George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Finally, under my reservation I again want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the Committee on International Relations for bringing this matter to the floor. I appreciate their cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for bringing this resolution to the floor and the help he has been in getting it here today. I think this is an important resolution, and it is an important message from the Congress of the United States addressing China's disgraceful record on child and forced labor. Many of us, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), have been raising this issue year after year as Congress has considered legislation granting special trade privileges to China. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago nearly 3 million of our fellow citizens celebrated our Nation's independence on July 4, and millions of fireworks were set off in celebration of that great anniversary. Unknown to many Americans, millions of those fireworks may have been made by young Chinese children compelled to labor in dangerous factories to raise money for their schools. On March 6 of this year, 37 young Chinese school children were killed in an explosion that occurred while third and fourth graders were forced to manufacture fireworks at the Fanglin Elementary School. For years before the explosion, the parents of these children had pleaded with school administrators and government officials to end the practice of forced child labor, but their concerns were ignored. The conditions of the labor of these little children were hazardous, and the demands were unrealistic. The youngest children in the school were expected to mount at least 1,000 detonators and fuses into firecrackers per day. Children who were slightly older were each required to manufacture 10,000 firecrackers per day. It was only a matter of time before this kind of tragedy occurred. And when it did on March 6, the first response of the Chinese government was to deny the facts and try to cover up the fact that the incident took place and try to fabricate a story. What we found out later, because of the bravery of these parents and because of some of the members of the press in China, the international journalists, we now know the truth about forced child labor in this school. A week after the Chinese government invented its story, the Chinese prime minister finally apologized for the incident and acknowledged that the firecrackers were manufactured in an elementary school. Prohibition on child labor is not only the standard for Western countries or developed countries, it is an internationally recognized labor standard that has been approved by the ILO of which the United States and virtually every country of the world is a member. All children, no matter how rich or poor their country, deserve to spend their developing years learning in school. The children at the Fanglin Elementary School were denied that right. Unfortunately, nobody knows if the hundreds of thousands of firecrackers produced at the Fanglin Elementary School were eventually sold to stores and firecracker stands right here in the United States. However, if they did enter the United States market, it is a violation of U.S. laws which prohibit the importation of products made by forced labor. I have called upon the U.S. Customs Service and the Department of Labor to conduct an investigation to determine which products are produced under Chinese forced child labor. A few years ago, the Chinese government acknowledged that it was encouraging industries to move production into Chinese elementary and high schools. The government gave tax incentives to the businesses that set up their factories in the schools. While the government claims that these school industries do not use child labor or forced labor, the case of the Fanglin Elementary School suggests otherwise. Over 700,000 Chinese elementary and high schools have industries manufacturing a host of products, and the U.S. Government must ensure that none of these child labor products are reaching U.S. consumers. I call upon the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Customs to act on my inquiries and to ensure that the imports from China are free from forced child labor. Today the Members of the House can join in expressing condolences to the families of the children who died as a result of the exploitative labor conditions in Chinese schools and elsewhere in that country. Mr. Speaker, let us remember these children when we debate the issues on international trade in the future. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) to explain the resolution.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following editorial to my colleagues that ran in the July 18, 2001, edition of the Contra Costa Times, a suburban newspaper which serves my 7th Congressional district in California. The Contra Costa Times has a circulation of 185,000 readers. This editorial emphasizes a reality that should not be overlooked; the success of the recent missile defense test does nothing to change the fundamental arguments against deployment of a national missile defense system. Call it NMD, Star Wars II, or whatever you want. It still remains a bad idea that promises to divert needed funding toward a risky gambit that will certainly worsen our relations with our international partners and our own national security. [From the Contra Costa Times (CA), July 18, 2001] It Is Still a Bad Idea After the U.S. Military shot down a mock intercontinental ballistic missile Saturday night as part of its missile defense plan, a Pentagon spokesman urged everyone not to get too excited about it. ``We've got a long road ahead,'' cautioned Lt. Gen Ronald Kadish, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Organization. Let us translate that for you: Kadish is saying that the Pentagon intends to spend scads more of the taxpayers' dollars on this hare-brained scheme, a plan that, despite Saturday's apparent success, is unworkable, prohibitively expensive, does incalculable damage to international relations, and threatens to bring back the Cold War. On Saturday, a prototype interceptor fired from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands struck and destroyed a dummy warhead 140 miles above the Pacific. It was not seduced by a round, reflective decoy balloon sent up with the target. The test cost $100 million. Two previous tests had failed. Military backers of the test, in a self-congratulatory mood, were slapping each other on the back after the hit. But the truth is that this test doesn't mean much militarily. The only decoy used for Nor should anyone take the cost lightly. The Pentagon plans 17 more of these tests in the next 18 months. At $100 million each, you're talking serious money. In a faltering economy, the United States does not have the cash to waste. Additionally, continued work on the missile defense system will increase international tensions. Russia already is nervous at the prospect of the United States trying to make itself into the only superpower, and has been making threatening rumbles about building up its own military. As we have said before, these tests torpedo decades of work toward undoing the danger to the planet created by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In any event, the tests are pointless. The so-called rogue nations that the military complex says might attack--North Korea, Iran and Iraq are usually mentioned--are not going to send a missile against the United States or its allies, because they know it would invite nuclear annihilation. The memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in the world's collective consciousness. Finally, these war games, which have the military capering over their computers like teen-agers playing ``Space Invaders,'' do not address the way an enemy nation, organization or individuals actually would attack the United States: with weapons they could carry into the country. How about defending us against that? We have said it before, and there is no reason to change our position: This so-called missile defense system is a dangerous, costly exercise in foolishness.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to conference. We have a historic opportunity to come out of this conference with an education reform bill that will benefit America's children. In May we passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill to ensure that all schools are held accountable for producing real results for our children. I want to particularly thank the members of our Committee on Education and Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), for all of their hard work in the negotiating sessions, and all of the other Members of the committee for their willingness to stick with these very difficult reforms in this effort to make a difference for education for our low-income children. H.R. 1 requires that schools not only lift up the performance of all students, white, African American, Hispanic, rich, poor, limited English, proficient and disabled; but it also requires that we close the achievement gap between these students and others. We have had some serious discussions about accountability provisions in conference. The President and the Congress, the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans are all on record in support of closing the achievement gaps between rich and poor and between minority and majority students. I am optimistic that we can set high standards that drive our public school systems toward that goal. Make no mistake about it: There will be, and there already is, a great deal of pressure from those who resist change, those who want to maintain the status quo, those who want to make sure that nothing ever changes in this system, but those are the same people that have given us the results that Americans find so repugnant. We need to change the system, we must bring about that change, and we must understand that that is the intent of the bill. There are those that say they cannot get students proficient in 12 years. All I can say is, thank God they were not in the room with President Jefferson when he launched Lewis and Clark, because they would have never gotten across the Mississippi. And thank God they were not in the room with John Kennedy when he launched the program to put a man on the moon, because they would have never left the Beltway. Their response to this bill is that they are going to dumb down tests, that they are to teach to the tests. That is the response of the American education system in this country? I hope not. I hope they recognize the challenge and the intent that Congress has put in this legislation, to substantially and dramatically change and improve and hold accountable the American education system to the children it teaches and to the parents that send them there. We have ignored the educational inequities in our country for far too long. This legislation will go a long ways toward addressing these pressing problems. To do the job right, we must fight to match the powerful new reforms in this bill with significant new resources. The House and the Senate bill make this commitment in different ways, but let me say this: In the end, it will not be enough to up the authorizations and congratulate ourselves. The critical step will be making good on these promises by following through with them in real dollars in the appropriations process. No one believes that we can really do public education reform on the cheap and get the results that all Americans are demanding. If we are to truly achieve real education reform, we will have to do our share in providing the necessary resources to fully fund special education, to support and train teachers, to turn around failing schools, and to repair and to modernize classrooms. I also hope the conference will embrace a new bipartisan local flexibility, rather than letting States dictate local prerogatives through unaccountable block grants. Provisions in the Senate legislation would block grant much of the funding in this legislation, while sacrificing the accountability and the targeting of resources to the disadvantaged schools. This legislation also gives us an opportunity to ensure that all teachers, in all classrooms, in front of all students, are fully qualified. Nothing is more shameful than having America's children shortchanged by uncertified teachers or unqualified teachers to teach the subject matter for which they have been hired. Study after study continues to show the impact that unqualified teachers have on the education of our children. The final conference report needs to reverse this troubling trend by investing additional funding in professional development, in teacher training, while ensuring that Federal funds are only used to pay fully qualified teachers. Mr. Speaker, we can do this. This legislation does this. The question will be whether or not the conference committee can proceed toward these goals or whether or not the forces of the status quo will be sufficient to hold us back. I hope they will not be. I intend that they will not be. I know that the chairman agrees with that notion. Mr. Speaker, this is about real reform, real accountability and real results and real resources. That is the goal of this legislation. That is, I believe, the goal of the conference committee, and I look forward to joining our Senate colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle and thank all of the professional staff of the committee, which is the entire staff, who have spent an incredible amount of time working through all of the difficult matters that are of concern and controversy and where there were differences of opinion and helped the membership arrive at this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to going to conference under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and believe that we can bring back to the House a bill that will continue to have bipartisan support that again will dramatically change the outcomes and the results in this education system, in the title I system, and that will dramatically improve our opportunities to have qualified teachers, accountability and have the resources necessary to carry out the educational mandates that are contained in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for all who joined in this discussion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Stanley Lathen, Sr., on the occasion of his being honored for his lifelong commitment to labor by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 373R. President Emeritus Stanley Lathen Sr., was born on April 30, 1908, in the territory of Arizona. His family moved to Lake County soon after his birth and then relocated to Marin County, where he was raised and educated. Stanley served an apprenticeship under the program of the Plasterers and Cement Masons Union in Marin County as a teenager. While working as a mason, he moved to Vallejo in the early 1930's. Always active in labor affairs, Stanley assisted in the re- organization of the Solano County Building Trade Council. Stanley served as Chairman of the Building Codes Committee for the revision of city building codes and the establishing of building codes in Solano County. He also served as the first Chairman of a county Apprentice Training Program (prior to the formation of a State training program). In October 1941, Stanley accepted an executive position with the Retail Store Employees Union No. 373, and was later elected Executive- Manager and Treasurer of Local 373, a position he held for 27 years. Stanley was instrumental in establishing the Local's first health insurance plan and acted as the plan's administrator for many years before the formation of its Trust Funds. He later served with distinction as Trustee and Chairman of the Local's Health Insurance/ Pension and Drug Trust Funds. President Lathen served a term as President of Solano County's Central Labor Council in 1946 and he also served as Vice President of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, as a representative of District 12 (Solano, Napa, Marin and Sonoma Counties) for 13 years. Stanley was also very involved in local civic affairs serving on the Solano County Grand Jury, Chairman of the March of Dimes, member of the first Board of Directors of the Greater Vallejo Recreation District, as well as serving on the boards of the YMCA, Red Cross, Salvation Army and United Crusade. California Governor Earl Warren selected President Lathen to serve as the chairman of the Solano County committee to explore the possibilities of a statewide health plan. Due to strong opposition from the Solano County Medical Society and other such organizations across the state, the state health plan never got off the ground. On January 1, 1968, at the age of 60, Stanley Lathen ended his distinguished career as Executive Manager (President) of Local 373. When he assumed office in 1941 there were 105 members; today the union has over 1,800 members. Stanley and his wife of 45 years, Bernice, are enjoying the retired life, sharing good times with their five children and six grandchildren. On May 16, 1997, San Francisco State University entered President Emeritus Stanley Lathen's history as a Vallejo Labor and Civic Leader permanently into the records at the Labor Archives and Research Center. On January 13, 1998, President Linda Russell, the officers and members of Local 373R, honored President Lathen by naming the Local Union Hall's board room the Stanley Lathen Board Room. Later that year, Local 373R named its annual scholarship golf tournament in his honor, The Stanley Lathen Scholarship Golf Tournament. We salute President Emeritus Stanley Lathen Sr. for all the good that he has done for working men and women, union members and the citizens of Vallejo, Solano County, the state and our country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Committee on Rules of this House is thwarting the will of the Members of this House and of the American people to clean up our campaign finance system in this country. For all too long we have seen the flow of special interest money into the coffers of politicians on both sides of the aisle, in the House and the Senate and the White House, and we have seen the effect of this flow of money. It is now corroding the very pillars of our democracy. It is undermining the foundations of our deliberations in the House and the Senate and at the White House. It means that the people's business does not get done on a fair and level playing field. It means that there is special access for those who can give huge amounts of money, but there is very little access for those who simply have their voice. This is not about the first amendment; this is about whether or not this House, this Congress, this Presidency, will return the Government of the United States back to the people and take it away from those who have no end to the amount of money that they can contribute to Members of Congress or the President, those who have so often distorted the debate about the real needs of the American people at this time in our history.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of ensuring that all warm-blooded animals used in research receive the protection for which the Animal Welfare Act entitles them, and therefore oppose the language that has been included in the bill before us which will continue to deny those protections to those species that constitute the majority of the animals used in research. In 1970, the Congress specifically amended the Animal Welfare Act to provide for the protections of all warm-blooded animals used in experiments. Since then, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has unfairly and illegally denied those modest safeguards to a majority of the research animals, over 20 million birds, rats, and mice used each year. When Congress amended the law, we certainly did not intend to exclude 95 percent of the animals used in research. This is confirmed by our esteemed former colleague from the other body, Senator Bob Dole, who, along with my great friend, the late Congressman George Brown, further improved the treatment of lab animals in 1985. I wish to enter into the Record the letter from Senator Dole on this subject. To correct this 30-year-old wrong, USDA committed the beginning of the rulemaking process to extend the Animal Welfare Act regulations to these animals. I am disappointed that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee chose to add language that prohibits USDA from going forward with this rulemaking which is long overdue. The scientific community must be held accountable to the public for its treatment of animals. The American public expects animal research to be conducted as humanely as possible. We in Congress cannot assure them that if we not only allow, but also encourage, USDA to exclude the majority of research animals from this law's protection. Mr. Chairman, I urge that this language be stricken in the conference committee between the House and the Senate. The letter referred to previously follows: Washington, DC, March 19, 2001. John McArdle, Director, Alternatives Research and Development Foundation, Eden Prairie, MN. Dear Dr. McArdle: Thank you for your letter of March 1st regarding the current status of laboratory animals under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). I support the use of animals in research but firmly believe that there is a responsibility incumbent upon researchers to provide basic protections to the animals they use. It is obvious that good animal care is essential to ensuring good quality research. Through good animal treatment and minimizing painful tests, biomedical research gains in both accuracy and humanity. As someone deeply involved with the process of revising and expanding the provisions of the AWA, I assure you that the AWA was meant to include birds, mice, and rats. When Congress stated that the AWA applied to ``all warm-blooded animals,'' we certainly did not intend to exclude 95 percent of the animals used in biomedical research laboratories. Although the National Institutes of Health and the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International provide oversight for some of the birds, mice, and rats used for experimentation, many research institutions fall outside their purview. With AWA regulations soon extended to these animals, I believe USDA, with its substantial experience in enforcement, is best suited to ensuring humane care for all laboratory animals. Moreover, neither NIH's policy nor voluntary accreditation includes legal consequences for failure to perform. The Animal Welfare Act does. That is the heart of the law. I am aware of efforts by opponents of animal welfare to prevent coverage of birds, mice, and rats as detrimental to research. This notion is preposterous. A similar strategy was employed by opponents of my 1985 amendments to the Act. I am happy to observe that none of their predications about the dire consequences for research ever materialized. Indeed, those amendments have facilitated significant improvements in laboratory animal care and use, which in turn have benefited research. In fact, I understand that those members of the research community best informed about laboratory animals support the inclusion of birds, mice, and rats. From their work on the front lines, they recognize, as you and I do, that uniform protections not only are humane, but also ensure consistent experimental results and level the playing field in vital scientific research. Those who oppose USDA's efforts to fulfill its court settlement with your organization, I believe, are overlooking the long-term benefits to crafting better science. We owe much to laboratory animals--that were true in 1985 and is truer today. I would hope that the Bush Administration and Members of the present Congress, some of whom stood with me in 1985 in advancing my amendments, will recognize that all animals used in experimentation deserve the benefit of the modest requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. I would urge them to allow USDA to achieve this end by pursuing a full and fair rulemaking as provided in the settlement agreement. I wish you the best of luck not only in defending the Animal Welfare Act, but also in your ongoing efforts to advance humane methods of biomedical research. Let me add that I am writing to you as a volunteer. I am not being paid by any persons or group for stating my views. Sincerely, Bob Dole.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made the case for this amendment. This is a great area, everybody loves it, everybody uses it, everybody likes it the way it is, except that it is not open to the public. That is the agreement that we made with the people that had these leases. They got a 25-year lease, the lease is now at the end, and now we have had some political intervention so they do not have to vacate the leasehold so that in fact all of the public can use it. I will grant that one of the people leasing these properties let a Congressman's son come go fishing there, but what about other people that want to go fishing there? It is nice that they let some Boy Scouts in. The whole purpose of this is open up these leaseholds for public uses and public purposes so that whether it is the Boy Scouts or other organizations can come and use these facilities. There is a planning process that is going on so that this in fact can be a public facility of which it is. Because the original leaseholders made a decision, they have sold their interest, they entered into those leases, those leases have expired, and now it is just a question of whether you are going to use the power and the might of the United States Congress or the Secretary of Interior's office so she can close out the public so that seven entities get to continue to control what everybody says here is a wonderful asset that the public would love to use. We ought to support the Deutsch-Hinchey amendment on this and open it up in fact to the public like all national parks.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and we must support this amendment. We must support this amendment so the energy crisis in California and the West Coast is not allowed to be used as a battering ram by this administration to batter down the designation of national monuments and some of the most valuable and most prized and most beautiful and sacred lands in this entire country. This administration now wants to come in, after all the effort was made to delineate and to make determinations about the values of these lands in terms of their cultural and historic significance, and after the designation of the monument has been given in the name of the people of the United States of America, this administration would try to batter down those designations at the very time when millions of Americans are taking their children and other members of their family and traveling across this country visiting monuments of this country, recognizing the historical importance of these, the cultural importance of these lands, the Craters of the Moon, the Effigy Mounds, the Little Bighorn Battlefield, Scotts Bluff, the Statute of Liberty, Bandelier National Monument, Gila Cliff Dwellings, White Sands, Governor's Island, Oregon Caves. These are all different. In the West we have some monuments, in the East we have different monuments, but this is about the culture of this Nation. You tried to use the energy crisis in California to batter the California consumers, Mr. President, and that did not work. And now we see finally you are taking some actions to help those consumers. You should not use this energy crisis to batter down the designation of these lands. These lands belong to the people of the United States. And when your Secretary of the Interior sends a letter suggesting to consult with just local officials, these are not local parks, these are not local districts, these are national monuments. Why are we not consulting with all the people of this Nation? That is what President Clinton did before he made the designation. There were public hearings, there was a process, because we knew the significance and the importance of a monument designation. We should not cower behind our energy problems in California to try to change the status of these great public lands. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), my colleague, for bringing H. Res. 124 forward today. The ideals embodied in this resolution promoting American Youth Day that children and youth are to be valued and that we have a responsibility to provide them with the resources they need to secure a healthy and promise future are not to be taken lightly. Too often, Congress overlooks the needs of our Nation's young people. We somehow fail to make the issues of young people a priority, and we somehow fail to make an adequate investment in their development and well being. Too often, we also find public programs for young people focus on the problems of youth. In turn, we wind up with a lot of programs and policies that react to the negative behaviors, like juvenile delinquency or teenage pregnancy. That is not to say that we should ignore these problems, nor can we. In the communities across the country, children are faced with numerous obstacles which prevent them from reaching their full potential. If you just look at the children in this Nation who are impoverished, in 1999 there were over 12 million youth under the age of 18 who were poor. In spite of low unemployment, my own State of California has one of the highest rates of child poverty among the States, ranking 45th out of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The gap between high- and low-wage earners in California is the fifth largest among the States. With much of the job growth that we have in the next 5 years concentrated in low-paying positions, six out of 10 of those jobs are expected to pay under $8 an hour, many working families will continue to have a difficult time making ends meet and to provide for their children. Affordable housing, nutritious food, quality childcare, quality health care, in fact, are out of reach of many of these families. In the area of health care, California youth have less access to health care than their counterparts in other States; 21 percent of the children and teens are uninsured as compared to 15 percent nationally. Less access to health care means that children are less likely to be immunized and less likely to receive well-child care. One study found that uninsured children are 3\1/2\ times as likely as insured children to go without needed health care, including medical, surgical, dental care, prescription drugs, eyeglasses and mental health care, all of the things that we know are important to children performing well in our schools, to take an advantage of the opportunities for success that were presented to them. Without this kind of health care coverage, without access to this kind of diagnosis, these children's chances to succeed are greatly diminished. Two out of three California youth in need of mental services do not receive those services. The teen unemployment rate for youth is 13.1 percent; particularly troubling is the unemployment rate for black teens of 24.7 percent. In 1999, one out of six of the 16-year-olds to 19-year-olds in California who were looking for work could not find a job. That is why this resolution is important to call attention to these matters. In the area of youth crime, nationally we see the juvenile crime rate is declining; but yet again, my home State of California ranks 48 out of 50 States and the District of Columbia for the percentage of youth detained in the California Youth Authority, county camps, juvenile halls, and private institutions. For too many of these youth, this incarceration will greatly diminish their chances in later life. Twenty-two percent of the violent crimes in the U.S. are juveniles, and children under the age of 12 make up approximately a quarter of the juvenile victims known to police. Tomorrow, the Subcommittee on Select Education will begin work on reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and the Delinquency Prevention Act to address several of these issues. Yet the need for these programs take a more positive approach to youth still exists. We must accentuate the positive possibilities that we can bring to these children's lives. An overwhelming body of research has demonstrated that we need to do more to foster positive youth development, to build social and emotional competence and to link young people with adult mentors. H. Res. 124 is a step in the right direction, and Congress has the opportunity to do even more to ensure that all of these children and the purposes of this resolution are carried out and have access to the core five principles stated in this resolution. H.R. 17, the Younger Americans Act, which I have introduced with the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), represents the next step. The Younger Americans Act was built around the same five pillars of youth development as found in H. Res. 124, helping youth to access ongoing relations with caring adults, to have safe places, to have a healthy start and future, and education and community service activities. H.R. 17 provides communities the resources they need to achieve the very goals we are setting out for them in today's resolution. H.R. 17 has 49 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans; and there is a companion measure in the Senate. The Younger Americans Act establishes a national policy on youth development and assists communities in developing an infrastructure and network for local initiatives that promote the positive goals and outcomes for youth. The Younger Americans Act promotes youth development programs that work, such as mentoring, teen employment programs, after-school learning activities, and recreational activities. It encourages youth-led activities that encourage self-esteem and character development. It does not create new programs; instead, it reinforces, reinforces youth development initiatives that already exist at the local levels in the communities all across this country. The bill has a vast national coalition of supporters, including Secretary of State and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, the Boys and Girl's Club of America, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the National Urban League, America's Promise, the Child Welfare League of America, the United Way, the National Mental Health Association and many, many other organizations. The Younger Americans Act ensures that all children and youth can benefit from youth development programs and have access to education, health and economic resources they need to realize their potential. Mr. Speaker, if we are to call upon the communities to celebrate American Youth Day, then Congress must do its part. This resolution should be just the beginning, and I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) for his efforts; and I hope that this resolution will receive unanimous support in the House of Representatives today. Mr. Speaker, I also invite the gentleman and many of our other colleagues to join me and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) in supporting the next step, passage of the Younger Americans Act. The Younger Americans Act will ensure that every day is American Youth Day. This is a commitment that this Nation must make. It is a commitment that this Nation cannot afford not to make. Mr. Speaker, I want to again say how much I appreciate this resolution being brought to the floor, because it is time for this Congress to stop, think and to reflect, and for this Nation to stop, think and reflect about the opportunities, the potential that exist in each of our children as they are born; and then the question will be whether or not that child will be in a position to take advantage of the opportunities for success. Because almost each and every one of these children is capable of doing that. Mr. Speaker, if they do not have the access to a caring adult, if they do not have access to health, to education, to civic involvement in our communities, then their chances for those opportunities and taking advantage of those opportunities are greatly diminished. That is why we should pass this resolution today, and that is why the Congress should then take the next step, which is the passage of the Younger Americans Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for managing this legislation on the floor; and I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for bring this measure to the floor. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for authoring this resolution. Mr. Speaker, clearly we have got to make every effort to ensure that we teach young children the great extent to which Native Americans have influenced this country through their heritage and customs and contributions and the positive impact on our development. We must get them to fully understand that Native Americans have always emphasized the key principles of democracy in their own culture, freedom, justice, patriotism, and representative government. We must get them to understand the great contributions that individual Native Americans have made to this country throughout our entire history. At the same time, we must get people to understand that all is not well in Native America, if you will. On many of our reservations, we have very serious, serious problems, and they are problems which must be addressed by this government in its trust responsibility to those Native American tribes and nations. We must understand that 40 percent of the housing on Indian reservations is considered substandard as compared to 5 or 6 percent of the housing nationwide. That is an obligation of this government. Indian reservations have a 31 percent poverty rate, unemployment is 46 percent on many reservations. Most frightening of all is the fact that U.S. Native Americans suffer a death rate of 533 percent higher for tuberculosis, 249 percent for diabetes, 627 percent higher for alcoholism, and 71 percent higher for influenza and pneumonia. Clearly the residents of these reservations, the Native Americans of this country, deserve much better care than this. This struggle will be played out in the appropriations process in this Congress. It will be played out in the budget process between the administration and the Congress. But clearly we must meet our obligation to these individuals. It is very difficult on one hand to say we must pay them great honor for all of their contributions, and then define on the other hand the incredible ignoring of the problems, the turning away from the problems that beset these very same tribes and peoples. If we look in the jurisdiction of this committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, BIA-funded schools are approximately $3,800 per student. That is about half of the national average in other public school systems. The only source of funding for those schools in most instances because of poverty on the reservation is the BIA. Why should Indian children have half of the resources dedicated to their education as other children in this Nation? We have got to understand also the fact that they go to schools of much lesser quality than we would provide for our own children. Mr. Speaker, finally the most difficult task in this resolution, the education of young children about the contribution of Native Americans to American society, these are sovereign Nations. Long before we came here, these were the Indian nations of this continent. They were conquered in the process of settling America. Treaties were entered into that recognized the sovereign nature of these nations. So the Indian tribes in the country today are recognition of great nations, and they do in fact have their own sovereignty. That was the arrangement. Those are the treaty guarantees. Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult arrangement as America continues to expand and grow; but it is an arrangement that we must honor under the law, under the Constitution and under the treaties of this land. We must get young people to understand that that is the relationship. In fact, in times past when tribal leaders came to the Nation's Capital, they were greeted at the State Department as representatives of independent Nations. Mr. Speaker, that may be the most difficult lesson, not only for the school children of this Nation, but for Members of Congress to understand the sanctity of that relationship and the importance of independence to these Indian tribes.