George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take a moment to talk about this budget. What we really have seen here now, as the Republicans have taken over the House, is a complete and total loss of any sense of fiscal discipline. What they have done, and certainly since they have been joined with the Bush administration, its takeover of the White House, is they have simply done nothing more than add trillions of dollars to the debt of this country and run annual deficits of about $500 billion a year over and over and over again. Why is that so? Because they could not stand to have to engage in any kind of fiscal discipline. They want to blame it on President Clinton. They want to blame it on the economic cycles. They want to blame it on war. They want to blame it on terrorism. They want to blame it on the vernal equinox. But the fact of the matter is, the problem resides at home. It resides within the Republican philosophy of government. And that is simply to run deficits. It is what they did all during the 1980s when they were in control. Back 22 years ago I came to this Congress and I asked that the Congress adopt pay-as-you-go rules. The Congress argued about it for a decade. The Republicans did not like it because they said they could not do tax cuts. And the Democrats did not like it because they could not spend on some of their programs. The conservatives were nervous and the liberals were nervous. But a decade later, George Bush, Sr., signed pay-as-you-go into law, and that became the means by which we engaged in fiscal discipline. After a decade of arguing, we adopted it and what happened? The deficit shrank, the economy soared, the budget, dare we speak, was balanced for the first time in 40 years, because people had to make choices and choose priorities, something you do not have to do any longer in Congress. You can just charge it to the deficit. You can just run crazy. You can just romp through the halls of government, run across the country and charge it all to the deficit. You want to engage in a war? You do not have to ask anybody to sacrifice. You can have a tax cut. You can do whatever you want. But when you do that, you end up where we are today, with trillions of dollars in Republican-created debt. Trillions of dollars will be sent to the next generation. We all know the arguments. But why did that happen? I remember when I lost one of the votes on pay-as-you-go by one vote. Senator Gramm, at that time a Democrat, would not vote for it. He said it was too weak. Just before he left the Senate, he asked for its repeal because it was too strong. He could not live within the fiscal discipline any longer. I guess he could not stand the surpluses that we were running, the money we were sending back to Social Security, the paying down of the deficit, Alan Greenspan talking about that we would not have 30-year bonds anymore. The government had no debt to sell. We could not stand those halcyon days of fiscal responsibility, of balanced budgets and a roaring economy. So the Republicans jumped in the car. They got their good friend George Bush with them and they drove right over the cliff. Not a bad idea if it is just Republicans in the car; it is kind of like that joke about lawyers. But they took the Nation with them. They took the Nation with them into trillions of dollars of debt that was not here before. I do not think we need any lectures from the Republicans about fiscal responsibility, because when you took over the government, we handed you a surplus. We handed you a healthy economy. Gentlemen, you have run it into the ground. A little pay-as-you-go, but you could not do it. You just could not bring yourselves to do it in this budget. The Senate did it. I am sure you can negotiate it away from them so you can keep spending your money and you can keep having your tax cuts and you can have your war on credit and you can hide the costs of veterans. I appreciate your tortured discussion of veterans. If it is so good, how come the Disabled American Veterans are asking people to vote against it? Maybe on the Beltway it sounds good. It is bigger. It is more. It is larger. But it just will not supply enough health care to the veterans who need it. That is what the disabled vets say.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, we now learn that the efforts to provide a prescription drug benefit to the seniors of this Nation, which they so desperately need, that legislative process has now become a scandal. We learned in the papers this morning that administration officials were threatened to be fired if they told the Congress the true cost of that legislation. We learned that the Medicare administrator was negotiating to set up a consulting business with the very people who would benefit from this legislation. We learned that the legislative chairman of the committee was negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for a contract to a job after leaving Congress. We learned in the New York Times that there is an inquiry now about the offering of a bribe to a Republican Member of Congress to support that legislation. No wonder the senior citizens do not like this bill. It was never about them. It was only about the special interest and special money and campaign contributions and employment contracts for the Republican administrators and the Republican Members of the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has taken an issue of bipartisan concern and turned it into an occasion for partisan division. On the 1-year anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the leadership introduced a bill that claims to honor our troops--at the same time that our Armed Forces and veterans are being shortchanged in the budget that is under consideration in this body. I strongly oppose this resolution for two important reasons. First, it fails to properly acknowledge and honor the American troops who are serving, have died, or have been injured in this war. And secondly, it is a blatant attempt to cover-up the fact that American soldiers went to war in Iraq because Iraq allegedly had weapons of mass destruction that threatened America. And yet no such weapons have since been found in Iraq. Our troops--National Guard and Reserve and regular forces alike-- deserve more than one line in a resolution on the first anniversary of a war. Their service and their sacrifice deserve to be honored, and more importantly they deserve the resources to help them succeed with the greatest degree of safety possible. Had Democrats been afforded the opportunity to modify this resolution, we would have offered our sincere condolences to the families of the more than 500 soldiers killed and thousands wounded in Iraq, given our troops in Iraq the body armor and armored vehicles they need to keep them safe, and continued to press for a true international coalition to relieve the United States of its nearly unilateral burden in Iraq. I am a proud cosponsor of the Democratic Salute to Veterans and the Armed Forces Act, a comprehensive package of benefits designed to honor the contributions of those who have served America in the Armed Forces. The legislation ensures that those who are serving today have incentives to continue serving, those who served in previous conflicts are properly honored, and those who choose to serve in the future are coming into a system that is the best in the world. As I said at the outset, I also oppose this resolution because it is a blatant attempt by the Bush administration to distort the public's understanding of why America went to war. Americans did not die in Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein for his reprehensible and vile actions, such as gassing the Kurds in 1988 or flooding the Arab marshlands. Those actions clearly did not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States, especially not in the year 2003. And yet those are the actions that this partisan House resolution today speaks to. Americans would not have believed that those actions warranted a military attack in Iraq last year. President Bush warned Americans that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States that could only be deflected by a unilateral military strike against Iraq. Today, the House seeks to bury this crucial piece of history. The President provided intelligence that has not been discredited to justify the attack on Iraq. It must never be forgotten that American soldiers attacked Iraq because the President said that it had weapons of mass destruction that endangered our security. The Republican leadership sponsored this resolution today hoping to later attack Democrats who vote against it. But I for one will not join them in their partisan charade that brings shame on the People's House. My Democratic colleagues and I will continue to articulate our concerns for America's armed forces, for America's veterans, and for America's security.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct a vote which I cast erroneously last week in support of H.R. 3717. I did not mean to vote for this legislation, and I would like that fact to be noted in the Record. It goes without saying that no one likes to vote against a bill that purportedly is designed to reduce the coarseness and crudity of public discourse. We are all aware that the limits of socially acceptable behavior have changed significantly and continue to evolve, sometimes in ways that are offensive to many in our society. But this legislation simply goes too far, imposing massive financial penalties and potentially license revocation for actions and words that are far too broad and ill-defined. Far too much authority is placed in the hands of the FCC--which is not a court, which is not elected by anyone--to determine what Americans can voluntarily listen to or watch. The courts have established clear parameters for unacceptable speech; this legislation goes much further, imposing massive penalties and punishment that could--and presumably would--vastly exceed the constraints imposed by the courts. Coming at a time when so many of our fundamental freedoms are under regular assault by those willing to sanction a lessening of personal liberty, this legislation is particularly disturbing. Many of those who long have described themselves as ``conservatives'' and ``upholders of the Constitution'' now sanction all manner of intrusiveness into the private and personal lives of Americans: whom the live with, whom they associate with, what they listen to, to whom they send emails. This is a period of serious overreaching into the personal and private lives of Americans. We as Members of Congress need to be more vigilant than this legislation suggests we are being. I appreciate that some of the proponents of this legislation are genuinely offended by what they hear on the radio or see on television. That is why there is an ``on/off' button and a channel selector on every TV and radio manufacturered. People should use them. Parents should use them. But Congress should not be recklessly imposing penalties of this scope on entertainers whom millions of our fellow citizens choose to patronize by listening to their programs.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call my colleagues' attention to a recent collective bargaining agreement between Pictsweet Mushroom Farms in Ventura, California and the United Farm Workers. This agreement deserves note on several counts. First, it marks the first time since 1987 that the employees at Southern California's largest mushroom farm have been able to work under a collective bargaining agreement. As a result, 300 workers will enjoy higher wages, increased job security, and a company-paid health plan. Second, it removes Pictsweet products from the boycott list. Pictsweet was first organized in 1975 and operated under a collective bargaining agreement until 1987, when the plant was bought by United Foods Inc. United Foods was intransigent in its refusal to enter a collective bargaining agreement with the UFW. In 2000, the UFW called for a national boycott of Pictsweet products and that boycott forced the plant to cut production by as much as half. By finally agreeing to deal fairly with its workers, Pictsweet will become a more profitable and productive facility. Most importantly, however, this contract is the first to result from the enactment of California's law allowing farm workers or growers to seek mandatory mediation for farm labor negotiations that have reached impasse. Pictsweet was adamant in its refusal to negotiate a bargaining agreement. The UFW submitted the dispute to mediation in July and the mediator issued a proposed labor agreement on January 30. The company has decided to proceed with implementation of the mediator's report. As a consequence, the right of workers to benefit from collective bargaining has been preserved and the company has the opportunity to move from intransigent, ideological views of labor relations to pragmatic considerations of how best to work with their workers. Pictsweet workers were among the strongest proponents of the mandatory mediation when it was under consideration. It is fitting that they and their employer are the first to benefit from it. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the workers at Pictsweet and President Arturo Rodriguez and the leadership of the UFW for this historic achievement. I also want to commend my colleagues in the California Legislature for developing a model for the rest of the nation on how we can provide workers with a meaningful voice in the determination of their wages and working conditions. Legislation that I have introduced to restore meaningful collective bargaining rights to American workers, the Employee Free Choice Act, includes a similar provision providing for mediation and arbitration of first contracts.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was deeply disturbed last week when I read that the Speaker of the House may use his authority and his power in the House not to extend the investigation into what happened before 9/11, what it is we did that was right and what it is we did that was wrong, what it is we knew and what it is we did not know that led to the tragedy of the World Trade Center and the tragic loss of life there and the largest terrorist attack against this Nation on this soil. I was deeply disturbed that somehow the investigation into that would be curtailed, that the commission would not be given the time that it believed professionally was necessary to arrive at those answers, when I think about the families and how important those answers are as to what were the real circumstances under which their family members died and perished in the World Trade Center. I was deeply disturbed that the President said that he would only talk with two members of the commission, that there apparently is a concerted effort to take those members of the commission that appeared to be the most intent on getting to the bottom of these issues and these questions on behalf of our Nation and on behalf of our security and on behalf of the families, that they would not be allowed to talk with the President, to interview them, that they would not be allowed to share their notes, those who got in to see the President. It is very troubling because the image of 9/11 and the tragedy of 9/ 11 is absolutely seared in the mind of every American, those images and that tragedy. And for us to suggest that in any fashion this commission's work would be curtailed, not be given the time or the documents necessary, this is a matter of our national security so that it will never ever happen again. This cannot be about people in various agencies of the United States Government covering their tail because of something they did or did not do that may have helped us detect that act before it happened or have us understand what we need to do in the future. As I see that effort by the administration to curtail this, and now apparently it is going to go forward, they are going to get the 2 months, I am also deeply concerned that I see the administration involved in some dramatic rewriting of history. When David Kay came back from his search for the weapons of mass destruction, in his meetings with the House and the Senate he told the American public and these two bodies that we all had it wrong. I am not sure that is quite accurate, because there in fact is a whole body of evidence that has been developed within the Intelligence Community, within the international Intelligence Community, within the State Department, and elsewhere that was present at the time suggesting that in fact maybe many of the reasons and the conditions in which this administration said we are going to war did not exist. They certainly did not exist in the clarity that the administration presented them to the Congress or to the American people or to the international community. And now it appears that the President is trying to say because he got it wrong everybody had it wrong. That is just not the case. That is just not the case. And yet we now have commissions to look into that matter. Tragically, this administration again is trying to curtail what those commissions can look at and not look at. The Senate may be allowed to look at one piece of evidence but not other pieces of evidence. The House may or may not have access. And then the President has his own commission which is supposed to investigate the administration but has been appointed by the administration. A little bit of a conflict of interest there. But these commissions are important, and these questions are important because, again, it goes to our national security. And there is another set of families, just as there are the 9/11 families and those communities that suffer that tragic loss of those thousands of individuals, there is another set of families of those who have been sent off to fight in Iraq, over 500 that have been killed, thousands that have been wounded, so many that we have visited that are multiple amputees, that have lost their arms, lost their legs, lost the sight of one eye, that their life is changed forever. They are entitled to the answers and understanding how is it that this decision was set forth to go into Iraq when in fact we see substantial evidence suggesting, and as said by the CIA Director, ``We never said this was an imminent threat.'' The President wants to suggest that if we make that the test, the real threat against the United States, before we commit the lives of young men and women in this country, that somehow the only other option is it will surprise us. No, that is not the test, Mr. Speaker, but we will have more on this. But I think the American public ought to start to consider the level of interference that is being engaged in by this administration to keep these commissions, both congressional and civilian commissions, from getting to the bottom, to the real answers that are directly related to the future security of this Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what a rather startling revelation by Mr. Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed, that the answer to the deficit that this administration has run up and the long-term debt of this Nation is to raise the basic retirement age of Social Security and to cut benefits. Mr. Greenspan and the Republicans speaking for the investor class decided that average working people in this country, the ironworkers who are rebuilding the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the people who are building the skyscrapers in our major cities, who are building our transportation systems, who are working out there in snow and rain and cold weather all through the winter to provide for their families, that they should just work a few years longer so that they will not have to pay for Social Security. This administration has run up the largest deficit in history, and now they are using that deficit as an excuse to attack Social Security, which is the backbone of retirement for millions and millions of Americans. Maybe not for Mr. Greenspan and his friends who have stock options, who have golden parachutes, who have buyouts when they leave their corporations, but for millions of hard-working Americans it is Social Security, and we should not cut it to take care of the Republican deficit.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today's resolution regarding the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Dorothy Height reminds us in this age of cynicism that one person can truly make a difference in our society. I was pleased to cosponsor the legislation to award Dr. Height with the Congressional Gold Medal, and I am pleased to support this measure today. I have great admiration for Dr. Height, a living legend and pioneer of civil rights, women's rights, and racial justice. Beginning as a civil rights advocate in the 1930s, Dr. Height gained prominence through her tireless efforts to promote interracial schooling, to register and educate voters, and to increase the visibility and status of women in our society. One of her many contributions was establishing Wednesdays in Mississippi, a unique project that brought together northern and southern women to get to know one another and work side-by-side for racial justice in the segregated south. That project lives on in that, today, the Children's Defense Fund has adopted the Wednesdays in Mississippi model for its innovative Wednesdays in Washington and at Home program, which enables advocates for children--especially poor, minority, and disabled children--to make their voices heard here in the nation's capital and across the country. As president of the National Council of Negro Women since 1957, she has helped establish model programs on issues ranging from teenage parenting to the eradication of hunger. She also established the Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Museum and Archives for Black Women, the first institution devoted to the history of black women. Her leadership in struggle for equality, social justice, and human rights for all peoples is an example for us all.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for all of their work on this legislation. I want to compliment the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a relatively new Member of the Congress, for his effort in shepherding this through our committee and bringing it to the floor on a timely basis. And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for working with us on many of the provisions in this bill to make sure that States and local entities are held to strong accountability while providing services to reduce the effects of poverty. And I rise in strong support of the Community Services Block Grant program. The Community Services Block Grant is a relatively small, but an extremely important, program. The central purpose of this program is to minimize the effects of poverty and to maximize self-sufficiency. This program gives money to local entities who can create innovative programs and respond to community needs. It helps low-income individuals and families with services such as domestic violence prevention programs, job training and business development, senior services, homelessness, food pantries, adult literacy, and early education. As we read that list of names, many of us will recognize our friends and families who volunteer in many of these efforts in our communities because the Community Services Block Grant has also been a catalyst to bring together other elements of the community help volunteers to address these problems that are present in our local community. I support the provisions of this legislation, and the substitute makes important steps to further strengthen the accountability of goals and performances. However, I cannot support this bill because this bill contains a poison pill. I will not support government-sponsored religious discrimination. And we can dress it all up and we can talk all around the point, but the fact of the matter is that what this legislation does is allow faith-based organizations to make discriminatory hiring decisions with the funds from the Community Services Block Grant. The majority claims that these types of repeals of civil rights laws are necessary for faith-based groups to participate is simply wrong. The faith-based organizations have been participating in this program from its inception. In many instances, the faith-based organizations were here prior to the creation of the Community Services Block Grant. When we think back to the War on Poverty, when we think back to ending segregation in this country and to providing opportunity in this country, to poor and minority families in our communities, if it had not been for the faith-based organizations, many of those efforts would have never gotten off the ground in many regions of this country, in many of our cities, and many of our communities. So the fact of the matter is from its inception faith-based organizations have been a key component, a necessary component, and a welcome component to the providing of services under the Community Services Block Grant and in many other governmental activities that we undertake to improve our communities. Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that the suggestion that, but for this provision in the law, these organizations are not participating, according to a nonpartisan survey, over two-thirds of local Community Service Block Grant boards include faith-based organizations. Forty percent of the community action agencies contract with faith-based organizations to deliver services. I expect, again, that Members of Congress will recognize that activity. I certainly do from the congressional district that I represent because I rely on, and our community relies on, and the families and recipients of these services rely on faith-based organizations to extend the efficiency of these programs, to extend the effectiveness of these programs. We do it when working with prison parolees and their families; we do it working with the victims of domestic violence and working with children who need additional mentoring and tutoring, all kinds of activities that take place in our community. Nearly 100 percent of the community action agencies refer clients to faith-based providers because the services are there and they are effective and they are working. The majority's claim that Democrats and President Clinton have supported discriminatory language we are debating today is really not true. When the Community Services Block Grant was before us in 1998 the religious discrimination language was put into conference report and was voice voted at 2 a.m. Some on the other side of the aisle may recognize that because that has become a habit. Whenever there is something controversial, we do it after midnight in the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, we simply should not as a matter of law give to religious organizations the right to discriminate when they are using Federal dollars, because that makes the government of the United States a partner in the discriminatory agent. And that is what the Constitution is all about, to make sure that the government does not do that. We had a little tune-up here a little earlier on the floor between my chairman and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I think it is clear that there is a distinction what faith-based and private organizations do with their own money. It is a distinction that has been brightly drawn in Federal law as to what they do with the taxpayers' dollars. Obviously these taxpayer dollars come from people of all faiths, and they should not be used to discriminate. The underlying bill is a very good bill. It is a very important bill. It is an improved bill because of the work of the members of our committee. But it, in fact, contains this poison pill that specifically provides for discrimination with Federal funds. I will not support that effort. I would hope that most of the Members of Congress would not support that effort, and then we can get on to renewing the effort by the community action agencies, by our States and our cities and localities and agencies and so many of the faith-based organizations that are already providing so many of these services and helping so many of the agencies and helping so many in our community to battle the impacts of poverty on families and children in our communities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of the chairman how many additional speakers he has on general debate.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I yield back our time. We can move right to the substitute. I think we were debating the substitute in any case.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a point because I think the previous speaker in the well completely misstates history. This is not about driving anybody away who wants to help our communities. One of the other speakers talked about rolling back time. We have 30 years of experience where faith-based organizations have stepped up to the plate to help our communities, to help our families, to help our children, to help our homeless; and they have been doing it all along. They were there before the government programs were there. They were there with the initial programs in the 1960s. It was the only way we could get services delivered. Now, to suggest that somehow because we do not think that they should discriminate in the hiring that we are chasing them away, they were there before this was the law. I was building houses with Habitat for Humanity before 1998. This is not about that. This is about whether or not people in good faith who walked through the front door who need a job who have a talent are going to be chased away because of their religion. That is what this is about, whether or not a completely well- qualified individual who walks in and asks for a job to help out, and is told they cannot have that job because of their religion, that is who is being chased away, people of good faith and intentions who need help in our community who need a job and who are qualified to do the job.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. So would the Jewish and Muslim citizens of this country be amazed. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment authorizes an additional 6 months of urgently needed extended unemployment compensation benefits through the Community Services Block Grant program. Last week, the shocking neglect of the unemployed by this administration became all too apparent. The tag-team termination of extended unemployment benefits by the Republican leadership and the Bush administration has left a staggering, record-breaking 375,000 unemployed individuals who have been out of work over a half a year and still cannot find work. By July, over 2 million unemployed workers will be left to fend for themselves, with no paycheck and no unemployment assistance. Two million Americans who were working before this recession, 2 million Americans who were working before the tech bubble burst, 2 million Americans who were working before the corporate scandals in this Nation, who were supporting their families and themselves, cannot find work and this government will not help them because this administration does not see it as a priority. In no other month on record and in no other 6-month period for which data is available have so many unemployed workers exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without being able to receive additional aid. At a time when we see that this administration is willing to lavish billions of dollars on special perks for the pharmaceutical companies and HMOs but nothing for an unemployed family, at a time when we see us borrowing money to rebuild Iraq and provide sole-source contracts that are now overcharging us millions of dollars for the care and feeding of our soldiers, no money for the unemployed. At a time when this administration comes to us and tells us we should borrow to go to Mars, nothing for the unemployed. We should borrow to rebuild Iraq, nothing for the unemployed. Time and again, we have made decisions in this Congress and in this administration that do not include the ordinary, hardworking American families who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Their jobs have been outsourced, their jobs have been sent overseas, their jobs have been eliminated. It is not because they are not struggling. These people want a job. They want a job. They would trade their unemployment check in a minute for a job. But the jobs are not available. They were told at the beginning of this Congress by this administration with their economic program, with their budget priorities that they were going to create 1.8 million jobs. Well, here we are, folks, a year later, and they are 1.6 million jobs short. They just did not hit the target. But what they did hit was the misery and the trauma among the unemployed in this country. In the past, we have recognized when jobs are not available, as the economy bottoms out, as it starts to turn up, we have extended the unemployment benefits to get those people to a job. These people have been looking for work for 6 months. But this administration will not do it. This administration will not do it. This administration makes this part of the attack on middle-class America, middle-class working people who have lost their jobs. They take away their unemployment benefits. Middle-class America, that relies on overtime to meet their annual support for their families, to provide their cars, to buy their houses, they want to engineer the taking away of their overtime. Middle-class America that needs a pension, they want to take away their pension in the cash balance program. What is it that middle-class America did that so angered the Republican Party, that so angered this President, that he cannot understand and have compassion over what these families are going through when they are unemployed? What is it that the middle class did that does not allow this President to understand what it means when they close down the factory in your hometown, when they out-source your job to India, to China, to Singapore? Your job just disappeared. The answer from this administration and this Congress, this Republican Congress, is, tough; it is tough. These are hard-working people. They were working the day before they were unemployed. They have a work history. They have a history of supporting their families, of supporting themselves, of trying to hold on to a standard of living.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have a remedy today. You vote for this amendment, and we can tell the 61,000 people from North Carolina who are expected to lose their jobs over the next 6 months that we will help them and their families until they find a job. You can tell the 66,000 people in Florida that we will help them and their families and their children until they find a job; or the 51,000 people in Georgia or the 314,000 people in the State of California that this government will help them until they can find employment. Compassionate conservatism? Sounds pretty good to me. Where is the compassion? These are breadwinners. These are providers for families. Where is it that we cannot help them? There is $17 billion in the Unemployment Trust Fund that was put there by the work and the sweat and the toil of America's workers, and what we are asking you today is to authorize that those funds be released for the next 6 months so that these people can have an opportunity to hold on to their house, to hold on to their health care, to hold on to their children, because that is what happens when you lose all of your financial support: you start to lose your family, you start to see divorce is a possibility, you start to lose your mortgage, you start to lose your car, and you have got to start all over again and you are 50 years old. That is an America of compassionate conservatism? That is the America of Bush compassionate conservatism? No, that is a very mean-spirited America. But you have an opportunity to turn that around today. You have an opportunity to turn it around immediately. Pass this amendment and ask for a supplemental to take those hard-earned worker funds that are in the trust fund, that are there for their benefit, for exactly this purpose in this economic emergency and help those 375,000 people that this administration pushed off the employment cliff and the economic cliff in this country last month.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. When would we have that debate? When is that bill coming to the floor? Why did it not come to the floor just before we went home for Christmas? Why did it not come to the floor before these people fell off the edge?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).