George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. But it is interesting, you know, with the 10-year T-bill rate at 4 percent and the 2-year bill or the 3-year bill at about 1.5 to 2 percent, that a very select group of lenders can get 9.5 percent, the only place in the world you can get a return of 9.5 percent on your money, or the difference between the margin there. It is the only place in the world you can go to get this money, unless you are borrowing from the Mafia. But what happens with this legislation is, while hiding behind a legitimate claim by nonprofits, they keep open the recycling loophole that is overwhelmingly used, according to the General Accountability Office, by for-profit lenders. Nothing to do with retroactivity, because we stop this practice in the future, and we can stop recycling in the future. But they have chosen not to do it. They said, if the Democrats had cooperated, they would have done this earlier. Well, we are cooperating, so do it. It is earlier. Do it now. We have this newfound power bestowed upon us by the chairman of the committee. We want it now. You said you did not do it because we did not cooperate. The more I think about it, it was a brilliant strategy because we did not have to take all that other stuff in your legislation, where these kids were going to lose their rights to low-interest loans and be able to lock in low-interest loans in repayments. We did not have to take all that, which would have punished millions of young people, and we are going to get this loophole closed, too. Sounds like a brilliant piece of strategy. And here we are at the end of the session with the Republicans implementing, talk about bipartisanship, the Republicans are now implementing this Democratic strategy. It is a wonderful evening to be here at midnight to finally see where the Republicans are saying the Democrats made us do it. Mr. Speaker, we enthusiastically support this bill. We hope that the Republicans next year will go the full steps to closing the loophole in its entirety. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, could you advise the time remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who again was the spark plug for getting this legislation before the full House and getting this bill to the floor.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), one of the sponsors of the original amendment to get this in front of the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Let me say at the outset, that the Members on this side of the aisle enthusiastically support this legislation brought to the floor by the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee. We only ask, what has been holding it up? Why were you not here earlier? But you are here now and we will celebrate the fact that you are here now. I must say that we were excited when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) were able to get an amendment this past September onto the floor of the House so we could get this issue in front of the House, get it out into the daylight and let the Members work the will of the House, something that does not happen too often in this Chamber. The will is quite stifled most of the time. But when this issue is put before the House by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the House got a chance to look at it, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives from the North, East, South, West, around the country, 414 to 3, they said, get rid of this loophole. It is unjustified, it is unconscionable, it is expensive and it is killing the credibility of this program. Tonight, we answer that call by the House of Representatives to get rid of this program. But tragically tonight we only answer a part of that call because we do not deal with those provisions in this program that continue these unconscionable profits at the 9.5 percent loans due to the recycling. We are going to stop this loophole for this year, and we ought to stop the recycling. This is not retroactive. But when you do not stop the recycling, the good purposes for which our colleagues across the aisle are going to put this money to use, and that is to help those teachers, provide loan forgiveness for those teachers in difficult districts who are making the special efforts, some 10,000 additional teachers, who could have access to loan forgiveness, now will not have access to that loan forgiveness. All it would require is to close the loophole. That is what the House voted on when they voted on the Kildee-Van Hollen amendment. They voted to close a loophole, not sort of close a loophole, not part way close a loophole, but close a loophole. Maybe only for 1 year now, and that is the best we can do under these circumstances, but the entire loophole. The difference is billions of dollars. The difference is 10,000 teachers in need of loan forgiveness. That is the choice. I heard this was held up because we had all this power. We would like to use our power now to tell you and persuade you to join with us and close the entire loophole and get those other 10,000 teachers that are eligible. Power to the people, to the Democrats, because apparently that is why you have not done it now for 2 years. So we want to join with you. We can have a manager's amendment tonight to close the loophole like 414 of our colleagues urge. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for their creativity and tenacity in getting this before the House of Representatives, getting it into the full Chamber where the Members on a bipartisan basis have overwhelmingly repudiated this program. I am sorry we cannot go the whole way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to rise in support of this legislation, but I do want to note some concurrent problems that concern me with respect to this legislation because the goals of this legislation were to strike a balance in the operation of this water system, a balance in the development of facilities and the utilization of this water between the consumption of this water, whether it be in industry or whether it be in the agricultural industry or in our municipalities or for the environment, to make sure that there was balance to those efforts. I think to the extent it was practicable, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and others have worked that balance out. I am concerned that as we get ready to pass this legislation and send it to the President, we now see other activities that are taking place along at the same time, and, that is, we see the emergence now of the operations criteria and plan which is the new document that sets the stage for California's most far-reaching, according to the Sacramento Bee, the most far-reaching plumbing shifts in a decade. Under the plan, water contractors would increase the pumping from the very same delta that this legislation is designed to help protect and preserve both for its local economies, for its agricultural industries and for its environmental assets, would increase the pumping from the delta by some 27 percent to Southern California. The suggestion is that that has to be done. Part of it is because there are contracts that have to be met. We know that many of these contracts are up currently for renewal in a number of the water districts south of the delta. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Government has within its authority to modify those contracts. All of the evidence suggests that they are not prepared to do that, that they are going to maximize the water deliveries under those contracts even though those contracts envisioned a water delivery at a time that California had 20 million fewer people than it does today and when the demands on water north of the delta are different today than they were then. They are not going to modify those contracts, and they are going to try, I think, contrary to the law, they are going to try to extend those contracts for another 40 years. The fact of the matter is that that is contrary to the protection of this Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and as outlined in this new operations criteria means less water flowing into San Francisco Bay. After a decades-long struggle to protect San Francisco Bay, you can start to see the reignition of a whole series of battles starting to take place because there is this rush by the State administration and the Federal Government to maximize the amount of water that can be sent south. The concern is that when we have tried to make sure that all of the evidence was on the table, with both of our Senators and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and other members of the California delegation, we asked for a continuation of the public hearings on these contract terms, the bureau has ignored our request. When we asked the bureau to extend that public comment period until those important questions were answered, the bureau ignored our request. What worries me is this ignoring of the public interest, of the public input into this decision now fits into what we now see, that the political operations within NOAA and the scientists who are there to develop the standards for the protections of the salmon runs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, in the American River, we now see, according again to the Sacramento Bee this last weekend, that there is an overriding of the setting of those standards in terms of the adequate water flows and releases that are necessary to protect those endangered runs of salmon. We see that that is now being done for political reasons. What worries me the most is this is the same cast of characters that arbitrarily and capriciously in the court case, it was determined, overrode the scientists on the Klamath River and led to one of the largest kill-offs of salmon in the history of the west coast, if not the largest, because they decided that they did not want to live with good science, they decided they would override it. So all of a sudden as we pass CALFED today, we see that in fact the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Bay, the American River, maybe the runs in the Sacramento River, the fisheries runs there, may be more imperiled than at any time in history. Why is that happening? Because what we see in spite of the agreements of cooperation, of balancing that we see in the CALFED, we see there starting to be a repetition of the same old habits which is to try and maximize the pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to send it south for the purposes of fulfilling these contracts or other needs. My concern is that at a time when the chairman really held up this process until such time as the delta water agencies and others could come in and make sure what the impacts were going to be on delta water quality, on delta usage, we now see a parallel process taking place that has all of the earmarks of another devastating blow to delta water quality, to the usages in the delta, to the protection of the environment, and to the protection of the delta economy. I raise these at this time because, as we celebrate the long effort and the successful effort with the passage in this House of the CALFED legislation, we see that the forces who continue to have a design on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, on the impacts on San Francisco Bay by increasing the diversions from this very complicated and fragile environment, we see that they never rest. And they are back now, apparently with the cooperation of the Schwarzenegger administration in Sacramento, with the cooperation of the Bush administration, in fact, with not only the cooperation of the Bush administration but the Bush administration's political appointees now coming in and overriding the scientists who have done the studies designed to protect the delta and protect its fisheries. So I guess the bottom line and the end of this story is, there is an awful lot of work that remains to be done. There is an awful lot of concern that we have over the long-term protection of the delta, and I would hope that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) would look at these articles that are in the ``Sacramento Bee'' because they raise the most serious concerns about our economy and about our environment. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles that I alluded to. [From sacbee.com, Oct. 2, 2004] Rewrite Softens Report on Risks to Fish (By Stuart Leavenworth) Officials at a federal fisheries agency ordered their biologists to revise a report on salmon and other endangered fish so that more water can be shipped to Southern California from the Delta, according to interviews and internal agency documents obtained by The Bee. Biologists with NOAA Fisheries, an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluded in August that a plan to pump more water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta could jeopardize endangered salmon and other fish. NOAA administrators in Long Beach, however, overruled the biologists and supervised a rewriting of their analysis. That, in turn, removed the last major obstacle to a plan that could send more water south, affecting how much is reserved in Northern California, including for salmon in the American River. NOAA officials say the revisions were justified. Agency biologists made some errors and ``unsubstantiated conclusions'' in their original draft, said James Lecky, an agency administrator in Long Beach who ordered the revisions. Some agency employees, however, say some of the changes had no basis in science and substantially weaken protections for endangered winter-run salmon, steelhead trout and other fish. ``I haven't seen anything this bad at NOAA since working here,'' said one agency biologist who asked that his name not be used. ``The Sacramento office (of NOAA Fisheries) is totally demoralized.'' At issue is a state-federal plan for operating the massive network of reservoirs, aqueducts and pumping plants that move water around California. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and state Department of Water Resources are planning major changes for those facilities, partly to free up water that can be shipped through the Delta. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave its blessing to the plan in August, but NOAA Fisheries has sought extensions in releasing its own analysis. Documents obtained by The Bee explain why. In August, NOAA biologists issued a draft stating that the plan ``is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley Steelhead,'' as well as spring-run salmon. The documents outlined several measures the Bureau of Reclamation could adopt to reduce impacts on fish, but the document was never signed. Instead, Lecky delivered the draft to his counterparts in the Bureau of Reclamation, who offered suggestions on revisions, he said. Lecky said such document sharing is commonplace as federal agencies undergo what is known as a consultation under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA officials wanted to ensure they had appropriately interpreted the bureau's plans, he said, and receive feedback on their own analysis. A copy of NOAA's latest draft, however, shows that administrators have altered the report in ways that go beyond mere word changes. The updated version, 289 pages and dated Sept. 27, no longer concludes that winter-run salmon or other fish could face extinction by the extra water diversions by state and federal facilities. The report concludes that the new operations would likely reduce the juvenile population of winter-run salmon by 5 percent to 22 percent, but says that agencies can help minimize those losses by monitoring and adapting. The latest version also softens the wording for how the Bureau of Reclamation can avoid future impacts on fish. In the original report, NOAA biologists called on the Bureau of Reclamation to reserve 450,000 to 600,000 acre-feet of water in Folsom Lake by September to provide adequate supplies for returning salmon and steelhead. The latest version changes the wording from ``shall maintain'' to ``shall target'' the extra water. In addition, the latest draft no longer calls for a minimum flow standard for the American River, as the original did. The state Water Resources Control Board called for an American River flow standard in 1988, but federal officials haven't yet agreed to one. A former state official who now works for a leading environmental group reviewed the two versions and said he was stunned by the revisions. ``The September draft guts the minimal protections that were in the earlier version,'' said Jonas Minton, a former deputy secretary for the Department of Water Resources. ``The new version includes commitments to talk instead of commitments to protect fish.'' Minton, who now works for the Planning and Conservation League, agreed that supervisors often make routine changes to a scientific document. ``It's an entirely different thing to change science for political purposes,'' he said. In an interview, NOAA's Lecky disputed that political appointees had pressed for changes. Everything has been handled within NOAA's Southwest Regional Office in Long Beach, he said. Lecky declined to comment further on the revisions, saying The Bee had obtained a ``predecisional document'' that was subject to further review. Sources say a final version could be released next week. Formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Fisheries enforces the Endangered Species Act for fish that spend part of their lives in the ocean, such as salmon. In recent years, NOAA has become embroiled in several controversies over water allocations and fish. In 2002, NOAA biologist Michael Kelly warned that the Reclamation Bureau's water plans in Oregon could lead to fish kills downstream on the Klamath River. Later that year, warm water and disease killed about 77,000 returning salmon, according to a report by the California Department of Fish and Game. Kelly later resigned from NOAA after another disagreement with Lecky. In recent months, the Bureau of Reclamation has been pushing to sign long-term contracts with irrigation districts and finalize plans for shipping more water through the Delta. Some of California's most powerful groups--including the Chamber of Commerce, Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--are lobbying for extra water. Environmentalists suspect this pressure prompted some of NOAA's recent actions, although they acknowledge they can't prove it. Bureau of Reclamation officials say the public will have full opportunity to comment on any changes in water operations. The Bureau and the Department of Water Resources have scheduled an informational meeting in Sacramento on Thursday from 9 a.m. to noon at the Best Western Expo Inn, 1413 Howe Ave.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) who has been very active in this matter for several years.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for their assistance, and leadership, in moving this legislation, along with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) from our side of the aisle. I also want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein for helping to get this successfully through the Senate. I just want to raise a couple of points, and that is that this past summer, when an earlier version of this legislation was on the House floor, I offered a motion, along with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) to correct what I believed was a fatal flaw in that legislation, the so-called preauthorization provision of the House, that would have granted a blank check to Federal agencies to spend billions of dollars on dams and other projects in California. It was our strong belief that this provision would in fact never pass the Senate; it would become controversial and bog down this matter in the legislative process. Fortunately, that provision of this legislation was removed at the insistence of members of the Senate. And the discussion that somehow, if we removed it, it would blow up the Calfed program has turned out to be the opposite. The removal of that has allowed Senators from other parts of the country to let us proceed for this long overdue legislation and hold together the coalition that was put together in the House in support of this legislation on both sides of the aisle. Again, I want to thank all of the tireless efforts that Senator Feinstein put into negotiating this legislation in the Senate. There is no question this was most difficult for the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) in the House. I just asked him whether or not various Members of the House were happy, and he told me happiness was not the test in this legislation, but perhaps relative happiness was the test. And I think maybe, that being the goal, we have put together support for this legislation. And I want to thank him for those negotiations. The bill we are considering today contains one complicated provision having to do with the balance in the Calfed program. Concerns have been raised that the finding of imbalance in this provision would be disruptive to the Calfed program. This should not be the case. Congress might indeed exercise its prerogative and refuse to authorize a surface storage project if a less expensive or less damaging water supply alternative exists. That action would trigger this rebalancing provision, which includes a specific remedy and report to the Congress that should include those alternative supplies. As in the case of surface storage facilities, these alternative water supplies should be financed by the principle of ``beneficiary pays,'' just like every other aspect of the Calfed program. Finally, it is important to note that the bill reflects the fact that ecosystem restoration and several other Calfed activities, that have not received new authorization in this bill, are already authorized under Federal law. As the program moves forward, the authorization will include the balanced funding for these program elements as well. Again, I want to thank all of the members of the Committee on Resources, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who we share areas covering the great Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in our State, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was able to get some people to slow down and give some serious consideration to the problems that have plagued the users of the delta, both the agricultural interests and our municipal users and the environmental concerns in the delta to make sure that in fact we could come up with the most balanced program possible to meet all of those needs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last night Vice President Cheney said he was proud of the record in Iraq, and this is exactly what he said: ``We did in Iraq what was exactly the right thing to do, and I recommend it all over again, I would.'' And yet in today's Washington Post we learned that the most definitive accounts of Iraq's arms programs will show that Saddam Hussein possessed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess or have concrete plans to develop nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. This investigation found that the state of Hussein's weapon development program and knowledge was less advanced in 2003 when the war began than it was in 1998 when the international inspectors left Iraq. The fact of the matter is over 1,000 Americans have died in this war; thousands and thousands of Americans have been wounded; thousands and thousands of Iraqis have been killed and wounded, and they have been killed or wounded in a war of choice because Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. But this administration chose, in spite of all of the evidence to go to war, to put our young people at risk and to lose their lives because they wanted to manipulate the evidence. They wanted to manipulate the war on terror, and they wanted to frighten this Nation. Mr. Vice President, if you had to do it all over again, I hope you would not.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the California Maritime Academy as it celebrates its 75th anniversary. The California Maritime Academy was founded in 1929 under the name of the ``California Nautical School'' and was located in Tiburon, and is the third oldest active maritime academy in the United States. In 1936 the U.S. Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act, which directed the creation and maintenance of an adequate merchant marine to support U.S. international and domestic commerce and to meet the needs for national defense. Responding to this mandate, the federal government and the California state legislature began contributing matching funds in support of the school's mission. In these early days, only three-year deck and engineering programs were offered. In 1939 the school changed its name to the California Maritime Academy. In 1940, with war looming, the academy was relocated to San Francisco. During World War II, the course of study was accelerated to 17 months and many graduates served in the war. A new permanent site for the academy was found on a 67-acre site at Morrow Cove in Vallejo; in 1943 campus construction was completed, making the site the academy's permanent home. In 1973 Cal Maritime became the first maritime academy to enroll women in a licensed maritime program, the first of whom graduated in 1976. In 1974 the curriculum was expanded to a four-year undergraduate program, laying the groundwork for accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Nautical industrial technology and marine engineering technology were the four-year majors offered at this time. In the late 1980's, two new majors in mechanical engineering and business administration were added, and the nautical industrial technology program was replaced by marine transportation. Cal Maritime currently offers bachelor's degrees in business administration, facilities engineering technology, global studies and maritime affairs, marine engineering technology, marine transportation, and mechanical engineering. A program of intellectual learning, applied technology, and leadership development prepares graduates for positions of significant responsibility in the areas of maritime, business, logistics, inter-modal transportation, and engineering. In addition to earning a bachelor's degree, students earn professional licensing in one of several areas: Third Mate or Third Assistant Engineer, U.S. Coast Guard; Certified Plant Engineer-in- Training, Association for Facilities Engineering; or professional certification in transportation, management, or international business and logistics. The curriculum further expanded during the fall of 2003, when Cal Maritime introduced a major in global studies and maritime affairs--the first new major to be accepted after the academy's full transition into the CSU system. Also in the fall of 2003, Cal Maritime dedicated its new Technology Center. In 1995, Cal Maritime became a campus of The California State University (CSU), which opened new opportunities for educational and institutional enhancement. By 1996 Cal Maritime expanded beyond its maritime curriculum, introducing a facilities engineering technology major. A new science and engineering lab building was completed in 1999. Cal Maritime is one of only seven degree-granting maritime academies in the United States, and the only one on the West Coast. For the last several years, Cal Maritime students have enjoyed a nearly 100% job placement rate upon graduation and starting salaries above the national average. In addition, Cal Maritime's completion and time to degree rates are some of the best of any public institution in the state. At Cal Maritime, students benefit from a small student-to- teacher ratio and small class sizes--with an average of 18 students per class. Each student at Cal Maritime has the opportunity to participate in at least one 60-day international training cruise aboard the Training Ship Golden Bear. While at sea, students apply the skills learned during the school year and visit domestic and international ports of call. As Cal Maritime celebrates its 75th anniversary, the future looks bright with applications for enrollment at an all-time high. The academy's strategic plan calls for growth to 750-800 students in the next few years and Cal Maritime is well on its way to meeting that goal. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we congratulate the California Maritime Academy for its 75 years of contributions to the maritime industry of our great nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Amendment. The Sanders amendment would ensure that the Treasury Department does not use any of its funds to undermine the Federal court decision in Cooper v. IBM that held that cash balance conversions violate Federal pension and age discrimination law. We've been here many times before. In fact, this is the fourth time that the House is voting to protect older workers' pensions under cash balance pension plan conversions. The last two times the amendment passed by 308-121 and 258-160. Instead of voting to prevent the Treasury Department from undermining workers' pensions, I wish we were voting affirmative legislation to set standards for cash balance plans. This issue has been going on since 1999. In 1999, IBM converted its pension plan to a cash balance plan. Luckily, its computer savvy workers quickly figured out that the conversions would reduce their expected pensions. The workers mobilized and got Congress to hold hearings. The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on approvals of conversions in September 1999. But then, the new Bush administration tried to issue regulations lifting the moratorium and permit conversions without any worker protections. Immediately 218 Members of Congress wrote to the President urging him to revise the regulations and protect older workers. Four times the House and Senate have voted to require Treasury to withdraw its regulations and protect older workers. Finally, this year, in 2004, the Bush administration relented and withdrew the regulations. The administration even sent up a revised legislative proposal that contained a modicum of older worker protections through it did not go far enough to protect older workers. But, still the issue is not resolved. Either Congress or the courts must set standards for cash balance plans and conversions to such plans. The Republican Congress has done nothing on this issue for almost 6 years. If anything, Republican leader would defer to employer lobbying and simply permit cash balance conversions without any protections for older workers. That's why the courts may have to be the body that resolves some of these issues. One court, the Federal district court for the State of Illinois, determined that conversions are illegal. Other courts have disagreed. These cases and others still waiting to be heard will take years to resolve. This amendment makes clear that the Treasury Department shall not interfere in these cases. Today worker pension security is in crisis. This administration has done nothing to protect worker's pensions and done everything to undermine them. They didn't protect workers after Enron and Worldcom from employers loading pension plans with employer stock and letting the executive protect themselves while leaving the workers stuck with worthless stock. They didn't protect participants in 401(K) plans from a broad range of mutual fund abuses that have decimated retirement nest eggs. And they are not protecting workers now from rampant pension underfunding. The PBGC, the agency that insures traditional pensions, has a $10 billion deficit. And if the airlines go under, the deficit will increase by another $30 billion. Over 1,000 pension plans are more than $50 million underfunded. And workers don't even know because the PBGC is required to keep the information secret. The administration and the Republican majority are doing nothing to protect worker pensions. I urge my colleagues to vote once again and remind the majority that it is the will of the Congress that older workers be protected in cash balance pension plan conversions.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in saluting Alex Mehran, who will be named Corporate Leader of the Year for Contra Costa County at the AFL-CIO's Labor-2- Labor dinner in my congressional district on September 17, 2004. Mr. Mehran earned this honor due to his continued leadership within our community on such issues as housing, transportation and the creation of quality jobs for America's working families. As President and Chief Executive Officer of Sunset Development Company, Alex has built the largest, most diverse business center in the San Francisco Bay region. That development, Bishop Ranch, contains over 350 companies that employ over 30,000 people. In order to provide the housing and transportation choices these employees, and others throughout the region, need, Alex Mehran has provided dynamic leadership on a number of initiatives to address these issues. As Chairman of the Contra Costa Economic Partnership he has helped to create a unique collaboration of public and private partnerships to promote economic development strategies that support a higher quality of life for the region's residents. Alex has shown his commitment to making the ``American Dream'' available to all of our community's residents by creating learning opportunities for immigrant workers at his job sites so they can gain the English skills needed to fully participate in our society. For our system to truly work, we must have corporate leaders like Alex Mehran who understand our great society's health depends on each of our hard-working residents having the opportunity to enjoy the quality of life we all work so hard to create.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Sal Roselli, a friend of mine and a good friend to working people throughout the Nation, who will receive the honored title of Labor Leader of the Year in Contra Costa County, California by the AFL-CIO, on September 17, 2004. Sal is receiving this honor in recognition of the contributions he has made to bring high quality health care to all Americans. Sal is the President of the Service Employees International Union Local 250, AFL-CIO. Since he became President in 1988 that Union has become the fastest growing health care union in the Nation, having seen its membership rise from 25,000 to 100,000. During this time his union has established new standards on wages, benefits and quality of care issues through the collective bargaining process. SEIU Local 250 has played a leading role in advancing social justice issues such as immigrant rights, health care access, peace and affirmative action. Sal's commitment to working people began in the late 1960's when he worked with Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker's Movement, followed by a year of community organizing with VISTA. He moved to the Bay Area in the early 1970's, and by 1984 he was president of the Alice B Toklas Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club, which grew to be the largest in the country. As a national vice-president of SEIU, Sal has helped bring a new sense of urgency within the labor movement to address one of our Nation's greatest shames--the lack of health insurance coverage for 45 million people. His union's 100,000 health care members are committed to bringing quality health care to every American. I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting Sal Roselli in recognition of his service to America's health care needs.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, every now and then nice things happen to those in need. This is just what happened to the students at Helms Middle School after Joe Zawadski visited the school and saw the terrible conditions that existed. Joe Zawadski made a command decision that the students deserved better and he and his company, Signature Properties, were going to do something about it. With the support of Jim Ghielmetti, the owner of Signatures Properties, Helms was able to make major improvements to its safety, sanitation and playing field conditions. What a wonderful example for those who want to help improve the educational environment in our schools. Thanks to Joe Zawadski and Signature Properties, the students at Helms Middles School will start the year in a safer and brighter learning environment. Thank you Joe Zawadski. Mr. Speaker I would like to share with my colleagues a news story and editorial from the Contra Costa Times. Pick Up A Paint Brush Signature Properties Vice President Joe Zwidski usually is responsible for developing the foundation of neighborhoods, building things from the ground up. Recently, however, he stepped in to help in the maintenance of a school in San Pablo, one of the areas in which his Pleasanton company builds. He donated supplies and his company's services to paint the exterior, repair the lawn; install sprinklers, and fix bathrooms and broken windows at Helms Middle School. He looked at this dilapidated school--scheduled for overhauling from Measure D money and that he has tried to earmark his fees to West County School District for--and decided the school's needs shouldn't be put off. He said: ``This is something we can do.'' That's true. Good for you, Mr. Z. Now why didn't people right there in the community say that? Why didn't neighbors and parents do something? Do plumbers and painters and handypeople not have children going through the schools? As schools throughout the area, throughout the state, wait for state funds or for local bond money, parents and businesses in the community could be giving money, supplies, time and skills to make sure their area schools aren't falling down, that their kids and their neighbors aren't going to schools that bring grown men to tears. When the state or bond money comes, it will go further and more will get done in the long run. But in many cases, attention is needed now. A decrepit school can have psychological connections and results. As Zawidski said, to kids in attendance at schools like that, ``it's apparent no one cares about them.'' That's how their young brains process it anyway. Then the kids in turn don't care about themselves and don't strive to get the benefits that a good education brings. Parents and the community must be involved. They must be active in all aspects of youths' education. That means: making sure your kids do their homework, meeting their teachers, seeing that they are learning. It also means making sure money for schools is spent as it should be; it means volunteering so that teachers have help and extra curriculum programs remain available; and there is certainly no reason it shouldn't mean that every couple of years you pick up a paintbrush and a screwdriver, to keep the school up to par. Our schools, all of them, can use the extra help.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what were they thinking? The Republicans that control this House look at our economy and the job losses, the declining wages and rising cost of health care, and you know what they think the problem is? That the people are earning too much overtime pay. So they decided to cut it for 6 million American families. They look at jobs going overseas, and do you know what they think the problem is? They do not think there are enough jobs going overseas, so they continue to vote for tax credits to help companies send jobs overseas rather than create them at home. And they look at crime in America, and do you know what they think the problem is? That there are not enough guns and assault weapons on our streets, so they let the assault weapons ban expire and want to end the gun ban in the District of Columbia. They look at the cost of pharmaceuticals, and they decide that they are not as expensive as the senior citizens in this country find them. So they decide they are not going to let them go to Canada. They are not going to let them reimport drugs from overseas to cut the cost of drugs. Rather, they are going to prosecute them and the governments, cities and counties that are trying to help those individuals have affordable drugs. They have lost their way.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Amendment. The Sanders Amendment would ensure that the Treasury department not use any of its funds to undermine the federal court decision in Cooper v. IBM that held that cash balance conversions violate federal pension and age discrimination law. We've been here many times before. In fact, this is the fourth time that the House is voting to protect older workers' pensions under cash balance pension plan conversions. The last 2 times the amendment passed by 308-121 and 258-160. Instead of voting to prevent the Treasury department from undermining workers' pensions, I wish we were voting on affirmative legislation to set standards for cash balance plans. This issue has been going on since 1999. In 1999, IBM converted its pension plan to a cash balance plan. Luckily, it's computer savvy workers quickly figured out that the conversion would reduce their expected pensions. The workers mobilized and got Congress to hold hearings. The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on approvals of conversions in September 1999. But then, the new Bush administration tried to issue regulations lifting the moratorium and permit conversions without any worker protections. Immediately 218 members of Congress wrote to the President urging him to revise the regulations and protect older workers. Four times the House and Senate have voted to require Treasury to withdraw its regulations and protect older workers. Finally, this year, in 2004, the Bush administration relented and withdrew the regulations. The administration even sent up a revised legislative proposal that contained a modicum of older worker protections though it did not go far enough to protect older workers. But, still the issue is not resolved. Either Congress or the courts must set standards for cash balance plans and conversions to such plans. The Republican Congress has done nothing on this issue for almost six years. If anything, Republican leaders would defer to employer lobbying and simply permit cash balance conversions without any protections for older workers. That's why the Courts may have to be the body that resolves some of these issues. One court, the federal district court for the state of Illinois, determined that conversions are illegal. Other courts have disagreed. These cases and others still waiting to be heard will take years to resolve. This amendment makes clear that the Treasury department shall not interfere in these cases. Today worker pension security is in crisis. This administration has done nothing to protect workers' pensions and done everything to undermine them. They didn't protect workers after Enron and WorldCom from employers loading pension plans with employer stock and letting the executives protect themselves while leaving the workers stuck with worthless stock. They didn't protect participants in 401(k) plans from a broad range of mutual fund abuses that have decimated retirement nest eggs. And they are not protecting workers now from rampant pension underfunding. The PBGC, the agency that insures traditional pensions, has a $10 billion deficit. And if the airlines go under, the deficit will increase by another $30 billion. Over 1,000 pension plans are more than $50 million underfunded. And workers don't even know because the PBGC is required to keep the information secret. The administration and the Republican majority are doing nothing to protect worker pensions. I urge my colleagues to vote once again and remind the majority that it is the will of the Congress that older workers be protected in cash balance pension plan conversions.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an impending pay cut to middle class families. As my colleagues here in the Congress know, the House voted last week on a bipartisan basis to stop a new policy that President Bush has put in place to change the definition of who qualifies for overtime pay. For years it has been clear that in certain types of work you would earn time and a half pay for every additional hour you work if it is more than 40 hours in 1 week. Overtime pay is not a minor thing to these families. It often accounts for more than 25 percent of middle class families' paychecks. It helps foremen, assistant managers, journalists, registered nurses, and workers who perform relatively small amounts of supervisory or administrative work. It helps salespeople who perform some amount of work outside the office, chefs, nursery school teachers, workers in the financial services industry, insurance claim adjusters, funeral directors and embalmers, law enforcement officers, athletic trainers and many others from all different parts of the workforce. But the Bush administration has changed all of that and 6 million middle class families are now at risk of losing their overtime pay. Democrats in Congress have been leading the fight to stop the President and to stop the pay cut, but the leaders in Congress and the White House are doing everything in their power to see that we do not win. The whole issue is a very curious thing. The President looked out at our economy, at the mounting job losses, at the declining real wages and the rising costs of health care and college tuition, and he saw trouble. He believed that the threat to the middle classes was that they were earning too much overtime pay, and he ordered the Department of Labor to devise a scheme that would allow employers to force their employees to work the overtime hours but not receive the overtime pay. It was not a popular plan. The Department of Labor received tens of thousands of comments from the public opposing it. Lawmakers received calls and letters and e-mails from our constituents opposing the plan. In fact, the department had to revise its proposed changes to try and, quote, make it fairer. Their first plan would have taken overtime pay away from 8 million families. This plan takes it away from 6 million. It still is not fair and it is not the answer to what ails our economy. But even though the plan was unpopular, the President knew he could count on his friends in Congress to withstand the public opposition. Late last year, the Senate, in a bipartisan vote, voted to stop the President's plan, and the House cast a procedural vote to support the Senate's provision. But when the final bill made it out of Congress and went to the President, the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate had stripped the bill of the amendment that would have blocked the President's overtime pay cut. That is where we are again. Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the House voted to stop the President's overtime pay cut, which went into effect on August 23. It was a pretty big vote for a controversial issue: 223 voted against the President, including 22 Republicans, and 193 voted for the President's plan, all Republicans. Now the Senate is going to take up the issue. But already aides to House leaders like Majority Leader Tom DeLay have indicated publicly that they will not let this amendment stay in the final bill that goes to the President for signature. Even though the majority of the House voted to stop the President's overtime pay cut, the President's allies are here to prevent the majority will of the House from prevailing. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the current leadership in this Congress? They do not respect the will of the majority. You know, sometimes it works just the other way. Take the vote on Medicare last year, one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to come before this body. The President's plan was crafted and designed for the drug companies and the insurance companies, even though it was supposed to be for seniors to help them pay for the high cost of valuable prescription drugs. But the Medicare bill does nothing to slow the rising prices of prescription drugs for seniors. When the bill was brought to the House floor in November last year, those of us who opposed the bill were winning. When the clock ran out and the time was up for the vote to be ended, we were winning. The Medicare bill was going to be defeated. But the Republicans had another idea. They refused to bring the vote to a close. Twenty minutes went by, a normal time for a vote. We were winning. An hour went by; we were winning. Two hours went by; we were still winning. By this time, early in the morning, the President had been woken up to make phone calls, to help in the feverish effort to twist congressional arms. One Congressman said afterwards that he had been offered a bribe by a congressional leader for his vote, a matter that is still under investigation by the FBI and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Finally, after nearly 3 hours, one of the longest votes to be held in the history of Congress, the President's allies turned enough votes; and they proceeded to pass the drug companies' Medicare bill by a slim majority. And that bill is now law. Whether it is protecting overtime pay of the middle class or protecting seniors from the drug companies' Medicare law, or countless other issues, the current leaders in Congress do not respect or honor the majority here in the Congress who support these measures. They will not respect the will of the majority of Americans who are represented by those Members of Congress, over half of the country expressing their view that they do not want that law to go into effect, whether it is to cut overtime pay or whether it is the phony prescription drug bill that does not provide the benefits that our seniors need and have come to expect. This is one of the many things that is wrong with the way the House of Representatives is being run under the current leadership, and it is one of the things that must change come this November. The House and Senate should respect the will of the majority of its Members on these issues of overtime pay and middle-class prescription drug benefits.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, three years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we solemnly remember those who risked their lives, those whose lives were lost and those they left behind. America changed forever that day. Some called 9-11 America's wake up call. The actions of first responders and everyday citizens give true meaning to the word hero. I applaud the resolution in the House today for honoring their service and the memories of those no longer with us. But sadly, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that this resolution is flawed. While it rightfully honors the victims and heroes of September 11, it misleadingly connects the invasion of Iraq with the war on terrorism. Iraq did not start the U.S global war on terrorism--Osama bin Laden did. Despite that fact, after only four months of hunting for bin Laden, the U.S. began redirecting military and intelligence personnel from his pursuit in Afghanistan to preparing for war with Iraq. The President then declared in a press conference that, ``I don't know where [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him . . . I truly am not that concerned about him.'' The President was clearly at odds with his terrorism advisers. The FBI was concerned about him. It said that al-Qaeda remained the ``number one concern.'' Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was concerned about him. He said America was still bin Laden's number 1 target. Despite all this, what did the President do? He shortchanged homeland security needs like port, rail and border security. He reduced law enforcement funding by over 30 percent. And he became less concerned with the man who started the war on terrorism and more concerned with Saddam Hussein--a man the 9-11 Commission determined had no operational connection to al Qaeda and who played no role in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Did this make America any safer? If so, redirecting resources from hunting the world's number one terrorist in order to invade Iraq might have made sense. But the fact is, the invasion in Iraq has made us less, not more, secure. And because of that fact, we do ourselves as a country and the memories of those who were lost on September 11, 2001 a great disservice by misrepresenting the facts. The invasion of Iraq did not deny terrorists a safe haven from which to operate, but rather it created one. In fact, because of poor planning and inadequate troop levels, U.S. forces in Iraq have withdrawn from unstable areas like Falluja, Ramadi and Samarra allowing them to become foreign terrorist safehavens. The low troop level has also prevented the U.S. from sealing off the borders and allowed foreign terrorists to enter Iraq at will. More American Service members have been killed since the President announced that all major combat operations had ended than before that time. All told, over 1,000 soldiers have been killed, 7,000 wounded, and the rate at which American soldiers are being killed is rapidly increasing. With all that said, the President still speaks of ``taking the fight to the enemy'' so that we don't have to fight him at home. But the Department of Homeland Security had to raise the terrorist alert level four times since the invasion of Iraq. And Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said, ``[al Qaeda] is still determined to strike.'' The Bush Administration would still lead us to believe that al Qaeda is no longer a threat because two thirds of its senior leadership have been captured or killed. But Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld says ``it's almost impossible to have metrics'' that determine whether Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are being drained of support around the world. In fact some experts still put al Qaeda's end strength at close to 18,000. Secretary Rumsfeld went on to say that the War on Terrorism is not ``a military problem alone.'' In fact the overreliance on military means to address the threat of terrorism might have done more to help al Qaeda recruit new members than it did to shrink the organization. So what lessons have we learned three years later? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11; our invasion of Iraq made us more, not less vulnerable to terrorist attack; despite capturing and killing al Qaeda leaders, the organization remains operational; we shortchanged homeland security; and the President's attempt to make America safer by taking the fight to the enemy and invading Iraq has done nothing to deter bin Laden's desire to attack the U.S. again. The administration has failed to adequately address the worldwide threat of terror. It has alienated much of the international community and failed to assemble an effective coalition. We honor the fallen today, but we must also refocus America's foreign and security policy.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.