George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I understand that. That is fine.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We have no problem with you doing this. The question is mandating it. We were out here a couple of weeks ago, we were all for Ed-flex, because in many instances you have small programs that cost you more to administer than the benefit. The gentleman from Colorado's point is that the county can then make that option. If you have got $400,000 coming in out of $2 million in receipts, you can probably do something meaningful on the forest. If you have $8,000 coming in with all due respect, you may be better off helping the schools buy the textbooks or supplies where you can get a dollar-to-dollar benefit instead of engaging in some kind of mythical planning process when you only have 8 to 10 to $12,000. That is the benefit of his amendment. It goes for the most efficient use in those counties where the set- aside turns out to be relatively small. Obviously in some counties in Oregon and probably even in California where you have substantial receipts, this option may make some sense. But that is because you are playing with the critical mass of dollars where you can create some of those projects on the forest that might even benefit----

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for 9 months out of this year the Republicans fought for a $1 trillion tax cut at the expense of our balanced budget and at the expense of our social security system. That was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of this country. Now the Republicans tell us that we cannot afford a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, that we cannot afford a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect our families against managed care and HMOs that deny them care, that we cannot afford a minimum wage for our low-income workers in this Nation, and that we cannot extend the fiscal security of social security by even one day. No, the Republicans still want to try to pass tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals, corporations, and special interests in this country. When in this session, in the last remaining 8 or 10 days of this session, when is it that Republicans are going to start thinking about our elderly, our children, and the working families of this Nation?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, think how disappointed the American public must be as they see the Congress coming to a close in the next couple of weeks and how it has failed to address the problems of Social Security, to extend the solvency of Social Security, to deal with the fundamental reforms that are necessary so that Social Security will be there for us, for our children and our grandchildren; and then to find out, not only have they failed to extend the solvency of Social Security, but the Republicans have made a conscience decision to dip into the trust funds. As we were told at the end of last week by the Congressional Budget Office, some $17 billion has been taken out of the Social Security Trust Funds to finance the gimmicks that the Republicans have put together to try and pass the budget, a budget that has yet to pass. Think of the disappointment of the American public when they learn this most fundamental program, this most important program to the retirees of our Nation has been given this kind of treatment during this session as the Republicans get ready to leave this town and to end this Congress. Not only have they spent the Social Security Trust Fund, but they have also failed to deal with prescription drug benefits and with the minimum wage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican- controlled House considers the last of the appropriations bills a month late, no budget, no reconciliation. But what have they done? They have failed to extend the life of Social Security by even a single day. In fact, they have spent $17 billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund. They have failed to provide for a fix of the Medicare system to cover our elderly citizens. In fact, they failed to even consider a prescription drug benefit for our elderly citizens. Their budget, while failing to do this, hurts American families in every way. Their budget today will cut money from education. Mr. Speaker, think of the disappointment of parents who thought they were going to be able to send their children to a smaller class size so their children would have a better opportunity at learning to read, at learning to deal with mathematics. No, those parents will not have that opportunity, and yet all of the research tells us that if their children were able to have lower class sizes, they would have a better opportunity to learn. But the Republicans do not address that, they do not address Social Security, and they harm Medicare.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud of this legislation that we have before us this afternoon on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I think that the committee has done a magnificent task in changing the direction of the Title I program. I think that is why it took us so long to mark it up in committee. That is why we are spending a considerable amount of time on it here on the floor yesterday and today. But the fact of the matter is, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) pointed out, we are changing the direction of this program; and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has pointed out a number of times, we are changing the direction of this program. We are taking a program that for all too long did not have much accountability in it, did not affix responsibility to parties, it really did not have standards of excellence in it. We are changing that now; and, in fact, we are redirecting this program on a course of excellence and accountability and performance. The time has come where we can no longer, with the knowledge that we have of the number of children who are not able to participate, not provide the adequate funding so that those children can participate to the full extent of the advantages of this law. They must be included in this program. The Roemer amendment provides for that to happen. That is why we ought to support it. One of the things when we look at schools that are reconstituted by local school boards, the governing bodies of local Government, when we look at schools where venture capitalists have come in, various firms have been formed now to take over some of these schools and run them on a private market model where they have turned them into charter schools, it is very interesting that in many of these schools that are poor performing and have a disproportionate number of disadvantaged children in these schools, the first thing they do is add money. The very first thing the private marketers do is they add money to these schools. It runs about a half a million dollars a school. When they say, pay us, we will run their school, we will get the results for them, we will show them how the market system will work, the first thing they do is invest capital in those schools on behalf of those disadvantaged children. Money does make a difference. It, in fact, does make a difference. And that is what private firm after private firm after private firm has been doing with these schools. As everybody here has just claimed, that does not mean that throwing money at a problem will solve that problem. But here there are many problems that will not be fixed if we do not have money. And children who are not included in this program are not going to get the advantages of it. I think we should take the pride of our workmanship here, we should take the understanding of the redirection that we have given to this program on a bipartisan basis, and we ought to take the Roemer amendment and try to add to the funding for this program for excellence. We ought to add to this funding for the results that we expect and for the accountability that is in this program. Because we are challenging the States, we are challenging the States on behalf of the Federal taxpayers to close the gap between rich and poor students, between majority and minority students. We are challenging the States to provide qualified teachers in every classroom within 4 years. With those kinds of changes in this program, we have the opportunity to deliver a program of excellence at the local level on behalf of these students. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has pointed out, we cannot continue to allow the tremendous number of students who are not included in this program, who do not get served in this program, to continue to happen in this country because we are losing those children and their opportunity to participate in our economy, to participate in our society to the fullest extent of their potential. Because that is the tragedy, the downside of not properly funding this program. That is why this amendment is well placed, it is well directed, and I think we ought to recognize that that amendment is a complement to the work that this committee has done and the faith we have in these very, very difficult changes, very tough changes that we have made in this program at the urging of the chairman of the committee, the ranking member, and the two subcommittee chairmen and ranking members of this committee. I urge passage of the Roemer amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. This legislation defies the will of the American people by severely underfunding our national effort to protect and preserve the national lands and because it contains anti- environmental riders that interfere with the proper management of the public's resources. This report drastically underfunds the President's land legacy initiative that is designed to protect the endangered lands and resources that are threatened by development. It is ironic that this legislation should take such an extreme and anti-environmental position on such an issue at a time when we are working mightily to fashion on a bipartisan basis a resource initiative. Throughout this country, hundreds of thousands of people from soccer moms to sporting goods manufacturers, from environmentalists to hunters to park professionals to inner-city police organizations have come together to reach and support legislation that would expand, not constrict as this legislation does, the amount of investment we in Congress would make with the resources of this country. The President requested $413 million for his land legacy and the land water conservation fund for the year 2000. The conference report provided less than $250 million. The administration sought $4 million for urban parks programs. The conference report provided half of that amount of money. We have to understand that the people of this country want these resources protected. They want the opportunities expanded. Ninety-four percent of all Americans support more funding for the land and water conservation fund. That is a Republican pollster taking that poll. Eighty-eight percent of the American people agree we must act now or we will lose these special places. This bill does not act now, and it does so in the riders. In the riders it continues to give away public land for the mining companies to dispose of their waste and their toxic waste on these lands, and it overrides the limitations in the 1872 mining law; but they will not override those limitations to try to get the American people the royalties and rents for the use of those public lands. This land also continues to allow the oil companies to underpay the royalties that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), has worked so hard on. This continues to let them underpay $60 million in royalties that they owe the people of this country, $6 million in the State of California that goes to the education system in our State for young people. This report continues to let the oil companies have a royalty holiday on lands that they drill oil from, that they take from the American people, and they underpay the resources. That should not be allowed to continue. This bill also fails to provide the kind of support that is necessary so the Indian tribes of this Nation can continue to take over the functioning of those programs where the Government acted on their behalf in a most paternal manner, that the Indians can now run those programs of the Indian health service from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and they can do it more efficiently. They do it with greater enrollment and greater care for the members of their tribes, and yet this legislation does not speak to those in a proper manner. This legislation is bad for the environment. It is bad for the taxpayers. It is bad for school children. It is bad for the public that supports our parks and public lands, and we ought to reject it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Senate Democrats are saving the Republicans. Because if the lockbox that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) talks about was enforced today, they would be under arrest for picking the lock and stealing the Social Security money out of it because them have already spent $13 billion of Social Security money, and they keep saying they have a lockbox. That is no lockbox. This is an open and revolving door. They have dipped into Social Security time and again in their appropriations bills. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that already on the running account they have stolen $13 billion of people's Social Security money, and in all likelihood it will be as high as $25 billion in people's Social Security money. Mr. Speaker, Republicans should remember that, under the Constitution, only they can spend the people's money. They have authorized, they have appropriated the expenditure of $13 billion, $13 billion of the people's Social Security money that they say is in the lockbox. It is not in the lockbox. It is in the appropriations bills that they have been voting on day after day that exceed the request of the President of the United States. They are lucky that the police are not here arresting them today.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink-Woolsey-Sanchez-Morella amendment. Since 1974, the Women's Educational Equity Act (``We-Uh'') has provided resources to teachers, administrators, and parents to ensure equity in their schools and in their communities. The Act was created in response to widespread recognition that girls had specified educational needs and learning styles that were not being met. While was have made some progress in leveling the educational playing field for girls, we still have a long way to go. A study released last year by the American Association of University Women entitled ``Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children'' shows that girls, when compared to boys, are at a significant disadvantage as technology is increasingly incorporated into the classroom. Girls tend to come to the classroom with less exposure to computers and other technology, and girls believe that they are less adept at using technology than boys. Even though 65 percent of jobs in the year 2000 will require technology skills, only 17 percent of students who take computer science Advanced Placement tests are girls. And, compared with boys, girls receive lower scores on the AP test. Last year, on the high-stakes college admissions test--the SAT-- female students scored 496 on the math section, compared to an average of 531 for male students. Similarly, on other standardized tests in the subject areas of math and science--such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress-- girls continue to score lower than boys. Let's make sure that we provide resources to teachers, administrators, and parents to meet the need of girls and women. Let's make sure that we target dropout prevention programs for at- risk youth to pregnant and parenting teenagers. Let's make sure that we we provide training to teachers to encourage girls to pursue careers and higher education degrees in technology, mathematics, science, and engineering. Vote for the Mink/Woolsey/Sanchez/Morella amendment so that all students will be prepared to compete in the everchanging global economy of the 21st century.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for all their work on this legislation. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) put in a lot of hours as have the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who have really carried the bulk of the work around this legislation. But I think we had an opportunity in the markup of this legislation for all members to participate, and I think it was one of our better hours in this committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) who just spoke because of his willingness to sift through many hours of hearings and also the markup and contribute, I think, a unique perspective to some of the deliberations that we were having about this legislation and the impacts of some of the things that we wanted to do on local districts. The Federal Government has spent roughly $120 billion over the last three decades funding this program and the results have been mixed. We have closed the gap to some extent between rich and poor, majority and minority students, but the gap remains wide and it remains open. We ought to see in this legislation if in fact we can close that gap, and I think that this legislation has a chance of finishing the job. In return for our investment over the next 5 years of $40 to $50 billion, we are asking that the States measure the performance of all students and that it set goals of closing the gap of achievement between majority and minority and the rich and poor students; we ask that children be taught by fully qualified teachers; we ask that schools and teachers be recognized and rewarded for their successes in improving student achievement; and that parents be given clear and accurate information about their child's educational progress and about the quality of their schools. And what we ask most of all in this bill is that we educate all children, each and every child, that no child is left behind. This can be done, it has been our rhetoric for 20 years, but it has not been what is happening in the classroom and it has not been what is happening on the ground. We understand now that all children can learn. We have enough information to fully understand that children from disadvantaged backgrounds can learn as well as children from the suburbs and elsewhere. If we set standards, if we have high expectations of those students, we now know that that kind of success is possible. But we must have those expectations of success and we must have qualified teachers and we must monitor the achievement. It can be done. Just this last week, we learned that it happened again in the State of Texas where this same kind of decision that we are making here today was made in Texas under the leadership of everybody from Ross Perot to Ann Richards to George W. Bush. We learned last week that in Houston and Fort Worth, the gap was closed between majority and minority students, that in fact the achievement was coming closer together. We have seen it in Kentucky where many schools achieving the highest scores last year in reading and writing were in high poverty schools, in the South Bronx in the KIPP Academy, once again where we ask students to achieve high standards, where we have the expectations that they can achieve and we put them together with qualified teachers and good curriculum, those children in fact throw aside mediocrity, they throw aside the failure and they achieve as our expectations are in this country for all of our children. I believe that this legislation starts that process on a national scale. I believe that we can have qualified teachers in all classrooms, that we can have these expectations of our young children and they can meet those standards of achievement and we can have rich and poor children, majority and minority children learning at the same rate. But we will have to hold on to these standards as this bill continues to progress. I think we continue to need to provide additional funding and there will be amendments that address that, because one of the things we know about this system is it is, in fact, resource poor. But we will get to that later in the deliberations on this legislation. I want to thank every member of the committee and especially the committee chair and the ranking member and the subcommittee chair and the ranking member. This was long hours of negotiations, some of which went on until this morning, I guess, over some of this legislation. I want to thank the staff on both sides for all of their effort.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and appreciate his bringing this motion to the floor. Mr. Speaker, we should clearly adopt the House position as reflected in the July vote earlier this year on the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment to the bill. House Members voted 273 to 151 in support of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, those opposed would suggest somehow the solicitor in the Department of Interior simply woke up one day and tried to redefine an 1872 mining law to limit the number of acres that mining operations can claim as waste disposal. Nothing can be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the law and the record on the law is replete with example after example, dealing from 1872 to 1891 to 1903 to 1940 to 1955 to 1960 to 1970 to 1974, time and again, time and again, in the writings of both people from the mining industry, from the government, and from interested parties, time and again the law is very clear on its face that the solicitor in his 1977 analysis is quite correct on mill-site provisions; and, in fact, that they were not to be allowed to be given additional land. The reason they should not is that is we should not sponsor without very careful consideration the expansion of mill waste. This country is spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and is yet to spend additional hundreds of millions of dollars, cleaning up after the waste product of mines that have been developed across the country. No longer is this some miner and his pick and shovel and his mule going out across the country. These are some of the biggest earth movers on the face of the earth that move hundreds and hundreds of tons of earth to get a single ounce, a single ounce, of gold. The mining that is done with the cyanide heap leaching must be carefully controlled, and those leach piles are there for the foreseeable future. Before we make a decision that they can simply spread those across all of the claims, this law ought to be upheld and we ought to continue to support the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this proposal to the House and ask for strong support of it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as kids get settled in to school this year, I want to make sure that they and their parents are aware of a disturbing trend taking place on campuses across the country. Companies are increasingly entering the classroom to acquire hard-to- get information about the purchasing preferences and personal habits of young people. They are doing this because kids aged 4 through 12 are the hottest market group being targeted by retailers and others. The problem is, kids do not always know if they are divulging personal information, and parents may not know that their children are spending part of their school day teaching companies how best to target young people. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will protect student privacy and parents' rights to information about their children's education. The legislation would prohibit schools from letting students participate in various forms of market research at school without their parent's written permission. My bill also would require a broad study of commercial involvement in the classroom. I am proud to have the support of Consumers Union and the National Parent Teacher Association in this effort. The PTA has been a leader in supporting efforts to improve educational quality and Consumers Union has been a champion of consumer' privacy. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Normally, we do not think of privacy and educational quality as issues that overlap. But the fact that both these groups are here today illustrates how market research in schools touches upon a range of issues that concern diverse groups. As you know, there is a growing concern over privacy in this country, where Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that the benefits of new technology can also lead to a loss of control over personal, medical and financial information. I hear about this concern all the time. I support efforts by my colleagues to restore the privacy protections most of us have taken for granted. Another major concern that nearly everyone in California and the Nation is talking about is the quality of our young children's education. For good reason, most Americans believe that our schools are not doing enough to prepare kids for the difficult challenges that lie ahead. Educational quality and privacy concerns come together when private companies seek out the hotly contested youth market. Kids aged 4 to 12 directly spent more than $24 billion and influenced their parents to spend $187 billion in 1997, according to a Texas A&M study. The classroom is fast becoming a preferred site to learn about student purchasing preferences because, ``That's where the kids are,'' says Alex Molnar, director of the Center for Analysis of Commercialism in Education at the University of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. According to the promotional literature for ZapMe! Corporation, a company that offers free computers to schools, ``Children in grades K- 12 are arguably the toughest audience for marketers to reach and quite possibly the most valuable . . . Pinpoint targeting of such an elusive audience is made possible via the most revolutionary educational medium in the world, the ZapMe! Knowledge Network.'' James Twitchell, author of ADCULT USA, for advertisers, said that when it comes to kids in schools, ``It doesn't get any better. These people have not bought cars. They have not chosen the kind of toothpaste they will use. This audience is Valhalla. It's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.'' Students should go to school to learn, not to provide companies an edge in a hot market. But increasing numbers of companies are targeting schools as the best place to learn the purchasing preferences of young people. Unfortunately, they can do this today without the permission of parents, and sometimes without the knowledge of the students themselves. Parents have a right to know how their children are spending their days at school. If parents do not want their children to be objects of market research firms while in school, they should have the right to say no. My bill gives parents that right. By requiring parental consent for a student to contribute to any market research in school, students and parents will be able to retain more control over how the school day is spent and will be able to make an informed decision as to whether to reveal personal information that private companies otherwise might not be able to obtain. Existing school privacy laws only protect official records and research funded by the Federal Department of Education. Current law leaves a loophole for companies to go into classrooms to get information directly from kids without parental consent. This information is then sold to advertisers and marketers, who use it to target students. Consider these examples of the growing trend of using the classroom to solicit personal information from kids for market research: Kids in a New Jersey elementary school filled out a 27-page booklet called ``My All About Me Journal'' as part of a marketing survey for a cable television channel. Elementary school students in Kansas answered marketing questions over the school computer. Students in a Massachusetts elementary school spent two days tasting cereal and answering an opinion poll. The ZapMe! Corporation provides schools with free computers but then monitors students' web browsing habits, breaking the data down by age, sex and ZIP code. Students in Honolulu schools divulge extensive buying habit information to the private company that runs its SmartCard system. The cards are used as student IDs as well as a means to purchase school supplies, concession stand items and school lunches. Promotional arrangements are also linked to the card. It is clear that companies have a powerful incentive to go into class to solicit information from kids. My legislation will ensure that parents retain the ultimate authority to determine if they want their kids to participate in this type of activity at school and thereby help protect the parent-child relationship. By raising the issue of commercialism in the classroom, my goal is not to usurp local decision-making by schools, but rather to protect parents and students and encourage an informed discussion of all of the costs and benefits of these arrangements.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I am glad to hear that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) will withdraw the amendment after the debate. I think that this amendment is patently unfair to union members. It does deny them one of the benefits of organization. It does deny them the ability to collectively organize and decide for the purposes they are going to engage in the electoral process within this country; and, in fact, it does not treat them the same. It treats them very differently than corporations. It also recognizes that corporations all the time vote either by a majority or the boards of directors or the CEO and others make decisions about campaigns and political speech and issues that they are going to get involved in or they are not going to get involved in. And they do it without the consent of all of their members, all of their shareholders, all of their workers, and all of the rest of that. And yet somehow we are going to put that effectively on the backs of working men and women. I think what this really is, this has stuck in the craw of the other side of the aisle since a very effective campaign by organized labor to tell the truth about what Republicans were doing when they first took over the House, and as a result of that this is a payback not a paycheck protection. It has been rejected in the State of California by voters. It has been rejected in the State of Oregon by voters, and it should be rejected in the House of Representatives.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my colleague from California, for bringing this motion to the floor. She has championed human rights all over the world. I am delighted that she has given us this opportunity to speak out against the atrocities and the brutality that has taken place in East Timor. Year after year, we are told by the military of this country that they are engaged in training programs with the military of other countries that cause that military establishment in those countries, in this case Indonesia, to respect human rights, to understand the chain of command, to respect civil authority and to benefit us through that relationship. Unfortunately we now see in East Timor just one in a continuation of tragedies where this has turned out to be fiction. It could be no further from the truth. What in fact we see is the involvement of those American-trained soldiers in the massacre, the slaughter and the brutality against their own citizens. Earlier this year, we debated the School of the Americas where we saw this activity in South America and today now we see it in East Timor. Let us understand something, that the contacts that were supposedly established in East Timor and in Indonesia because of American military training never came about. They never came about because those phone calls were refused, those conversations were not paid attention to, they were not heeded until one thing happened, until the military had taken care of business in East Timor. And by taking care of business, we are talking about the burning and sacking of towns and homes, the destruction of people and the killing of people who voted for and supported the democracy movement, who voted for and supported a vote for freedom that was offered to them by their government. They have thought it was offered in good faith. It turned out when they voted for freedom, they were then signing a death warrant on themselves. We are told of how systematically, systematically the military and militia with lists of names of people who supported democracy were taken from their homes and killed, in some cases killed in their homes in front of family and the members of the family were killed. This was a systematic extermination of the forces of democracy in East Timor, and we have got to quit kidding ourselves that somehow the continuation of expanded IMET, of IMET training to these forces, is bringing about democracy. It is bringing about a holocaust of people in East Timor.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Thompson of California, and I rise today to recognize the Napa Solano Building Trades Council as this organization celebrates its 100th anniversary of service to the men and women engaged in the building trades in Northern California. One hundred years ago in September, 1899, the first trade and labor council in Napa and Solano Counties was formed when eleven tradesmen representing five local unions met in the Mechanics Hall in Vallejo to form the Trades and Labor Council of Vallejo, CA. The unions represented at that historic meeting were the Boilermakers Local 148, Carpenters Local 180, Machinist Lodge 252, Shipwrights Local 1068, the Pipe Fitters Union, and the Iron Molders Local 164. The original officers of the Council, President Richard Caverly of the Boilermakers, Vice President N.B. Grace of the Carpenters, Secretary John Davidson of the Shipwrights, Treasurer William Brownlie of the Shipwrights, and Sergeant-at-Arms G.E. Smith of the Carpenters will always be known as the union leaders who started the official labor movement in Solano and Napa Counties. A Charter was granted to the fledgling organization by the American Federation of Labor and signed by President Samuel Gompers on October 9, 1899, making it one of the oldest labor councils in the State of California. The Trade and Labor Council flourished and the original membership increased rapidly. The member unions formed their own councils as well as the Solano Building and Construction Trades Council, the Solano Central Labor Council and the Mare Island Navy Yard Metal Trades Council. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we acknowledge and honor today this pioneering labor organization and the men and women in the building trades in Napa and Solano Counties. These men and women of labor have made an immeasurable difference in the lives of working families.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California Mr

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Mr. Terrence Starr, on the occasion of his retirement as Chief Probation Officer with the Contra Costa County Probation Department. Mr. Starr began his probation career in San Diego County where he worked for 29 years in various capacities, including superintendent of juvenile hall and superintendent of various camp facilities. He served as Chief Probation Officer of Shasta County from 1990 to 1995, and assumed the position of Chief Probation Officer of Contra Costa County in November of 1995. Terry Starr's tenure in Contra Costa County has been brief, but incredibly effective. Over the past four years he has successfully led the effort to secure funding for a badly needed new juvenile hall facility which is expected to be completed in 2003. He expanded the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, the local county-run boys' camp, by 26 beds, and was instrumental in opening the Summit Center. The 25 bed Summit Center, which is an innovative example of successful interagency coordination and cooperation, is staffed and run by the country's probation, mental health and education departments, and offers treatment and assistance to young male offenders who are struggling with serious emotional difficulties. Mr. Starr has most recently developed a 20 bed specialized treatment facility and program for girls, which is comparable to the Summit Center for boys. The Chris Adams Girls' Center is slated to open in December 1999. Mr. Starr has been instrumental in securing numerous grants from both the state and federal government to place probation officers in high schools through out Contra Costa County and to provide much needed treatment services for girls. The leadership abilities Mr. Starr possesses are extraordinary. They have been demonstrated by his successful term as President of the California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association and his appointment by Governor Pete Wilson to serve for several years on the Board of Corrections, representing the Chief Probation Officers of California. Terry Starr is a hardworking, highly principled individual who is a committed and effective advocate for children. Indeed, he has devoted his life to helping those most in need and has made an immeasurable difference in the lives of so many children and their families. He is well-liked and respected by his staff, friends, and colleagues and will be sorely missed by all. It is with great pleasure, albeit with a measure of regret, that I congratulate Terry Starr upon his retirement. I wish him a long, happy, and healthy retirement enjoying the animals and outdoors he so loves.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute two very special individuals, Barbara and Jay Vincent of Richmond, California. Barbara and Jay each deserve recognition in their own right for the countless hours they have individually given to their community. From Barbara's leadership with the PTA, League of Women Voters and the Richmond Planning Commission, to Jay's involvement with the YMCA, Richmond Farmers' Market and the East Brother Light Station restoration, the Vincents' commitment has touched every corner of the City. Yet, perhaps the greatest contribution Barbara and Jay have made to the future of Richmond is their tireless efforts to preserve our region's open space and natural resources. Long appreciating the beauty of the San Francisco Bay and its habitats, the Vincents have worked to ensure that the Richmond shoreline will continue to be accessible and enjoyed by generations to come. It is indeed fitting that the City of Richmond recently honored these efforts by dedicating the Barbara and Jay Vincent Park, a spectacular bayside site with sweeping vistas of San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge, Angel Island, and Mt. Tamalpais. It has been my distinct honor and pleasure to know and work with the Vincents during my tenure in the U.S. Congress. Their personal dedication to community service has always been an exceptional source of inspiration. I know my colleagues join me today in celebrating their many accomplishments, and in expressing our deepest appreciation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering this evening does nothing more than ensure that the current law regarding the funding of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is being followed. It does so by limiting the U.S. contribution to no more than 50 percent of the Tropical Tuna Commission, thereby ending the long-standing taxpayer subsidy of foreign nations who are members and benefit from the work of this commission. There are two principal benefits from this amendment. It ensures countries pay their fair share for the Tropical Tuna Commission of its expenses which they committed to when they signed on to the commission in 1997. The law requires that it frees up money for other international fishing commissions that are already funded below the President's request. Mr. Chairman, in 1949 the United States signed onto a convention establishing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. This commission was designed to coordinate international efforts to maintain a healthy population of tuna and other marine species taken from the eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Currently 11 nations are members of this commission: Costa Rica, Panama, Japan, France, Vanuatu, Nicaragua, Venezuela, El Salvador, Equador, Mexico, and the United States. The Tropical Tuna Commission is involved in many activities that affect all member nations, and there are costs associated with these activities and the convention specifies how the commission should be funded. It says that those countries that harvest more fish pay more. Specifically the commission states: ``The proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each of the high-contracting parties shall be related to the proportion of total catch of the fisheries covered by the Convention and utilized by the high-contracting party.'' This made sense in 1949, and it makes sense today. We paid our share then and we still do now. In fact, we pay a good deal more than our share. Circumstances have changed and changes must be made in our payments. The United States is no longer the largest beneficiary of tuna from the eastern Tropical Pacific. In fact, we only catch about 5 percent of the tuna from this area. And our average utilization over the last 10 years has been around 40 percent. Despite this, the United States continues to pay the lion's share of funding for the Tropical Tuna Commission, as much as 90 percent in recent years. The taxpayers' subsidy of foreign fishing nations must stop, and it is time for these other countries to carry their own weight. In fact, in 1997, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act requires that member countries pay their fair share of the Tropical Tuna Commission. And in fact that same agreement has incentives for them to do so, and it is written into law that clearly states the countries that fail to pay their fair share cannot export their tuna into the United States. Mr. Chairman, all my amendment does is uphold these requirements of the current law. It does not change the 1997 Dolphin Protection Act or the international agreements in any way. It simply assumes a critical provision of law will be enforced. In addition, it has no effect on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, funding for observers, or other activities. The funding for those programs come from fees on the tuna vessels, not from the country contributions. So this in no way impacts the International Dolphin Conservation Program. Regardless of how we feel about modifying the dolphin-safe label, surely we can all agree that our taxpayers should not be underwriting the fishing interest of these other countries. This is a fair position. That is the position that the Senate just over a week ago on a bipartisan vote agreed to 61-35. The money saved will still be available to the State Department to spend on 12 other international fisheries commissions which we belong to and which are funded at $2 million below the President's request in this legislation. So let us not undercut a dozen other important commissions so that our constituents can continue to subsidize countries that refuse to pay their fair share contrary to U.S. law, contrary to the agreement that they entered into on the International Dolphin Conservation. If they get the benefits of the act, they are supposed to pay their fair share. These countries have refused to do so. This amendment would still have the United States picking up 50 percent of the cost of this commission. That will leave the other 10 countries the need to pick up the other 50 percent even though they utilize it far in excess of that amount. I think this is simply about equity for the taxpayers. It is about upholding the agreements that people have entered into. And I think it is an amendment that we should adopt as did the Senate by the bipartisan vote of 61-35. This amendment does nothing more than ensure that current law regarding the funding of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is being followed. It does so by limiting the U.S. contribution to no more than 50 percent of the IATTC budget, thereby ending the longstanding taxpayer subsidy of foreign nations who are members of, and benefit from the work of the Commission. There are 2 principal benefits from this amendment: (1) it ensures countries pay their fair share of IATTC expenses, which they committed to when they signed onto the Commission and as the 1997 law requires; (2) it frees up money for other international fisheries commissions that are already funded below the President's request. Mr. Speaker, in 1949, the United States signed a convention establishing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). This Commission was designed to coordinate international efforts to maintain health populations of tuna and other marine species taken in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Currently 11 nations are members of the commission--Costa Rica, Panama, Japan, France, Nicaragua, Vanuatu, Venezuela, El Salvador, Ecuador, Mexico and the United States. The IATTC is involved in many activities that affect all member nations. And there are costs associate with these activities. The convention specifies how the Commission should be founded. It says that those countries that harvest more fish should pay more. Specially the Convention states: ``The proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each high Contracting Party shall be related to the proportion of the total catch from the fisheries covered by this Convention utilized by the High Contracting Party.'' This made sense in 1949, and it makes sense now. We paid our share then, and we still do now. In fact, we now pay a good deal more than our share. Circumstances have changed and changes must be made to our payments. The United States is no longer the largest beneficiary of tuna from the ETP. In fact, we only catch only five percent of the tuna from the ETP. And our average utilization over the last 10 years is around 40 percent. Despite this, the United States continues to pay the lion's share of funding for the IATTC--as much as 90 percent in recent years. This taxpayer subsidy of foreign fishing nations must stop. It is time for those other countries to carry their own weight. In fact, the 1997 International Dolphin Conservation Program Act requires that member counties must pay their fair share of the IATTC expenses. And there is no incentive for them to do that written into the law which clearly states that countries that fail to pay their fair share cannot export their tuna to the United States. Mr. Speaker, all my amendment does is uphold the requirements of current law. It does not change the 1997 dolphin protection law or the international agreement in any way. It simply assumes a critical provision of that law will be enforced. In addition, it has no effect on the International Dolphin Conservation program funding for observers and other activities. The funding for that program comes from fees on tuna vessels, not from country contributions. Regardless of how we felt about modifying the ``Dolphin Safe'' label, surely we can all agree that our taxpayers should not be underwriting the fishing interests of other countries. That is a fair position the Senate agreed to by a bipartisan vote of 61-35. The money saved will still be available to the State Department to spend on more than 12 other international fisheries commissions to which we belong which are funded at $2 million below the President's request in this bill. So let's not undercut a dozen other important commissions so that our constituents can continue to subsidize countries that refuse to pay their fair share, contrary to U.S. law.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is they pay very little in terms of their participation. We are telling them this is what they signed on to, this is an agreement they agreed to. They are signatories to this operation. We changed it to meet their concerns and so that they can import the tuna in this country, and they agreed. A contract is a contract. They signed a contract saying this is what they agreed they would do. Now they are not doing it. So we end up paying 70 or 80 percent of the cost of this commission. It is not much more complicated than that.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes simply to respond to what the gentleman from Maryland says. This amendment has no impact on his concerns. What this amendment simply says is that these nations who sought to change the law, who sought to change the access to the American market, who signed an agreement to do so, that they keep their word, that the taxpayers of this country get the benefit of that. We have been funding over 90 percent of this. We have not taken anywhere near that amount of tuna over the last 10 years. All of those things that the fishers have to do now in terms of speed boats and monitors, all the rest of that is what they agreed to do because that is what they said they would do in order to get access to the American market. That is why they signed the agreement. That is why you changed the label. That is why we changed the law, so that they could do this. Clearly that is a very small expenditure compared to finally having, after many years, access to the American consumer market. That is the deal. Yes, they will start negotiating. We all know how the international bodies negotiate. They will pick out a lovely city somewhere in the world, they will go there month after month after month after month and 3 or 4 years from now, because this is about negotiating the entire treaty, they will come back to us. In that time the American consumers are going to be out 6, 8, $10 million. That could be used to shore up the other international fisheries commissions that are not properly funded under this legislation or in request with what the President has sought for those. This is not about dolphin safety. All of the things to protect the dolphin are in place under the agreements. This is about the enforcement. One of the conditions to participating in the program is that you meet your commitments under the law in terms of your financial responsibility. These countries have chosen not to do that. Once again, the good old United States comes in and picks up the fall. You have 10 countries that would have to whack up half of the budget, yet they are harvesting 70, 80 percent of all the tuna. This is just a matter about equity for the United States taxpayers. It is that simple.