George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I guess maybe some people in America think that is a drug benefit, but that is not going to provide. Out of the first $5,000, they pay $4,020 out of their pocket and they get $1,000 in benefit.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct here. Assuming the $35 premium, in fact, out of the first $5,000 of benefit, they have to pay $4,020 out of pocket.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is assuming it is $35, but nothing in the law requires it to be $35.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and his efforts for helping to bring this bill to the floor. And I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his steadfast efforts to get this bill before the committee. I also want to take a moment to thank Loren Bausell and Jean Flemma, both former staff of mine, who helped initially craft this legislation when I introduced this bill has year, and worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) on this year's proposal. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the subcommittee chair, for their efforts. I would like to join the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) in also thanking Tippi Hedren, who has been involved in this issue for so many years and whom I have had an opportunity to meet with numerous times on this subject matter. To see this bill now come to the floor I think is an important milestone in her effort for the safety of the public and for the welfare of these large animals. I hope we can quickly reconcile the differences between the House and Senate legislation and get this enacted into law this year. This bipartisan bill represents a firm commitment to protect the safety of the American public and the welfare of wild animals that are increasingly kept as pets. Our bill provides a first step in addressing a growing national problem. According to best estimates, there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. There are perhaps more tigers in captivity than there are tigers in their native habitats throughout the range in Asia. I have got a stack of news articles over an inch thick describing instances in almost every State where some exotic pet escaped and was roaming around a suburban neighborhood. There are also more disturbing articles about well-intentioned pet owners who have run out of money because the feeding of a 200-pound tiger is very expensive. Then there are the cases where the animals, which are far from domesticated, harm their owners or others. Owning an exotic cat is not like owning Morris the house cat. These animals are big, they cost a lot to feed, and they are one degree away from their wild instincts at any moment. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act bars the interstate sale or transportation of lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs and cougars, or their hybrids, in an attempt to exercise some control over the burgeoning interstate commerce of these animals. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species; rather, it would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets. The bill is specifically aimed at the unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild animals as exotic pets. Zoos, circuses, and sanctuaries are better equipped with both the physical and financial resources to care for these animals and are not affected by this legislation. At a time when almost anything can be bought on the Internet, it is not surprising that the animals can all be purchased through the more than 1,000 Web sites that promote private ownership of these wild animals. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive Federal legislation to regulate what type of animals can be kept as pets. We simply have got to understand that we have got to do this both for the safety of our neighborhoods which now has occurred both in suburban areas and rural areas and even now in urban areas with the captive keeping of these animals. We have got to do it for the safety of the neighborhoods, and we have got to do it for the welfare of these animals. We cannot let the care of these animals, the welfare of these animals be kept in a haphazard fashion based upon the whims of an individual at any given time simply to grab the ownership of one of these animals only later to find out that they are not trained or capable in other ways to take care of these cats or financially cannot take care of them and they either turn them over to the public or they set them loose or these cats escape and cause danger in the neighborhoods. It is not fair to the animals, and it is certainly not in the best interest of our communities. I would hope that we would be able to pass this legislation right away.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and, more importantly, I thank him for offering this motion that will be our only opportunity to provide a statement by the Members of Congress as to the real issue of importation, since that opportunity will now be denied us in the prescription drug bill that we are anticipating coming to this floor. As many of our constituents know, millions of Americans have waited for the opportunity to be able to take advantage of the lower prices of pharmaceuticals that are available in Canada and in other countries, but specifically with respect to Canada, as we tried to address in the bill. We now see that that door is going to be slammed shut. The reimportation is going to be granted on one hand, but the certification by the Secretary of Health and Human Services will effectively close, as it has in the past, the opportunity for American citizens who are ill, who need these drugs, who are financially troubled and financially incapable of paying for some of these drugs; as a result of that, they take the prescription that their doctor has given them, they reduce the amount of pills they take per day, they reduce the dosage that they take in trying to get through the month in order to pay for, in many instances, lifesaving drugs that they need by order of their physician. Many of our constituents, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, have now taken to forming buying clubs, of taking trips by bus, riding long hours on buses, to go to Mexico, to go to Canada to buy these drugs in Canadian pharmacies where the prices are much, much lower than what they are having to pay through their health care plan if they have one or, if they do not have one at all, what they would pay on the market. It has been suggested that this is forced upon Americans because this is the only way that they can recapture the research and development dollars that continue to flow these pharmaceutical drugs to the marketplace. Some of that is true. But the question millions of American citizens are asking is why is it that only the American ill, the American sick, the American infirm are the ones who have to pay for this? They say, well, the other countries have price controls, the other countries negotiate. We asked for the authority to have the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate the prices of drugs for Medicare recipients as we do in the Veterans Administration, as Wal-Mart does, as Costco does, as all big purchasers do with pharmaceuticals, and we were denied that opportunity in the House. So the only outlet, the only outlet for these citizens where their financial situation does not meet their medical situation is to go to Canada, and now that opportunity is being slammed in terms of this reimportation provision within the Medicare prescription drug benefit that will be coming to the floor. As a result of that, without the negotiation power of the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the cost of drugs, without the reimportation provision, America's senior citizens, and I must say all American families, are put at the mercy of the pharmaceutical industry that will now have no incentive to lower the cost of drugs. The prescription drug bill coming to the floor does some wonderful things for hospitals, wonderful things for doctors, some wonderful things for the pharmaceutical companies, but it does nothing for the people who have to consume those pharmaceuticals. It makes no effort at trying to control the price of those pharmaceuticals, the cost of those to individuals. And when we say that, we are saying simply have us negotiate as a large purchaser. That is what the business world does. People come to us and ask why do we not run the government more like a business. We try to run it like a business, and the businesses shut us down. So now the question of reimportation will be shifted from a vote in this Congress to provide for reimportation, in the new bill it will now all go to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And the entire political and financial clout of the pharmaceutical industry will be focused on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to never certify for the reimportation of pharmaceuticals to the United States, thereby depriving millions of Americans the opportunity to lower the cost of the drugs that are necessary to them on a monthly basis as prescribed by their doctors. We are going to decide that those senior citizens, those people who are desperately in need of these pharmaceuticals are going to be the sole individuals that are somehow going to pay for the research and development of these drugs if, in fact, that argument is even accurate. The fact of the matter is, the reason the prices are really high in the United States, as opposed to the other countries, is the power of the pharmaceutical industry to do just as they have done in the Medicare prescription drug bill and that is to take out all of the provisions that would have given a break to the sick and the elderly in this country, that would have given them an opportunity to lower the cost of the drugs that they have to buy every week and every month. That is why the prices are so high in the United States. It is not about research and development. It is about lobbying, it is about political contributions, it is about the force of this industry on this Congress and the House and the Senate and the Republican leadership to strip this bill of those provisions that were put in on a bipartisan basis, on a bipartisan basis in the House, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, to strip them and remove them to the administration which has opposed these provisions from the very beginning. So the fate of our senior citizens, the fate of the elderly in this country, the fate of the ill, the sick in this country, is now placed back into hands of the pharmaceutical companies, exactly where it was when we began this process. So the pharmaceutical companies, as this bill comes to the floor, get a great big victory and the consumers and the sick people in this country get nothing. They get a continuation of exorbitant costs of pharmaceuticals that are absolutely essential to their well-being and sustaining their health, maybe, in fact, in sustaining their life. So this motion by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the most important vote in terms of our ability to express the desire to have reimportation as part of our medical policy in this country and also to tell the conferees that they are bringing to us an imperfect product, and they should to back to the conference committee and make sure that America's elderly and America's sick are protected and have the opportunity to take advantage of the reimportation of those pharmaceuticals that they need. We should recognize that the bill as reported by the conferees is not a bill that protects the senior citizens of this country, it is not a bill that provides for those who are ill in this country; it protects the pharmaceutical companies and they should have to go back to conference.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about dragging the chains across the desert, I did not mean that to be derogatory. That is a practice that works. In California, we cannot criticize that, because then we take the mesquite and turn it into mesquite charcoal for those oven-roasted, free-range chickens.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this motion to instruct and appreciate his remarks and the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the committee. The reason this motion is offered is because there has been concern about the deterioration of the conference process between the House and the Senate. As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, the process that we are now witnessing with the energy bill and with the prescription drug bill is a disaster in terms of public participation, public understanding of what is taking place, and the protection of Members of this body as they represent their constituencies. I am delighted that the Committee on Agriculture has a long tradition of open conference committees. I believe that the Committee on Resources has that same long tradition of ironing these kinds of legislative conflicts out. I think it is also important that this motion to instruct have the date due to try to encourage the conference to get this done. We do this in the aftermath of the California fire disasters, but the California fire disasters did not happen in a vacuum. It is not that this Congress was not working on this problem; it was that this Congress could not reach agreement. Over 2 years ago, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and others tried to work on a provision. We ended up reporting from the committee a bipartisan agreement. Unfortunately, at the end of the session, it was not taken up by the Congress of the United States. But it did, in fact, focus the resources on the thinning around communities where we know these catastrophic fires can occur in terms of the loss of life and the loss of property. It expedited the consideration by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to make sure that decisions could be made on a timely basis so we could treat this threat when it was necessary, and it provided for robust public participation and critical environmental protections. But that bill is in the past. That was not accepted. In our committee we had open debate. People offered amendments. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) went on a different tack this time. I did not agree with that. But it was done openly and it was done with the amendment process. But I have concerns with that legislation now, and I am worried that there are some huge differences between the Senate bill, which I think directs more of the resources toward the so-called urban interface where these catastrophic fires can happen. I want to make sure that we do that. I want to make sure, as the Senate did, that we authorize the money to be spent. I think the House bill is built on a bit of a fallacy and that is somehow that the timber value of the trees that are removed and thinned is going to pay for the fire treatment that is necessary. If you really believe that and if that is the basis on which you are going to operate, as does the House bill, then you would never get around to treating the lands in Southern California because they are not timberlands. There is no value to be extracted. We were saying earlier, I think, in Texas, you hook up an anchor chain between two Caterpillar tractors and you drag it across the land when you want to get rid of this kind of scrub. That is essentially what you are going to have to do here. There is no value. This is going to cost Federal dollars. Like the Senate bill, we have got to authorize those moneys to be spent. We also have got to recognize, as we see in Southern California, that this is a patchwork of public and private lands, that we have got to be able to go in and treat those public lands. I think we have got to figure out some cost-sharing with those private landowners, but we cannot let their neglect start fires on public lands or fires that get out of control. In the House bill, we do not address that. We must address that in the conference report. I think that we have got to understand that time is working against us. They say that we are going to be out of here on November 21. We cannot go into another fire year with Congress failing to address this issue. It takes time to lay out these treatment plans. It takes time to marshal the resources. Unfortunately, historically what we have seen is the money that is supposed to be used for treatment, the money that is supposed to be used for prevention is not put there because those accounts are raided to fight the fires that result because we do not treat them. We saw this unfortunate situation where California's Governor made application for money to treat the southern lands, many of the lands that burned, joined in bipartisan support from our delegation asking that this money be used, made the application many, many months ago, unfortunately turned down, and then we had the fires. Could we have been able to treat that? Some of it. Not all of it. Not by any means. But it takes time to move into these areas. It is going to take real resources. You simply are not going to be able to take enough timber off these lands if you do it properly and pay for the kind of treatment. So Congress has got to understand after the disasters of California that I think most of the people in the United States would believe that this is an area of priority where America's government ought to spend money to protect America's forests, to protect the timber crops, to protect the recreational values, and to protect those communities that are now located in that catastrophic zone where fires can get out of control and we have no way to prevent the loss of life and of property. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments and for his understanding of what we are trying to accomplish with this motion in terms of an open and public conference committee, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this. I also want to thank my chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), for the manner in which we were allowed to debate this measure in the House. I would hope that this would not get sucked into this whirlpool of partisanship and the shutting down of conference committees, because this is a matter that is desperately important to so many of our communities in the timberlands and the wildlands of the United States.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 95 million investors have deposited $7 trillion in mutual funds, the largest deposit of retirement savings in this country. They have deposited that money there in hopes of a bright retirement, building a nest egg that can support their family and their standard of living when they cease to work. These are hardearned dollars of American workers in every industry at every level. They were told to invest for the long term, $7 trillion. Now every morning the American worker wakes up to a new headline, where the powerful, the insiders, the elite, the criminals are looting those mutual funds, are skimming profits off of those trust funds to the detriment of the average investor, the average worker. Mr. Strong, who runs the Strong Mutual Funds, who is worth $800 million, set up an account for his daughter, for his wife and for himself and secretly looted the savings of American workers. Mr. Strong should go to jail.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce along with 20 of my Democratic colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, the Healthy Children Through Better Nutrition Act of 2003. Since coming to Congress in 1975, I have been a steadfast advocate of child nutrition programs and the significant role they play in meeting the health and educational needs of our nation's children. In my first year in Congress, along with Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, I authored the Women, Infants and Children supplemental nutrition program, and the role of this program, and other nutrition programs, in improving the health, safe development, and school performance of our nation's children remains as strong as at that time. I have seen first hand--at school cafeterias, summer programs and WIC clinics--children who receive their only meals through our federal nutrition programs. Today, the challenge to increase access to these programs for low-income children remains, and the programs must meet new demands. Mr. Speaker, our children face a health threat that requires our immediate attention and response. We know that over the past thirty years, the childhood obesity rate has tripled. Among teenagers, childhood obesity increased from 5 percent in 1970 to 14 percent in 1999. This crisis spans age, race and gender groups and is leading to significant increases in the early onset of traditionally adult diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease in young children. Leading medical researchers believe that--in conjunction with expanded exercise and nutritional education--improving the quality of foods served in schools can have a significantly beneficial effect on reducing childhood obesity and its related health effects. The Healthy Children Through Better Nutrition Act of 2003 offers a multifaceted school- and community-based approach to responding to this dangerous trend in childhood obesity. School- and community-based nutrition programs have been serving the nutritional needs of American children for over 50 years. Today, it is well recognized that schools and communities have an even greater task in responding to the needs of children and families who face daily challenges in securing a healthy and nutritious meal. The Healthy Children Through Better Nutrition Act of 2003 provides schools and communities with the tools and resources they need to promote a healthy and nutritious environment for children in need. School-based Initiatives Federal school nutrition programs serve about 28 million children daily through school breakfast, school lunch and after-school snack programs. It is not unusual for a child to receive two-thirds of her daily diet while at school. Meals served under these federal school nutrition programs must meet American Dietary Guidelines, and we congratulate the school food service program that continues to make real progress toward meeting these goals. However, the school cafeteria also plays host to foods that lack any significant nutritional value. These foods, sold side by side with the national school meals menu, are not subject to any dietary guidelines and can have a negative impact on healthy eating and student participation in the school meals program. The Miller/Woolsey proposal will direct the Institutes of Medicine to recommend nutritional standards for foods sold side-by-side with foods that are offered as part of the federal school meals in the cafeteria. These standards would take into consideration the different dietary requirements of students in elementary, middle and high schools. These recommendations would be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture for implementation. School food directors are in the best position and are most qualified to make decisions about the nutritional quality of foods made available to students. Unfortunately, in many schools, school food directors have little authority to implement policies that encourage a healthy school nutrition environment. The school food director often faces competing interests from school administrators to increase revenues through the sale of foods outside of the federal school meals program, such as soda, high fat and high sodium snacks. These ``competitive foods'' do not meet the nutritional standards we want for our children. The growing revenue constraints faced by many school districts have increased the proportion of unhealthy competitive foods in the cafeteria and has negatively impacted the school nutrition environment. The Miller/Woolsey proposal will require schools to establish a nutrition policy and give operation authority to the school food directors. This approach coordinated with new standards for ``competitive foods'' will strengthen and protect the integrity and nutritional quality of the school meals program. While school food service authorities have made progress improving the quality of school meals, consumer confidence remains low. Currently menus are reviewed for nutritional quality once every five years, and few schools publish the nutrient quality of their menus. The Miller/Woolsey proposal will increase the number of nutritional reviews of school menus and require that this information be disclosed to the public. Technical assistance will be offered to schools that need additional assistance in improving the quality of meals. The Farm Bill established a limited pilot in 4 states to provide for the introduction of more fresh fruits and vegetables into the school meals program. The increased availability of fresh fruits and vegetables produced a dramatic difference in the dietary intake of students in those schools. The Miller/Woolsey proposal will expand the number of states and schools participating in this successful program, targeting schools in high poverty areas. Nutrition Education provides students with meaningful information on the importance of good dietary habits as well as professional development for nutritional professionals and teachers. The lack of guaranteed funding for nutrition education has limited states in their ability to provide assistance to LEAs. The Miller/Woolsey proposal will authorize mandatory funding for a nutrition education program that will fund a Team Nutrition Network State Coordinator in each state and promote a coordinated approach for nutrition education. The Healthy Children through Better Nutrition Act of 2003 also: Streamlines eligibility requirements for school meals for children who are currently eligible for Food Stamps, TANF and Medicaid; makes homeless children automatically eligible for school nutrition programs; provides startup and expansion grants for school breakfast; provides schools with commodities for the school breakfast program; establishes a demonstration project to evaluate the impact of universal breakfast in high schools; and provides grants to schools for improving the use of technology in the school meals program. Community-based Initiatives The community outside of the schoolhouse is playing an enhanced role in meeting the nutritional needs of children. The Healthy Children Through Better Nutrition Act of 2003 introduces a new program to eliminate paperwork and streamline participation requirements for community-based providers of nutrition programs. The Year Round Community Child Nutrition program fills a gap in current nutrition services for children in before and after care programs, homeless shelters, and after-school programs. Currently community-based programs, such as after school programs and homeless shelters, serve up to 2 meals and a snack to the children participating in their programs. Some of these programs run only during the summer, other programs run full year but must submit paperwork for two separate programs in order to serve children year round. Under this legislation, the Year Round Community Child Nutrition program will: Allow community-based non-profit organizations to serve healthy and nutritious meals to children year round. Offer up to three meals and two snacks to children who participate. Make 21st Century Community Learning Centers automatically eligible to participate. Give program providers greater flexibility in when and where meals are served. The Healthy Children Through Better Nutrition Act of 2003 also: Allows more states to serve an additional meal to children in full day childcare programs. Allows homeless children up to 18 years of age to receive meals Through the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) program. Provides startup and expansion grants for the summer food program. Streamlines paperwork for summer food providers. Eliminates unnecessary paperwork for CACFP providers. Establishes a demonstration project for streamlining the monitoring of CACFP providers.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Republicans on the other side of the aisle keep saying it is not about the numbers, and then they want to argue the numbers. Let me agree with them: this is not about the numbers. This is simply a question of values and ethics. This is whether or not this President and this Republican Party that controls the Congress of the United States will keep their word to America's children and to their parents and to the school districts and the teachers across this Nation. It is all interesting what you want to talk about before No Child Left Behind passed. But No Child Left Behind is the most significant reforms we have made to American education in 35 years. And we did it with full knowledge of how much money we were spending, and we did it with full negotiations with this President about the reforms and the significance of these reforms; and this President said, if you can get these reforms, I will get you the resources. We now find out he just simply was not telling the truth. He told the truth for 1 year. He just could not tell the truth for both years, because the resources are not there. We told schools that this Nation wants you to have 100 percent of our children proficient at grade level in 12 years. Schools are working hard to do this. And there are mixed results. But they are doing it. They are working at it. And now we have identified each and every child that is not meeting that standard. Those are called schools in need of improvement. What do we say in the Federal law for schools in need of improvement? We said we will give you additional money in the second and third year to turn those schools around, to reconfigure those schools to get different results. Those are the exact schools that need the money this year, and it is not there because this Congress and this President refuse to provide it. So what do those poor children do? They have been told that they need improvement. Later there could be sanctions against these schools at the State level, and we have pulled back the money that they were going to use to improve those schools. The Governors have taken the heat for identifying those schools. The school superintendents have taken the heat for identifying these schools. Parents are upset. But the whole idea was that we would help you turn those schools around because it is important to our country, it is important to these children, it is important to their families. But on the eve of the moment that that is supposed to happen, this President reneged on his promise. He got the reforms on a big bipartisan basis, and school districts all across the country are trying to make them work, and he walks out on them because he did not put the money in his budget, and he is encouraging the Congress not to go forward with these kinds of increases. This motion to instruct is not meaningless. It is important. It is about values. It is about truthfulness. It is about the ethics of our profession when we promise the American people we will do something and then we fail to do it. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for introducing this amendment and making sure that it was in order. It raises a very important question. It is a matter of life and death for the members of our National Guard. Currently we have a policy in place which makes a lot of sense in ordinary circumstances for the taxpayer and for the use of our equipment and, that is, that the Guard gets essentially hand-me-down equipment as we buy new equipment for the active forces to engage in combat. But now what we find out is because of our manpower problems and the longer deployments of the Guard and a deeper reaching into the Guard structure in this country to deploy people in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we are in the situation where we now have the Guard entering the field of combat with old and, in some cases, obsolete equipment, equipment that is not compatible, communications equipment that is not compatible, Humvees that are from the first generation that do not provide the kind of protection to the occupants of that vehicle that the newer Humvees do. Yet, now we find, as I have been told by Guard members on the phone from Baghdad, in letters from Baghdad, they are seeing modern equipment being rotated back to the United States as those units are rotated out and the Guard is still left with old, obsolete, unsafe equipment. The National Guard must not be put into the theater of combat with less than the same equipment that the active Army is put into the field of combat with. We cannot treat them as second-class citizens. This is a policy that makes sense in peacetime, but this is a policy that is now lethal to our Guard members. I would hope that the committee, in its deliberations, would be able to address this problem. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, under current practices today, the National Guard gets hand-me-down equipment from the regular Army. In many instances, it is never really anticipated those Guard units will go into combat. Now, because of manpower shortages, we are reaching so deeply into the Guard that we are having the Guard show up in Baghdad with old-generation Humvees without the proper equipment. We will have an amendment later today to transfer $300 million out of the weapons of mass destruction search by David Kay that has turned up a vial of botulism that we are now told by the experts has never been turned into a weapon, and it was sold by an American company back in the 1980s and given to the National Guard so that when they rotate into Baghdad and into other parts of Iraq, they will have modern equipment. We cannot sacrifice the lives of these young people because we failed to provide them the equipment or we gave them old equipment 7, 8, 10 years ago and they have to take that equipment into battle. This is absolutely crucial in terms of the safety and protection of our fighting men and women who are in the Guard who now find themselves stationed in combat zones in excess of a year.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who just spoke in the well and fully agree with him that we should have been given an opportunity to make the same kind of investments in America that we are prepared now and voting on to make in Iraq. I think we owe it to the American people. We owe it to our economy. We owe it to our families. Earlier, just a few minutes ago our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), spoke about the realities of the war taking place in Iraq and the real impact on the young men and women who are there fighting that war, fighting the continued hostilities that rain down on them on a daily basis, many, many times a day. He has, like so many of us, had the honor and the privilege to visit with some of our soldiers who have returned home in a wounded condition, in many instances in a severely wounded condition. Young men and women who are now amputees, in some cases multiple amputees, who have been received at Walter Reed Hospital for their care. When you meet these young men and women, you are honored to be in their presence. You are honored by their decision to take part in our Armed Forces. But we have not served them well with the plan that currently exists for postwar Iraq. We did not serve them well in the first days and weeks and the months since this ceasing of hostilities in Iraq with the formal fighting. And I would like to read a letter from a young man from my district who is part of a military police unit. He sent this letter to me after he talked with me on the phone from Baghdad. And I want to quote part of the letter beginning with, he says, ``Now, I feel it is my duty as an American to point out a few simple facts to the people who depend on me and my compatriots to be strong, reliable soldiers in the National Guard. First of all, often when my military police unit discovers large caches of weapons, 80 millimeter rockets, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades, we are ordered to leave them where we found them, completely unsecure, waiting to fall in the hands of the enemy. The reason? There are not enough EODs, explosive ordnance disposal teams available. So dangerous weapons that are used to kill Americans are left just to sit there. Imagine how frustrating it is to walk away from the weapon cache as neighborhood children climb and play on it, hoping beyond hope that yours won't be the life taken by something in that pile. ``Secondly, it may surprise you that many of us do not even have bulletproof vests and that everyone in my unit is driving an old first- generation Humvee, and, also, that does not repel bullets. My unit was on the ground in Iraq for a month without vests. Our communications equipment is archaic. Regular Army personnel have all of the up-to-date equipment, National Guard gets the leftovers. ``Our unit is now west of Baghdad living in a disgusting old prison that, among many other things, is an asbestos nightmare. Will there be health care available for those when we come home ill? Probably not since the Veterans Administration budget has already been trimmed by $1 billion. I would be willing to bet that the officials who gave the thumbs up to extending the National Guard tours for 6 months to 1 year wouldn't have done so if they had been in Iraq facing the very dangers that we do every day. Morale has begun to go downhill pretty darn fast and we are likely to crash if the extension stays in effect.'' That is a letter from a young soldier who puts his life in harm's way every day doing his duty as ordered by this country. One of the things he points out is that the National Guard units are now showing up in the theater of combat in Iraq with inferior equipment. Hopefully, tomorrow we will have made in order an amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and myself that will take some of the money from the hunt for weapons of mass destruction because we add 600 million new dollars to continue this quest where we found no weapons, we would take $300 million of that and transfer that to the National Guard so that no longer will we send these young people and these military police units that are from my district and from the West Coast to go into harm's way in a Humvee that is a first generation. The National Guard, which we are going deeper and deeper into calling up them, and the Army Reserve, ought to be able to go in with the same first-class equipment as the Regular Army. These are not second-class citizens. We are relying on them to do a job in Iraq. We rely on them to do a job in Afghanistan. We rely on them to do jobs all over the world for the security of this Nation. They certainly are entitled to the care of this Congress by making sure that they have first-class and the same good equipment as the regular Army. We will have a chance to vote on this tomorrow.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on my behalf.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the amendment that hopefully he will be able to offer later in this debate. It is very clear now to most Americans that the administration was planning more for war than it was for the peace after the war. The administration continued to insist that actions would be quick, easy, and inexpensive. The administration continued to tell Americans this even though they were advised otherwise. They were advised by the Council on Foreign Relations, by the James Baker Institute, the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, and the Center for Strategic International Studies. All warned of the postwar violence and the instability that would come about if we did not internationalize this effort immediately. They also warned about the inability of the oil fields to pay for this; about the special training that was going to be needed by our troops and by an international police force; about the likelihood of post-war violence and the need, again, for a specially trained police. By now, it must be clear that that advice was not taken by this administration. As a result, we were ill prepared for postwar Iraq. Soldiers were put needlessly in harm's way due to poor planning and the absence of proper supplies, and a mission for which they were not trained and which was properly not theirs. They were improperly equipped for the threat that they faced. And that comes on the heels of spending $79 billion. The failures and the threats have become even worse, and they continue to grow. The threats are more sophisticated, more dangerous. We now see parties from outside Iraq entering into that. The borders are not secure, and hundreds of American soldiers have been killed and severely wounded. The administration, in fact, with this first $79 billion and its planning for postwar Iraq has failed in its duty of care it owed these soldiers and their families. Now they seek another $87 billion. How will this be different from the first $79 billion, and how can they justify the additional $45 billion to $70 billion they are coming to ask for us next? This administration has a duty to the soldiers and the taxpayers to explain how is their safety going to be enhanced; how are we going to increase the number of bulletproof vests that are necessary, the bulletproof Humvees that are necessary. And when are we going to stop sending Guard units into this theatre with inferior equipment? It is clear to all that we simply cannot leave Iraq. It is not good for Iraq, and it is not good for the security of America. But what we must do is insist upon a plan that will bring about real international participation, force security that our soldiers are due, and a fairness to the taxpayer. But that is not this plan, and for that reason I must vote ``no.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the press reported that Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans was going to travel the country and focus like a laser on the issue of jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, said the headline. He is going to travel from city to city and talk about jobs in America, that jobs are the most important issue. Today we read that his first stop is going to be in Iraq. I guess maybe that is because that is where the Bush administration is creating jobs as they seek to build new hospitals, they seek to build schools that they will not build in this country, hospitals that they will not build in this country, sewer systems that they will not build in this country. We see these exorbitant contracts being led through Bechtel and Haliburton. I guess that is where the jobs are from the Bush administration, and that is why the Secretary of Commerce is going there instead of going to the Midwest where hundreds of thousands of people have lost manufacturing jobs or anywhere else in this country where over 3 million people have lost their jobs and 9 million people are unemployed. The Secretary of Commerce would do well to travel the country, as opposed to going to Iraq.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. This bill provides short-term relief to avert what otherwise might be an imminent pension crisis for American businesses and workers. I want to thank the cooperation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his work on this committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and others for their support of this effort. Pension plan funding requirements are tied to projected rates of investment return based upon 30-year Treasury note bills. In 2000, when the U.S. was running a budget surplus, the Clinton administration decided to retire the 30-year note. For that reason, we are now inserting that rate. We expect the new Treasury rate to be slightly higher than the current rate, a rate which also will give employers a significant amount of pension funding relief in the midst of what remains a weak economy. Even though the additional pension fund flexibility will result in reduced pension funding for 2 years, it is our expectation that American businesses will use this time to shore up the resources and not terminate or default on their long-term pension promises. During this time the Bush administration and the Congress must seriously consider a broader array of pension funding retirement security reforms that will more permanently protect and secure the retirement promises made to millions of American workers and retirees. The threats to our long-term retirement security are real and they are severe. Workers are justifiably scared about their retirement security. The Bush administration and the Congress have done very little to protect workers' pensions and, in fact, they sometimes have acted to undermine retirement security. As soon as Congress passes this bill we need to start the hard work of meaningfully safeguarding workers' pensions. The crisis we address today is not new. In fact, for over a year the Bush administration repeatedly ignored our urgent request to wake up to the serious problems of pension underfunding. I wrote the administration in July of 2002 to take action when pension deficits skyrocketed from $26 billion to over $100 billion. It failed to act. Now, over a year later, the problem is substantially worse. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation now says that pension plans are $400 billion in the red nationally and the largest liability in history and that PBGC itself is reporting a $5.7 billion deficit as of July 31. The General Accounting Office is so concerned that it has placed PBGC on its list of Federal programs that are at high risk of failure. The administration and Congress' failure to take decisive action on pensions, their failed economic policies and neglect of our manufacturing industries and the failure of some companies to honestly estimate their pension liabilities have together precipitated one of the largest underfunding of private pensions in history. Today, hard-working Americans are taking it on the chin. Over 3 million private sector job workers have lost their jobs since 2001, and many of those jobs will not return. Workers in manufacturing sectors see their jobs vanish overseas and their industries ignored by this administration's economic policies. Working families have already lost billions of dollars in irreplaceable life savings in their 401(k) plans as the stock market crumbled and corporate abuse ran rampant. The pensions of millions of Americans are threatened by the administration's ``cash balance'' plan proposal and may cost older workers up to half of their expected pension benefits. Today we see shenanigans in the mutual fund industry where so many millions of Americans have parked their pension fund share savings plans to secure their future retirement. We now see inside trading, trading by the big boys and sending the cost to those families that have put their money in many of these mutual funds. Some of the biggest companies that PBGC has taken over and put on the pension watch list have been able to exploit pension rules riddled with loopholes and escape hatches. Over the past few years companies have been permitted to publish their annual reports, rosy financial pictures about their pensions, while at the same time running plans into the ground through reductions and freezes on pension contribution. Conflicts between company management's push for the bottom line and the plan's obligation to protect participants and workers clearly compromise safe and sound pension practices at many companies. Worse still, current law allows the plan's real financial condition to be kept secret from the workers and investors. This failure of accountability and transparency has eerie similarities to the Enron Corporation and the debacle of that corporation when its CEOs and its executives kept secret the status of the public health plan from the employees while they jumped ship and rank and file were left to do the best they could. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and I have introduced legislation to open up those reports, referred to as the 4010 forms, to public scrutiny. There must be transparency and accountability for billions of dollars promised to hard-working employees. The administration now says it supports this publication of these secret reports, but the Congress so far has yet to join in the effort and ask for their publication. The administration must get serious about pension reform. The retirement security of millions of Americans depends upon timely actions. What we do here today is important to provide this relief. Hopefully, the companies will use this as the opportunity to shore up their pension obligations. But we must understand that the American people's anxiety about the future of the retirement security is highly justified in light of this administration's and Congress's failure to seriously address the problems in our pension system. We look forward to using this opportunity to make sure that we can address those pension concerns of the American workers in the 2 years time that this legislation buys us. I am heightened in my expectations by the discussion that we had in our Committee on Education and the Workforce where the chairman said that he wanted to use this time to do an in-depth look at the current pension system and come up with remedies that are necessary to secure that system both for the employers and for the employees. I hope that we use that time wisely, and I would ask that my colleagues support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and thank her for bringing this motion to instruct. I simply do not get it. I do not get how the wildly unpopular idea of weakening coastal protection can be an issue in this energy conference. The House bill did not have this proposal to do an inventory off of our coasts. The House bill did not have language to lessen a State's right go protect its coastline from inappropriate development. Why then are we confronted with this situation? Because time and again Congress has voted to give States the rights to protect their coastline. This is like the end of a bad movie. We have seen it before. In spite of our efforts, in spite of the States' efforts to protect their coastline, in spite of this Congress's efforts to reassure them the right to do that, we are now back to where we were with James Watt when he proposed opening the entire United States coastline to drilling. It was so unpopular, as my colleagues have pointed out, we have a moratorium on the coast that goes to 2012 put on by both a Republican President and a Democratic President. And yet this administration wants to pursue it. It simply does not want to pursue it in the light of day. It wants to pursue it in a closed conference committee. It wants to pursue it where its critics cannot get to it. So that is why we are here today with this motion to instruct, because we do not want this provision to pass. Those of us who care about the coastlines of our States, who care about the economies of our States, who care about the tourism in our States, who care about the natural beauty of our States do not want this legislation to pass. This inventory, one can say this is just an inventory, but when we look at the connection between this administration and the oil industry and the Vice President and the oil industry and the President and the oil industry, and it goes on and on and on, this is not just an inventory. This is about opening the coast, and we do not want that to happen. We know that California has opposed this time and time again. We know that the Floridians have opposed offshore development. The great State of New Jersey time and again has opposed this. Members of Congress from the Great Lakes States when they were under threat opposed this. Oregonians, Washingtonians have all opposed this effort. Why? Because they understand the real value of the coastline to our States, our constituents, and to our citizens. But yet the Republicans continue to pursue this at the behest of the energy companies. We cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow the oil and gas industry to cut private deals inside this conference committee in spite of the directions of this House, in spite of the agreements that we made in the committee not to do this, to cut it because the oil industry is insisting that they do it. This is an inventory that Governor Jeb Bush does not want. This is an inventory that the New Jersey delegation does not want, that the Florida delegation does not want. Certainly the California delegation on a bipartisan basis has made it clear they do not want it; and, in fact, the entire House of Representatives has rejected this. And, as of today, our new governor-elect of the State of California has opposed this provision. He has come out against offshore oil drilling. He has come out for the protection of the California coast. So on a bipartisan basis, on a bicoastal basis we are asking the Members to support the Capps' motion because the Capps motion is the means by which we can protect the great coastlines of this Nation. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this motion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit, with eight of my colleagues in the House, the 21st Century Job Opportunities Act. We need to put the nation's unemployed workers back to work. President Bush's policy to cut $3 trillion in taxes for the rich to stimulate the economy has left millions of Americans looking for work, and millions more working less than they need to in order to pay their bills. Others have given up looking for work altogether because of the dismal economy. Since the beginning of 2001, the private sector has lost more than 3 million jobs, and the number of unemployed has risen in 49 states and national unemployment levels are over 6 percent, the highest in nearly a decade. Today, 9 million people are out of work and an additional 4.5 million people work parttime because they can't find a full-time job. At the same time, new U.S. Census data shows that the median household income declined 1.1 percent between 2001 and 2002 and the number of Americans living in poverty increased for the second year in a row. We can no longer tolerate President Bush's ``No New Jobs'' policy. Too many hard-working Americans are struggling to pay the rent, bills and provide for their families. Providing immediate education assistance to unemployed workers to boost their skills so that they can successfully re-enter the workforce is essential. According to analysis by Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY, unemployment rates are more than one and one-half times higher for workers with only a high school degree, compared to workers with at least a Bachelor's degree. In addition, analysis by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) shows that in 1973, three-quarters of all jobs were held by those with high school education or less, compared to just 40 percent today. The 21st Century Job Opportunities Act would provide temporary emergency education assistance for workers who have been laid off and who require additional education and training to successfully re-enter the workforce. The Act would help to put Americans back to work by: Providing temporary emergency education assistance for workers who have been laid off and who require additional education and training to successfully re-enter the workforce; Granting eligible recipients up to an amount equal to the Pell Grant maximum award, towards tuition and fees; and, Providing the training for thousands of workers to help fill demands of the highly skilled workforce. It is clear that the Republican economic policy, based on tax cuts for the wealthiest people, has failed to reverse the job losses in the economy. We need a new approach, one that puts Americans back to work. It is essential to the nation's economic recovery that we invest in the education of American workers and put them back to work. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and ensuring that Americans can get back to work.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to two newspaper editorials concerning the leak of a covert CIA agent's identity. These editorials, printed last Thursday in the Contra Costa Times, of Walnut Creek California, and the San Francisco Chronicle, address the very serious federal crime involving the leak of the name and occupation of a covert CIA agent who is the wife of a former U.S. ambassador who investigated and then revealed that the Administration had used false information to justify the war against Iraq. Both newspapers call for a special counsel to investigate the White House's role in this leak, and the Chronicle suggests that Congress might need to conduct its own inquiry. The Washington Post and ABC News recently conducted a poll that found that seven out of ten Americans support a special counsel to investigate this serious matter. I support many of my colleagues in the House and Senate who have called for a special counsel for similar reasons as stated by these newspapers. It is not credible that the United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft, can independently investigate a potential crime by this White House when not only was he appointed by President Bush but he employed the president's top political adviser on numerous occasions to help him in his Senate election campaign. The credibility of this Administration is already low, when you consider their failure to revive the economy, the clearly misleading nature of the evidence they provided to justify a war in Iraq, and their failure to properly prepare for the post-war conflict. The Administration owes it to the public to ensure that the most independent investigation possible is carried out regarding the leak of the CIA agent's identity. The articles appear as follows: [From the Contra Costa Times, Oct. 2, 2003] Independent Probe If President Bush wants to find out who leaked information about a CIA officer to journalists he should support an investigation by an independent special council, not just one by the Justice Department. The leak is a serious matter involving the wife of a diplomat who was critical of Bush's assessment of Iraq's attempt to get uranium from Africa. Joseph Wilson IV, in a July 6 op-ed piece in The New York Times, recounted his mission on behalf of the CIA in early 2002. He was investigating the possibility that Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium for Iraq's nuclear arms program. Wilson charged that the Bush administration twisted some of the information to make a case for going to war against Iraq. Eight days after the commentary appeared, Robert Novak wrote a column that revealed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA official. Novak attributed his information about Plame to two ``senior administration officials.'' Two other journalists from Newsday, Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce, expanded on Novak's column after confirming Novak's account. Novak refuses to reveal his confidential sources. That is his right and obligation as a journalist. But we are suspicious of the motivation of Novak and those who leaked the information about Plame. It appears to be retaliation against Wilson and a warning to others. The leak and almost gratuitous mention of Plame in the column put her and anyone she did business with in jeopardy. We wonder what Novak would have written in his column had some liberal columnist revealed the name of an undercover CIA officer. The damage caused by the leak goes beyond the CIA and into the White House. Certainly Bush would like to unveil the leakers, and we trust that the Justice Department has competent investigators. However, it is important to avoid a conflict of interest, which would occur if the probe is handled by Justice, led by political appointee John Ashcroft. The surest way to both nab the leakers and assure public confidence is through a special counsel. To do otherwise damages the credibility of the White House and leaves the door open for political demagoguery by the president's opponents.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what it is that President Bush does not understand about the difficulty that the American family today is having trying to provide for their needs. Some 9 million people are unemployed in this country, actively looking for work, perhaps dropping out of the job market because they are so discouraged. There are some 3 million new unemployed in the last 2 years, 400,000 last month. Do they not understand what these families are going through, many of these families with two earners, many of these families single heads of household? Now they want to come along and suggest that for millions of Americans who now get overtime under the law that they would no longer get that. Do they understand what it means to provide for a family, the average working person in this country, how important overtime is to those individuals? It could be up to a quarter of their wages. This is how they qualify for their home mortgage. This is how they qualify for their automobile payment. This is important to their family income on an annual basis. What is it that so angers the Republicans that they want to constantly attack average working people in this country? As mentioned before, they wanted to provide them comp time. As mentioned before, they will not raise the minimum wage to help them. Now they want to strip them of their overtime. Do they not understand that when somebody calls and says at the end of the day that someone has to work another 2 hours, 3 hours, or 4 hours that that individual has to scramble for child care, that they have to scramble for transportation, they have to find somebody to stay with the children at home? Do they not understand what those costs mean to families? Can they not identify with these families? Apparently, they cannot because they continue this assault on working families in this country. They continue this assault. Now, administratively, they want to decide that engineers and draftsmen, and engineering technicians without college degrees in the automotive and aerospace industry, because they did not have a 4-year degree but now have work experience, they will not be eligible for overtime. Health care employees without a 4-year degree, licensed practical nurses, dental hygienists, ultrasound technicians, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, laboratory technicians will no longer be allowed to have overtime. Cooks and chefs, if they got educated in the Army on how to be a cook, on how to be a chef, they will not be eligible for overtime because they got educated in the Army. What is it this administration does not understand? What is it they do not understand when we have EMT teams, emergency medical technicians, one of whom supervises the other two in an ambulance for that night, that that person is not eligible for overtime but the other two are? How can that be just, how can that be fair if they have to work 50 hours or 60 hours a week? Why is it one of the people in the vehicle gets overtime and the other does not, simply because they may take command of that vehicle for that particular night? That is the unfairness of these regulations. These regulations, as was said the other day in the newspaper by the big-employer consulting firms across this country, all of these changes are for the benefit of the employer. All of these changes enable the employer to take away overtime pay. It does not take away overtime. Workers still have to work the 50 hours, they still have to work the 60 hours, they still have to work that Saturday, they still have to work that Sunday. They just do not get paid for the extra time, the premium pay for the inconvenience to the worker. This is incredibly unfair, incredibly insensitive to how families are struggling in this Bush economy to not only hold on to their job, but now they find out if they go and get additional education to improve their skills, they may lose their overtime. If they simply try to improve their worth to their employer, to improve their employability, they find out under these regulations they will not have overtime. If an employer asks you, what do you think about Joe and they say I think Joe should be fired, and Joe is fired, that employer will say that they gave particular weight to your comments and you are ineligible for overtime. What the hell is going on here? These are people who go to work every day on behalf of America's economy, on behalf of our society. They come home tired. They want to see their children. They need the overtime pay, and the Bush administration and the Republicans in this Congress are insisting that they take it away from them.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *