George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) that he ought to read the bill, because truth and facts are about what the language of the bill says. If you read on line 16, page 15, ``For the 1-year period following the establishment of the account, recipients may not receive intensive, supportive, or training services funded under this title except for the fee-for-services basis.'' The gentleman obviously has not read the bill. That means that you either pay for it with the stipend the gentleman says he wants to give them, which provides them no additional new services, no flexibility. So do not stand up here and talk about facts or truth. Read the bill. Read the bill, and the gentleman will find out what he is doing is denying them the services that are already available to them today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this decision to go in to work in the industrial forces of this country during World War II was not a decision that could be taken lightly. The fact of the matter is this was dangerous, hard, heavy work that these women were engaged in, in many of these professions. We are told that between Pearl Harbor and January 1 of 1944, 37,000 people were killed in these industrial factories and shipyards and airplane factories, and over 210,000 were permanently disabled, and almost 4 million were temporarily disabled, 60 times the count on the battlefront in that situation. So these women were making serious sacrifices in many instances and, in some cases, their lives. This weekend, as I mentioned, we will do a ribbon-cutting on the Visitors Center of the Rosie the Riveter World War II homefront Park in Richmond, California, and it is symbolic of so many of the activities that took place on the homefront in the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere in the Nation. There are other sites around the Nation that will be added to this park where these homefront activities took place. But in the western United States prior to the war, for the decade prior to the war, we had produced no merchant ships and, all of a sudden, with the advent of the war, we produced 4,600 ships in 1,300 days. In one instance we produced a ship, the SS Robert Peary, a liberty ship, in 4 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes from start to finish. That ship was produced and sent on its way to contribute to the war. That effort was possible because of the participation of women in the workforce, the Rosie the Riveters, and the contributions that they made to the homefront campaign to not only ready America for the war, to keep it engaged in the war, but to win that war in Europe and in the Pacific campaigns. Thousands and thousands of workers migrated across the country to come to California to work in the war industries, to work on the West Coast, in Seattle, in Puget Sound, and elsewhere in those war industries. As they did, they changed, as so many of our colleagues have already spoken to, they changed the face of the workforce, they changed the race of the workforce, they changed the makeup of the workforce, and they changed the attitudes of employers toward workers. Because at the Kaiser Shipyard they knew that they needed to keep every employee on the job all of the time. That is why we saw what is now the Kaiser health care system. The largest HMO in the country today was started in the Kaiser shipyards in Richmond, California. It was there because they provided full health care coverage for all of their workers and their families. In my district, of those people who have health care insurance, I think roughly three out of four are enrolled in the Kaiser insurance plan. That is a legacy of the Rosie the Riveter days of the homefront effort during the war and is the model for child care in the workplace in this country. It was begun in these industries because of the necessity of making sure that these women could balance the care of their children, the good health of their children, and the need of this country to have them engage in the workforce. I am very proud that one of my aunts, Laura Kerry, was a Rosie the Riveter in the shipyards. My father worked as a labor arbitrator for the shipyards between the workforce and the employers at that time. So, again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for sponsoring this resolution, and the Women's Caucus and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her sponsorship on this side of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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 myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the House Women's Caucus led by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for their sponsorship and their pushing for this resolution to come to the floor and to thank the House and Senate cosponsors of our resolution, including California's two Senators, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein, and Richmond's Rosie the Riveter superintendent Judy Hart from the National Park Service and, obviously, the 6 million women who helped build American history. Many people have learned about the Rosie the Riveter story recently from the great work being done by Ford Motor Corporation to encourage Rosies to come forward and tell the story of the Rosies, along with the National Park Foundation. This legislation that we are voting on today honors the millions of women who answered the call to service on the homefront during World War II. The Rosies, as they are known, built tanks and ships, working as welders, machinists, mechanics, pipe fitters, electricians and boilermakers and so many other trades and professions during the Second World War while so many men were off in the battles of combat. They learned the skilled jobs previously reserved for men. They earned men's wages, and they gained new independence. The effort by these women made victory abroad possible. Those who have studied the history of the period will remember how unprepared America was to enter the Second World War. It is because of the effort by these Rosies that we met the challenge and succeeded in winning the Second World War. But it also was a time when there was some dramatic change in the workforce in America. Women and minorities were gaining access to high-paying jobs and industry for the first time. Health care and services for employees and their families were available on a full-time basis for the first time in many instances. Services, including child care, to help parents balance family and work for the first time became available. The oldest continuous child care center in the program is in my district that was part of the Kaiser Shipyards in the San Francisco Bay area, and it was named after Ruth Powers who was a teacher and a Rosie at that time, and it continues in service today. We saw these incredible partnerships created between government, industry and the labor unions to take care of the workforce and to train the workforce and to make sure they could report to work every day. It is also clear that this contribution is absolutely tantamount to our winning the Second World War. This weekend we will have a rivet cutting at the Rosie the Riveter World War II Homefront National Park in Richmond, California, where we will cut the ribbon on the new Visitors Center that is being created there. Kaiser shipyards in Richmond, where they produced a Liberty ship every day, women comprised over a quarter of the workforce. Their shipyard was the largest and most productive of World War II. The war transformed the economy of California. The State population grew by nearly 75 percent. Richmond grew from 23,000 people to a booming town of 100,000 people in support of the warfront industries that were related there at that time. Many people today think that 24-7 is a term that came out of the technology revolution, out of the dot.com revolution. Mr. Speaker, 24-7 was a watchword in Richmond, California. We had 24-hour supermarkets because people worked three shifts. We had 24-hour rooming houses where people changed beds according to the shifts that they were working. We had 24-hour child care for families, 24-hour physician services, 24- hour health care, because the effort there was to keep the workforce working so that they could meet the demands of the war, which they did. It also provided for the most rapid and deep integration of the American workforce up to that time in history, as did much of World War II in the industry base. It changed the economy, it changed our society, it changed the women's movement in this country and their role in American society. If you have met the Rosies, you understand the pride that they demonstrate when many of them can still show their journeyman's card, when many of them can describe the fear they had on the first day of work when they showed up for jobs that they had never heard of or seen done before, and also the pride when they now recognize what they contributed to: the winning of the Second World War. I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, the House women's organization for pursuing this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the original author of the World War II memorial legislation. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this closed rule to deny a fair and open debate on the real needs of American workers. Once again we see the Republican leadership shutting down the ability of the House for Members to debate and offer amendments to change the course of lives of American workers, to alter the legislation that comes before us that is really nothing more than a sham. It is a fig leaf to try to present to the American people that somehow the Republican majority cares about the unemployment when, in fact, what we see is we have 8.2 million people unemployed, we have 1.5 million workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, people that no longer have the economic resources to hold their families together because they have been unemployed over 26 weeks. Those people are out there. Speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle has gotten up and lamented the level of unemployment in their district, and yet they refuse, they refuse to allow this Congress to address extending unemployment benefits to those people who they admit cannot find jobs in their district because of the economy, because of the layoffs, but they are going to let those individuals crash to the floor, lose their homes, lose their automobiles, make their chances of getting unemployment even more difficult because they refuse to bring up a bill to extend unemployment benefits. That is what the Republicans are offering. What are they saying here? They want to offer a bill that says you may get up to $3,000. Well, one of the things we just learned in the most recent memo from the White House is they plan to cut all of these programs in the next budget year, and so this promise is not worth the paper that it is written on. It is up to $3,000. You may not get $3,000. You may get $1,000. It may not pay for the job searches that you are doing or the training that you need. But the Republicans want to suggest for those 8 million unemployed out there, for those 1.5 million workers who have exhausted their benefits, for the 2 million people who lost their jobs since President Bush took office, that somehow this legislation is going to deal with their problems. This legislation in no way deals with their problems. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) went to the Committee on Rules, and of course they were shut out. Because the Republicans are afraid of debate on unemployment, Republicans are afraid of debate on the homeland security and the employment of first responders to deal with the needs of this country. So what do they do? Rather than honor the tradition of the Constitution, rather than honor the traditions of this institution, they just close down the debate: Take this bill or leave it. Well, this Congress ought to leave this bill, because it does not do anything for the unemployed, and it certainly does not help those people who are most desperate in our country, who have found themselves long-term unemployed and their benefits have run out. This is the first administration in decades that has refused to help those individuals who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. It is unfortunate that we are in this situation. We should be able to consider the Kildee amendment on unemployment benefits, we should be able to consider the Ryan amendment to hire first responders to deal with the security needs of this Nation, but this Republican majority will not allow that. I would urge people to vote against the previous question so we would have an opportunity to vote on the Ryan amendment and do something for this country, for the unemployed, and for the security needs of this country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So apparently the Senate can have bipartisan representation, apparently the Senate can have democracy, but this House cannot have democracy.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for all of the reasons mentioned by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), not only does this budget resolution graphically demonstrate the incompetency of the Republicans to deal with the budget of this country and the budget resolution in this House, but it does something much more sinister than that. Buried in this resolution is the prohibition against any votes to be taken in the House of Representatives against the provisions offered by the administration, the rules that they put forth to deny millions of working people in this country the right to overtime. When these rules go into effect, if we cannot vote against them as the Senate has voted against them, when these rules go into effect, millions of Americans will be required to work overtime in the future; they just will not get overtime pay. That means for millions of America's families, families that use overtime that is so important to them to qualify for the mortgages on their house, to qualify to buy an automobile, to put their kids through school, they are not going to have that in their paycheck in the future because they are going to be excluded from being eligible for overtime. Now the Senate addressed this rule, and they voted against it. They voted to change it. We fought hard against the original rule because the original rule would have excluded maybe 11 million Americans from the right to have overtime pay when they work overtime. Americans understand why they get overtime pay, because when their employer comes and says they have to work late on Thursday night or Friday night, that means they have to rearrange their child care, that means they have to rearrange their ability to spend time with their family, that may mean they have to rearrange their doctor's appointments, and you have to change your life around for the convenience of the employer. So you get overtime pay. Now when the employer comes to the worker and says he or she has to work overtime, there will be no overtime pay. That is why this House and the Senate defeated those rules on a bipartisan basis, and the administration now has come up with a new rule. And we find out that even the new rule excludes millions of hard-working Americans from overtime pay, people struggling to hold onto a middle-class lifestyle and standard of living for their families. That is about to evaporate. That is about to evaporate because this House will not allow us, the Republican leadership will not allow us to have an up-or-down vote. We are fighting so hard for democracy in Iraq, but we cannot have an up-or-down vote in the House of Representatives. We cannot have an up- or-down vote. We cannot have an up-or-down vote because the majority, on a bipartisan basis, will vote to overturn these rules. By a vote of 99-0, the Senate voted to change these rules and exclude from the impact of these rules, to try to save these middle-class families, computer programmers, licensed practical nurses, nurse midwives, oil and gas pipeline workers, oil and gas field workers, oil platform workers, refinery workers. Get the message here? Millions of hard-working Americans, the Senate voted 99-0 to exclude steelworkers, shipyard workers, teachers, technicians, journalists, chefs, cooks, police officers, firefighters, fire sergeants, police sergeants, emergency medical technicians; 99 to nothing the Senate voted, that means bipartisan. That means all of the Republicans and all of the Democrats voted to protect these workers and their families. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans will not let Members have a vote on this. We tried twice in the last week to have a vote, and they voted on a partisan straight party line to subject these workers to these rules that will cut their pay this year. When workers are faced with outsourcing, plant closings, no wage growth, higher health care premiums, now the Republicans have decided to cut their overtime pay. Not only do they show no concern for people who are unemployed; but if you have a job, the Republican's initiative is to cut your pay. But what are they going to do, they are going to continue the cover-up because buried in this rule they have denied the ability of this House to vote on this rule. Again, the Senate, 99-0, voted to protect construction employees, production line employees, carpenters, mechanics, plumbers, ironworkers, craftsmen, anybody earning an hourly wage because the rule does not protect hourly wage earners. It helps painters, cement masons, stationary engineers, longshoremen, utility workers, welders. Does this sound like Members' constituency? Does this sound like the people who work in our congressional districts every day? Yes, it does. Mr. Speaker, these are the people who built America, they built the middle class; and now the Republicans are taking away their overtime. But Members will not get to have a vote on that because the Republicans are afraid of the vote. They are afraid of democracy. They are afraid of the people's House working its will so they have shut down the debate and shut down the ability to have a vote. The Senate had a vote, and they even voted on a bipartisan basis to exclude anybody who has overtime today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, are families and college students better off than they were 4 years ago? Not when it comes to being able to afford a higher education. In the year 2000, when candidate George Bush said we should make the path to college open for all, that was his promise. Four years later that path is covered in weeds and broken promises, and President Bush and the Republicans must accept responsibility for their failed leadership in this area. Since 2001 a 4-year public college tuition has increased by almost 30 percent. How has President Bush responded? Each year, he broke his promise to provide a $5,100 maximum Pell grant to all first-year college students. In fact, the Pell grant this year is worth $500 less than it was 30 years ago, and the President's 2005 budget eliminates Pell grants from 95,000 deserving students who need that money to pursue a higher education. Now the Republicans are rubber-stamping the President's legislation that would force the typical student borrower to pay $5,500 more for their student loan than they currently do. I do not think those students believe they are better off than they were 4 years ago.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Then to be clear, let me understand that this means that we will not have the hour of debate on the Department of Labor's efforts to deny millions of workers currently eligible for overtime from receiving overtime in the future?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If a motion to table this motion on overtime pay prevails, will it have the effect of denying the Members any debate on this issue?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for yielding me time and for all of his involvement over many years on the issues affecting OSHA and the workplace safety of American workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Act has substantially improved the safety of the American workplace to the benefit of the American worker. Far fewer workers are killed or injured today than was the case before the law was enacted. Despite this progress, too many Americans continue to be sick or injured or killed in workplace accidents that could have been or should have been avoided. Fifteen Americans were killed and more than 12,800 were injured each day in 2002. This does not include the 50,000 and 60,000 deaths that occur every year as a result of occupational diseases. None of the bills before this committee today will do anything to improve the occupational safety or health of Americans. H.R. 2728 unnecessarily and indefinitely delays the abatement of safety and health hazards in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration citations. H.R. 2729 unnecessarily expands the size of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and H.R. 2730 weakens the fundamental responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor. It contorts the law and confuses the enforcement responsibilities of both the Secretary and the review commission. H.R. 2731 significantly diminishes the protections of Occupational Safety and Health by discouraging OSHA from even enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act and punishing tax payers unless the agency, like Perry Mason, can win every case. That is not going to happen. These bills do no good, and some of them do substantial harm. The House should not waste time considering them. If the House truly wants to address the economic needs of the American people, why not spend time on legislation raising the subpoverty minimum wage or extending unemployment benefits to the 90,000 workers a month who are losing that benefit because of the inaction of Congress or stopping the Labor Department from issuing overtime regulations that will cost middle-class workers critical amounts of their income? Why do we not spend our time on those bills instead of this meaningless and political agenda? Rather than hurting workers, we should be raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage has not been increased since 1997, and the real value of the minimum wage is approaching all-time historic lows. It is worth noting that the Republican Congress has increased Members' salaries six times since the minimum wage was last increased. It is time for Congress to do for others what we have repeatedly done for ourselves. Instead, we are considering bad bills to undermine worker safety and health. If we cannot do good for workers, we should at least avoid doing them harm. We should not be encouraging employers to litigate OSHA complaints instead of correcting health and safety hazards; but two of the bills, H.R. 2728 and H.R. 2731 have exactly that effect. Tax payers should not be paying the legal expenses of employers who endanger their workers, but, again, that is what H.R. 2731 requires. It is nonsense to contend that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission knows better what the Secretary of Labor intended than the Secretary herself, but that is not exactly the premise that underlies H.R. 2730. Finally, our Republican colleagues argue that we should expand the size of the commission with no commensurate expansion in its responsibilities. In effect, the taxpayers should go on the hook to put two more lawyers to work for no good reason. This is the effect of H.R. 2729. This is bad legislation. It is unfortunate that we have spent time considering these bills when there is so much we could be doing to help workers and their families in this country. Let us not compound the error by foisting these bills on the other body.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2660, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. George Miller of California moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2660 be instructed to insist on reporting an amendment to prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds under the Act to implement any portion of a regulation that would make any employee ineligible for overtime pay who would otherwise qualify for overtime pay under regulations under section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act in effect September 3, 2003, except that nothing in the amendment shall affect the increased salary requirements provided in such regulations as specified in section 541 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated on April 23, 2004.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think most people recognize that California often leads the Nation in its efforts to protect the environment. It also leads the Nation as the most efficient user of energy. There are few issues more unifying than the importance of protecting our coasts from the impacts of offshore oil drilling. Time and again, local, State and Federal officials in both parties have supported a moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Yet, despite the campaign rhetoric claiming to oppose offshore drilling, this administration has attempted every backdoor route to weaken coastal protections. All we have to do is look at the energy bill and find numerous provisions supported by the administration that paved the way to drilling off the coast of California. In fact, just this month Aera, a subsidiary of Shell/ExxonMobil, indicated it is moving forward with its intentions to develop several leases off the coast of Santa Barbara that are not subject to the drilling moratorium. The President stepped in in the same situation in Florida and bought out those leases, Florida, a State where his brother is Governor, but he will not do this in California. Further, the administration, through the energy bill, has repeatedly tried to weaken the State of California's ability to regulate the activities at the State level that might impact our coasts.