment in our country than helping our children develop and grow to their full potential? We have just gone through the experience of No Child Left Behind where the President and Congress promised to fund the new law at levels that were necessary to ensure schools would be able to meet the new goals. And before the ink was dry on that law the president broke his promise on funding. Now we are $27 billion in the red on our commitment to No Child Left Behind and America's public schools. As Members vote to approve this conference report, and I hope they do, we must be prepared to stand by the commitment this bill makes to properly fund special education. The bottom line for me is to ensure that all children--including all children with disabilities--have access to public education that propels them toward participation in American society to the fullest extent possible. I believe that this conference agreement moves us in that direction, and I am pleased to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys' fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys' fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the Conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, increasing the minimum wage is a vital issue for working families across the country. The minimum wage has not been increased in 7 years. The value of the last minimum wage increase has been fully eroded. Today, the minimum wage is worth less than it has been in 46 out of the previous 48 years. As a percentage of the hourly wage of nonsupervisory employees, the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 55 years. This decline is causing serious hardships for low-income families. To address this problem, I introduced H.R. 4256, the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004,'' which increases the minimum in three steps from its current level of $5.15 to $7.00. Ninety-four of my colleagues have joined me in sponsoring this legislation. On Wednesday, more than 562 prominent economists--including 4 Nobel Prize winners in economics and 7 past presidents of the American Economic Association--are joining us in endorsing an increase in the Federal minimum wage to $7.00. In their endorsement, these economists say, ``We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed.'' They go on to state: As economists who are concerned about the problems facing low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004's proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.00 falls well within the range of options where the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy would be positive. Below is a copy of the economists' statement. A complete list of the cosigners can be found on the Economic Policy Institute's WEB site at: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/minwagestmt2004. It's Time for a Raise--Hundreds of Economists Support a Minimum Wage Increase The minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's economy for 65 years. It is based on the principle of valuing work by establishing an hourly wage floor beneath which employers cannot pay their workers. In so doing, the minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage is also an important tool in fighting poverty. The value of the 1997 increase in the federal minimum wage has been fully eroded. The real value of today's federal minimum wage is less than it has been in 46 out of the last 48 years. Moreover, the ratio of the minimum wage to the average hourly wage of non-supervisory workers is 33%, its lowest level in 55 years. This decline is causing hardship for low-wage workers and their families. We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed. In particular, we share the view the Council of Economic Advisers expressed in the 1999 Economic Report of the President that ``the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.'' While controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families. As economists who are concerned about the problems facing low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004's proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.00 falls well within the range of options where the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy would be positive. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have set their minimum wages above the federal level. Additional states, including Florida, Nevada, and New York, are considering similar measures. As with a federal increase, modest increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.00 can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Pension Fairness Act to bring some equity to bear between corporate executives and rank-and-file workers when those executives seek to dump underfunded workers' pension plans onto the Federal Government or cut older workers' pensions through an unfair cash balance plan conversion. Far too often, we hear of cases where executives demand concessions from their workers when the business struggles and, at the same time, sweeten their own pension and deferred compensation deals. It's past time that executives understand that the pension promises made to their workers are sacred. It's past time that executives understand that a breach of those promises carries consequences. Employees cannot be asked to absorb the full brunt of bankruptcy by having their pension plans terminated and dropped on the Federal Government. Executives should share in that pain. When companies terminate their underfunded pension plans, the federally established Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) takes over those liabilities. Today, the PBGC suffers from a $10 billion deficit. Already in bankruptcy, United Airlines, which recently defied the law and stopped making legally-required contributions to its pension plans, would add $6.4 billion to the PBGC's obligations if the company terminates its plans. United's workers and retirees would lose $1.9 billion in earned pension benefits. US Airways has asked a bankruptcy court for permission to skip a $110 million contribution to its pension plans, due last month. Plan terminations at these companies would pose serious threats not just to the retirement security of their employees but to the retirement security of other airlines' employees and to the ongoing solvency of the PBGC. When executives are faced with the choice between terminating or saving company pension plans they also should have a stake in that choice. In recent years, we have seen companies break their pension promises by converting their traditional pension plans into cash balance plans. Many of these conversions do wonders for a company's books--to the great delight of executives and directors--but end up cutting older workers' pension benefits. Many of these conversions have given workers no choice between the cash balance and traditional pension plans. Just last year, a court found that the cash balance conversion at IBM, which all employees were forced to take, would result in a 47 percent reduction in older workers' pensions. The Government Accountability Office found similar losses of up to 50 percent of older workers' promised pensions. Under the Pension Fairness Act, if a company terminates an underfunded workers' pension plan or converts a workers' pension plan into a cash balance plan that cuts older workers' benefits or takes away their choice to stay in their original plan, the company's executives and directors may not enhance their own deferred compensation deals for the next 5 years. If any new deals for executives or directors are cut the year prior to an underfunded plan termination or a conversion that hurts older workers, payments to executives or directors under those new deals are also suspended for 5 years. It's very simple: If the business or the pension plan is in such dire straits that a termination or conversion is necessary, then executives and directors should not be showering themselves with new and improved benefits. This bill is about fairness and common sense. It places the retirement security of workers and executives on more equal footing. And it sends a rightly discouraging message to those executives who would seek to cut and run from their pension promises, leaving the federal government to pick up the tab.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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