George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Those are all interesting arguments from my colleague from Maryland. They are just not factual. It is just not the situation as it exists. This is not an agreement to work out payment in the future. This is the treaty. This is what they agreed to: ``The proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each high contracting party shall be related to the proportion of the total catch of the fisheries covered by the covenant.'' That is not what they have agreed to do. They suggest here, well, the dolphin agreement will fall apart. If it falls apart, they lose their access to the American market. They have been trying for a decade to pry that market open. It is now there based upon this agreement. You say they are going to start meeting in October to negotiate these. Every day they do not negotiate them they win because Uncle Sam is picking up the tab. So there is no urgency in this. There is no urgency in this. Why do you not send them a message that we are more than willing to pay our fair share and even then some, but they have to contribute something to this effort? They ought to participate in this. They are getting the benefit. I mean, we argued here for a couple of hours about our unwillingness to pay a debt owed to the United Nations and here we are willing to pay money we do not even owe, that is not even called for under the treaty. This is turning Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker. What is going on here? People signed an agreement, they signed a covenant, they signed a treaty, they signed a contract, they say this is what we are willing to do to have access to the American market and then they do not do it. And so what happens? You go out and you pass the hat among the American taxpayers, we cough up a few million dollars and the bureaucrats and the diplomats just continue on about their way. This has nothing to do with the safety of the dolphin. They have agreed to fish in a dolphin-safe fashion under the guidelines that the gentleman promoted. We had that fight. They also agreed to the terms and conditions of this treaty. If they fish differently, if they start killing dolphins, then they lose the American market, and we know what that means to them. Because that is the biggest financial plum they possibly have. Why do we keep selling the American market so cheap? This is not a lot of money but it is an important principle, it is a very important principle, that people should pay their fair share. Again, we go back to the debate earlier about who is paying their fair share and who is paying too much at the United Nations. Well, this is just a small commission. But if the other countries do not pay their fair share, we pay more here and then other international fisheries commissions do not get the allotment that is necessary to them to do the kinds of protective programs that you say you want. That is why this amendment is supported by the Humane Society, by the Defenders of Wildlife, by the Friends of the Earth, the American Humane Association, the Fund for Animals, because they recognize the need to get these countries to pay their share as they agreed to do. That is the nature of contracts, that is the nature of treaties, that is the nature of binding agreements. What do we have? Do we have an invisible clause that is known only to the diplomats, only to the negotiators that says in the event you decide not to pay, the U.S. treasury will pick up the difference? I do not think so. I do not think that is the way it should be, but that is the way it has been on this commission since 1949. We have been shoveling the money to this commission and these countries have been going along for the ride. Now we have provided a very, very substantial benefit and access to the American markets and we are not requiring that they pay their fair share. Remember, under this amendment, we are picking up 50 percent of the cost. We are harvesting 5 percent of the tuna. So I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are small and they are poor and they are a lot of things. But this is 50 percent of the cost. Do your taxpayer a favor tonight. Support this amendment, support it in the same manner that it was supported in the United States Senate and, that is, on an overwhelming 2-to-1 vote on a bipartisan basis, recognizing the need to enforce the agreement as it is written, as it was agreed to and the need to protect the taxpayer. We talk a lot in these international agreements about mission creep. Well, this is sort of cost creep. The budget keeps going up, they keep agreeing to it, and we just keep laying off a little bit more on the American taxpayer. Let us stop the cost creep. Let us stop the unfairness creep, if you will, and let us go with the guidelines in the treaty. As I say, we will continue to pick up 50 percent. They can then negotiate and they can negotiate whatever terms they want, but the fact of the matter is, we will not be sitting around waiting for them to do that and continuing to dip into the U.S. Treasury on behalf of these countries that have just decided they are simply not going to pay in spite of the fact that this Congress in a dramatic move opened up the best market there is for this tuna and the least expensive market there is for them to get this tuna to market. So when we talk about the expenditures that they might have, we have done them a tremendous favor. I hope it will all work out, and they ought not to take advantage. They ought not to take advantage of our goodwill, they ought not to take advantage of our taxpayers, they ought not take advantage of our patience in terms of complying with this agreement that provided them with such incredible, incredible benefits.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment so that NAFTA will not force California to have to live with MTBE gasoline additives. I rise in support of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment because I believe that state and local governments should be able to act to protect the public interest without being unnecessarily restrained by trade agreements. Increasingly we have seen that international trade agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, instead of promoting high international standards, can undermine the most basic protections for workers and the environment. Federal laws to protect clean air and endangered turtles have been weakened to comply with WTO rulings, and numerous state and local laws are currently threatened. In California alone, 95 laws have been identified as potentially ``WTO illegal'' by the Georgetown University Law Center. Just last month, a Canadian company initiated a NAFTA suit against the state of California's phase out of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has polluted water supplies nationwide. If the Canadian company succeeds, the federal government could sue California to change its law. This amendment would deny funding for that type of lawsuit and thereby protect state and local laws. I think that California, like other states, has a legitimate right to protect the health of its citizens and should not be subject to a lawsuit for this action. Unfortunately, this lawsuit against California's action is just the tip of the iceberg. The laws of many other states and local governments could be challenged next. Potentially trade-illegal are laws to promote recycled materials, encourage the purchase, of local or American goods, and protect human rights. I urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment to ensure that all levels of government are able to act in the public interest without the threat of trade lawsuits.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of this amendment. I do not generally agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma, but I think in this process he has shown a commitment to some of the integrity of what should be a process that is on the level with respect to the numbers. As pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin, clearly this money comes out of Social Security because the surplus the next fiscal year simply is not big enough to withstand the actions that have already been taken. It just stretches the credibility of every Member of Congress to go home to their district and to tell them that we believe that the census is an emergency and therefore it will not count against the caps that were set in 1997. Everybody in the country, I think, knows that those caps were unrealistic. But this is nothing more than a gimmick to get underneath those caps. Now, speaker after speaker has gotten up and told the gentleman that if he does this, there will be no census. Does anybody really believe that? That is not the case. It does not work that way around here. There will be a census and it will be funded. They have told him that it would destroy the census if we did this. Well, one easy way to fix this would be to give the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from Wisconsin unanimous consent to let them remove the emergency designation and then they can go on about their merry way and fund this out of the deficit like they plan to do. But they left the gentleman from Oklahoma no choice but to come here and strike the money. That was not his first choice, it was not the first choice of the gentleman from Wisconsin, but that is where we are because of the Committee on Rules. So unless you want to go home and look like a fool and tell your constituents that you voted to believe that the census is an emergency, you are going to have to support the Coburn amendment. And then this Committee on Appropriations will have to respond to that. They will either remove the designation, at which point I think the gentleman from Oklahoma may be satisfied because we are back on kind of what looks like reality with the American people, or they will have to go back and remove the $1.7 billion or the $2.4 billion, whatever the figure is, that you can say is really an emergency. There are all kinds of options. This is not about doomsday, this is not about killing the census, this is not about destroying the census. It is about the credibility of the budget process, the credibility of the appropriations process, the credibility of the surplus, the credibility of Social Security, and also the credibility of each and every Member of this House when you go home for the August break and tell them you discovered an emergency called the census.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had an opportunity to travel to Vietnam and to talk to members of the business community, to the international environmental community, to workers, to representatives of labor organizations, and to U.S. manufacturers and had an opportunity to travel throughout the country. I think that my conclusion is that the waiver can continue to be justified because of the progress that is being made. I think it is also clear that the waiver helps to empower our ambassador, Pete Peterson, who may be the greatest catalyst for change inside this country, so that he can continue his work to get Vietnam to improve its human rights conditions, to improve its labor conditions, to improve its environmental conditions and so many of the other issues that are of concern to all of us here. This is not about not being concerned about human rights, labor conditions, or any of the rest of it. It is about whether or not we can have a process where we can continue to make progress. Unlike the vote last week on China, where I voted against extending the relationship with China because, in fact, there we have gone backwards, here we have an opportunity to continue the progress forward. We will have much debate on the trade agreement and whether or not that can be justified or not be justified, but the fact of the matter is, in this particular case, the continued waiver for another year so that we can continue to monitor, continue to work with the government of Vietnam on all of these issues, is a positive step that we should and can take today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 so that we might continue the existing waiver of the Jackson-Vanik restrictions as they apply to Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel to Vietnam earlier this year on official business to attend an international environmental conference, to inspect labor conditions at factories that subcontract for United States manufacturers, and to meet with our Embassy officials on a broad range of United States-Vietnam issues. Vietnam today is a country struggling to become a player in the global economic market. It is once again a major agricultural power and is the world's second largest exporter of rice. Hundreds of foreign companies are investing in this nation of 80 million people, the 12th largest population in the world, because of its key role in Asia and its educated and diligent work force. Most of the representatives of American businesses with whom I spoke in Vietnam praise the local business opportunities and actively promote the normalization of economic relations so that trade between the United States and Vietnam, now less than $300 million a year, can expand and investment can flourish. The conditions for waiving Jackson-Vanik are quite specific, and in my view, Vietnam has met those tests and should again be granted the waiver as it was last year by nearly 100 vote margin in the House. Jackson-Vanik was developed to use our economic leverage to force political and immigration reforms, and it has had the desired effect in Vietnam where we have seen significant and steady movement towards expanded emigration. Our Ambassador, who is our former colleague and a distinguished Vietnam veteran, Pete Peterson, has documented broad cooperation by the Vietnamese government with the emigration program and has even noted that in some cases, it has been impossible to fill the slots allocated for some categories of applicants. Ambassador Peterson has also noted expanding religious activity and I was able to observe the expanded construction of churches in northern Vietnam. Lastly, the Vietnamese and United States governments now operate a Joint Task Force that conducts interviews, archaeological digs, genetic testing, and other efforts to locate the remains of United States soldiers and pilots. Nearly 400 remains have been repatriated since the end of the war, several just this past month. Vietnam has a considerable way to go to fully open its economy and bring it into conformity with international standards on transparency. Moreover, I remain concerned by the continued denial of labor rights by the government, including the fundamental right to join an independent labor union. Some of these issues will be addressed when we have the opportunity later this year to debate the United States-Vietnam Trade Agreement. Last week, this House voted on granting normal trade relations to China, and many members took the floor to denounce, rightly I believe, that nation's continued repressive government and its unacceptable human rights record. It is terribly important that, during this current debate, we distinguish what is different in Vietnam from the Chinese example. For Vietnam has made and continues to make major steps forward on economic reform, is cooperating on emigration and MIA issues, and is showing promising signs of political liberalization. If we see retrenchment in Hanoi, then I believe many of those who today are prepared to vote for this waiver and for expanded trade between our countries will reconsider their decision. We vote to waive Jackson-Vanik in recognition of Vietnam's changing political system and to encourage further liberalization. But understand that the Congress and the American people are serious about assuring that open trade is also fair trade: that working men and women in America are assured that their counterparts in Vietnam labor under reasonable conditions and with the enjoyment of basic human and labor rights recognized by international law. The continued waiver of the Jackson-Vanik restrictions should be voted by the House tonight to recognize Vietnam's steady steps towards reform. Similarly, the Congress should expect that the waiver of Jackson-Vanik will promote a continuation of democracy in Vietnam, unlike the China case where despite expanded trade relations, political reform has worsened.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to this legislation. I appreciate the speech just given by the gentlewoman, except this is a little different than the problem she outlined. This is about preventing the injuries to those workers. This is about the fact that if we do this right, those workers will not have to go on workers comp, their employers will not have to pay their health costs, they will not have to pay their compensation costs, and people can stay on the job, and they can feed their families and provide the wherewithal for their children. That is what this legislation is about. To suggest somehow that what we need is one more study, we need good science. The opposition to this legislation is not about good science; it is not about one more study. It is about a flat out opposition to the imposition of these rules and regulations to try to protect workers from musculoskeletal syndrome, and the purpose of that is this, that we can keep people on the job where they can remain productive. Now to listen to the Republican argument here simply we must suspend reality, we must suspend the reality of what every Member of Congress experiences when they fly back to their districts, and that is the number of flight attendants and others who are working on the airplane, delivering meals, taking care of us while we are there, who are wearing wrist braces, elbow braces, tendon braces, all the rest of it because of repetitive motion. The redesign of the carts on the airplanes because of repetitive motion, the baggage handlers and others because of repetitive motion who are wearing belts and back supports and all those kinds of activities because of repetitive motion because they understand that if they do not do that, they are going to end up disabled, they are going to end up with health care costs, and they are going to end up out of work, and their employer understands that. Suspend reality when going into the Home Depot, suspend reality when going into the Price Club or into Costco where we see people engaged in repetitive motion, who are wearing the kinds of preventive apparatus on their backs, on their arms and the rest of it so that they will not lose the working hours; they will not lose that kind of income. Again, their employers understand that, their insurers understand that, and they require that to be part of the workplace. Mr. Chairman, that is what this legislation is really about. It is about the recognition of the reality of the workplace and what we can now do, what we have the ability to do, and what we know from a medical/scientific standpoint will help prevent these kinds of injuries, injuries that plague hundreds of thousands of workers a year who are disabled and lose income, employers who lose the productivity of those workers, who have to train and retrain new people, who have to go out and find replacements for those individuals. That is what this legislation is about. It is not about one more study. We have peer reviewed the evidence here until we are blue in the face. We have provided the studies, and it has been going on and on and on. As somebody mentioned earlier, it was originally Elizabeth Dole who said the time has come now to deal with this problem because of the injuries that were occurring in the workplace. We see this being responded to where we redesign keyboards or structuring for the keyboard that will not induce the kind of pain for people who have to work at it all the time at the checkout counters in the supermarket. We are redesigning the checkout counter so that people, the clerks there, will not suffer these kinds of injuries to their arms and to their elbows as they do their job. So that is the kind of recognition that we are looking for; that is the kind of remedial activities that can be dealt with that can reduce the cost to the employer, can reduce the cost in the workplace and reduce health care costs. That is why it is so urgent that we not pass this legislation which is an attempt to obstruct the imposition of this rule, because this is a rule that workers deserve. This is a rule that workers need, that their families need if they are going to be able to continue to be gainfully employed. The evidence is clear, the science is clear, the health is clear on this measure, and the time has come, the time has come to implement this rule. We have had statements before from the Committee on Appropriations, as I was saying, that the effort was not to delay this. We now see that this is an effort to delay this because the Republicans believe somehow that if they win the election, they can cut a better deal 18 months from now. Well, the better deal is not for the American workers. It may be for the Republican Party, but it is not for the workers. This rule ought to be implemented, it ought to go into force and effect, and we ought to start protecting. We ought to start protecting working men and women in this country who exhibit to us every day in the crafts and the trades and in the occupations in which they are employed at, the need for this rule because of the damage that is done to them. This damage is evident on its face, and that is why we ought to deal with this rule.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Act of June 20, 1910, which provided statehood for Arizona, granted federally owned lands to the new State and created a permanent trust fund into which revenues from these lands are invested. However, the act also placed certain limitations on the fund which have worked over time to prevent the State from managing the trust fund as profitably as possible. H.R. 747 will alter the terms of the trust fund and correct the problem. These changes have been approved by the voters in Arizona, but because they alter the original statehood act, Congress must approve them as well. This measure is almost identical to legislation approved in a previous Congress for the State of New Mexico. It is noncontroversial, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the World Heritage Convention is an international treaty conceived and spearheaded by the United States during the Nixon administration under which countries voluntarily identify culturally and environmentally significant areas within their own borders and promise to continue to protect them. The program is totally voluntary. The land must be protected in order to be nominated. It is not protected after it is nominated. The only power that the World Heritage Committee has is if the country who nominated the site goes back on its promise to protect that area, the committee can drop the site from the list. The Man and the Biosphere program identifies protected areas where scientists can study entire ecosystems and then sets up a framework where those scientists can share their information internationally. The framework documents which control the Man and the Biosphere program and the World Heritage Convention both contain language making clear that they in no way alter the ownership or control of these lands. Since we were the first signatory of the World Heritage Convention in 1973, 152 other nations have followed suit. This convention was not only a promise to live up to our own standards for protecting these sites, it was an invitation to other countries around the world to follow suit. These two programs have established the United States as a world leader in environmental protection and scientific study and the sharing of that information. Killing these programs will not hurt these sites in the U.S. They are already protected and will remain so. Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks will still be national parks if we withdraw from the World Heritage Convention. The Everglades will still be protected if we stop our scientific study under the Man and the Biosphere program. But this action will send a signal around the world that we no longer value the kind of environmental protection and scientific study that we as a Nation pioneered and asked the world community to join. We have seen this amendment a number of times in the last several years and the House has rejected this amendment each and every time because in fact a majority of the House understands the nature of the scientific study, the importance of designating these sites as World Heritage areas, and they also understand that this is a voluntary program. The fact that the process takes place in Belgium or in Paris or somewhere else, this is an international body. This is an international body. So that should not be foreign to the Members of Congress and that is one of the reasons why it is in this legislation. This is an international organization to foster the protection of these huge, huge world class environmental assets. The size of these assets is immaterial. Some of them are there because nations decided that these landscapes, these huge areas should be protected as we did with the Everglades, as we did with Grand Canyon, as we did with Yellowstone. That is the purpose of this program. The international scientific study is there so scientists in one country can help other scientists learn about the kind of protections, about the kinds of programs that work to protect these environmental assets. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is a late-night, backdoor attempt to kill two programs that critics of those programs have been unable to kill in the light of day. Legislation to abolish the Man and the Biosphere and World Heritage Programs failed in 1996 and 1997 and looks like it may fail again this year. So we are here tonight to short circuit the process with a little amendment buried in a huge appropriations bill. The World Heritage Convention is an international treaty, conceived and spearheaded by the United States during the Nixon administration, under which countries voluntarily identify culturally and environmentally significant areas within their own borders and promise to continue protecting them. 1. The program is totally voluntary. 2. The land must already be protected in order to be nominated, it is not protected after its nominated. 3. The only power the World Heritage Committee has is, if the country who nominated the site goes back on its promise to protect that area, the Committee can drop the site from the list. The Man and the Biosphere program identifies protected areas where scientists can study entire ecosystems and then set up a framework where those scientists can share their information internationally. The framework documents which control the Man and the Biosphere program and the World Heritage Convention both contain language making clear that they in no way alter the ownership or control of these lands. So if these programs are so innocuous, what's the big deal if we abandon them? Well, since the United States was the first signatory of the World Heritage Convention in 1973, 152 other nations have followed suit. This convention was not only a promise to live up to our own standards for protecting these sites, it was an invitation to other countries around the world to follow suit. These two programs have established the United States as a world leader in environmental protection and scientific study. Killing these programs won't hurt these sites in the United States. They are already protected and will remain so. Yellowstone and Glacier National Park will still be national parks if we withdraw from the World Heritage Convention and the Everglades will still protected if we stop our scientific study of that area under the MAB program. But, this action will send a signal around the world that we no longer value the kind of environmental protection and scientific study that we pioneered. We would be relinquishing our role as a world leader in the protection and preservation of culturally and environmentally important areas. Why at a time when the Nation is justifiably proud of its role as a world leader in so many areas, would we want to abdicate our role as a world leader in perhaps the most important fight of all, the fight to protect and preserve this planet for generations to come? This amendment is an attempt to short circuit the will of the Congress and it would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world. Oppose the Tancredo amendment.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement into the Congressional Record. On rollcall vote No. 344 on July 29, 1999 I mistakenly voted ``yea.'' I would like the Record to reflect the fact that I oppose the amendment and should have voted ``nay''. The amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia from spending its own funds on a needle exchange program that has saved hundreds of residents from death and disease caused by the HIV-AIDS epidemic. I support such proven programs and oppose efforts by Congress to intrude into the affairs of the District of Columbia in such a misinformed and heavy-handed fashion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation with the changes that have been made in terms of making this program available for the next two hunting seasons. I think that puts the kind of limitation on it that we can monitor and will make it a well-run program. In game bird and wildlife management, some times our best efforts to restore wildlife populations can go awry and produce unintended consequences, and that seems to be the case with mid-continent light geese. No reasonable field biologist who has examined light geese census data disputes the fact that the population of light geese has shot up dramatically over the past decade to a point now where the birds are virtually eating themselves out of their arctic and subarctic nesting habitats. Our own management actions, including the establishment of protective areas and abundance of cereal grain crops, are partly to blame, but so is the natural wariness and reproductive capacity of this species. And so, we are left with the unfortunate reality that in one or another--either through increased human harvest or natural mortality-- population of light geese will be culled in order to prevent widespread habitat deterioration. It is a regrettable circumstance which offers no simple, painless solutions. H.R. 2454 would authorize two emergency regulations proposed earlier this year by the Fish and Wildlife Service to increase the harvest of light geese in States within either the Mississippi and Central flyways. These regulations were broadly supported by a wide range of State and private wildlife and conservation organizations, including Ducks Unlimited and the National Audubon Society. These regulations were withdrawn earlier this year by the Fish and Wildlife Service after a Federal appeals court ruled that the Service needed to complete a full environmental impact statement (EIS) regarding the proposed emergency actions. I commend the Service for voluntary withdrawing their proposed regulations and for recognizing the need to develop a full EIS, and urge the Service to complete this EIS at the earliest possible date. I think it important to note for members that Congress is legislating in this matter solely because all other administrative options available to the Service--under NEPA or any other statute--had been exhausted, and that the only remedy remaining was a legislative fix. This is an important factor driving the need for this legislation. I do appreciate the helpful modifications made to the bill in the Resources Committee. Even improved, the bill does contain two troubling provisions of which I am still concerned. First, the bill would waive all procedural requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). and second, the bill authorizes the use of otherwise outlawed hunting practices, notably the use of electronic calling devices and un-plugged shotguns. However, while I personally disagree with the Congress passing legislation to waive NEPA or to authorize the otherwise illegal hunting methods, and while I remain concerned that these regulations may be too broad, I realize that under the constraints of this specific emergency situation, such provisions may be warranted, if not necessary. Moreover, I am pleased that the Resources Committee amended the bill to include an expiration date of May 15, 2001, or earlier if the Service files its final EIS before that date, to limit the duration of this emergency action. And while I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service will act in good faith to complete the EIS at the earliest possible date, I also believe that a fixed expiration date is necessary to ensure that a temporary action does not inadvertently become permanent. I look forward to the Service completing its EIS, and I hope that this additional analysis will provide other alternatives to address the overabundance of light geese in a less indiscriminate manner and without requiring Congress to pass legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 695 by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 20 acres of both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land, including real property on the land, on the Carson National Forest in San Juan County, New Mexico, to San Juan College in Farmington, New Mexico. The ``Old Jicarilla Site,'' as it is known, contains a surplus and abandoned ranger station. The college would pay for all lands in accordance with the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and use the site for educational and recreational purposes. The bill represent a bipartisan effort both in the House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support it. I would like to take the time to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) on his sponsorship of this piece of legislation in an effort to get it passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 1104 is a minor housekeeping measure to authorize the National Park Service to transfer jurisdiction over approximately one acre of land to the National Archives to enable construction of a joint visitor center facility at the Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site in Hyde Park, NY. It is our understanding that the site in question has been mutually agreed upon by the two agencies and that the funds have already been appropriated to construct the joint-use facility. Mr. Speaker, both the National Park Service and the National Archives and Records Administration testified in favor of this legislation, and we are unaware of any controversy and we support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is a rather interesting argument that the Republicans make so that they can pass their tax bill to give the vast majority of its benefits to the wealthiest people in this country, and that is they must give the money to the wealthy so that the Congress will not spend the money. It is interesting because there can be no expenditures of that money without Republican votes. Last time I looked this morning, the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the House, but they keep saying, You have to stop me before I spend again. It is the Republicans' Committee on Appropriations that is coming up with phony emergencies. They now want to say that the census was an emergency. We could not predict it, we could not see it, we did not know it was coming. That is funny; it has come every 10 years. For the last 200 years of this country we have had a census in this country, but somehow now it is an emergency spending so that they can break the caps, so they can spend the surplus supposedly there for Social Security. Every day now they are dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund to spend more and more money. So the Republicans are saying, You got to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people, otherwise they will spend the money. Sort of like the son of Sam who was saying, Stop me before I kill again. Stop them before they spend again.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for offering this amendment. I would hope that the point of order would not lie. This is becoming an increasingly important and dangerous situation. We have been working on this now for the last several years. Clearly, a number of the solutions that have been proposed are simply inadequate for the protection of the drinking water supply from those who take their water from the Colorado River. I think the gentleman is quite correct. This is now getting to an emergency state of affairs here where we have so many people depending upon this water and we have what clearly is a continuation of the leaching of this radioactive material. The simple capping of this in place and failure to remove it is not going to work. I think the gentleman's amendment is quite on point.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this debate I think makes the exact point that the ranking member on the committee is trying to make with his amendment, and that is that this ought to be hashed out in the policy committee where all sides can be heard on this as opposed to proposing this amendment, if my colleagues will, in the eleventh hour of this consideration. I think this committee has done a remarkable job with this legislation given the terrible lack of resources that they have had available to them under the budget constraints to deal with the problems that all the Members have tried to deal with. But clearly in this particular case this language is flawed because it simply comes in in the middle of the process, if my colleagues will, or very near the end of the process, and takes the demands of one constituency to what has been a long-running argument in this country about how we process permits dealing with the protection, the enhancement and conservation of wetlands, and puts the thumb of the committee on one side of the scales of justice here, if my colleagues will, and decides that, in fact, that those who do not think that the Corps is going to respond to them now come to the committee and get it done by edict with no hearing, with no chances for the other side to be heard on this matter. And that is the reason that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) are quite right in offering this amendment. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have already attested to the damage that has been done under the current process and the need to change that process. And the Corps is going through a very deliberative process to make sure that all sides, in fact, have been heard. And we have listened to the testimony of how many tens of thousands of people have testified in organizations on this amendment, I mean on the process by the Corps to change the nationwide permit program that we have under section 26, and we ought to fully understand that that is a process that then the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or the Committee on Appropriations can deal with through hearings. But that is not this process. This process is to render a verdict on a claim that is made, that somehow this will change, this will change the equities, if my colleagues will, of when people can appeal this process, when they can make that determination. One of the things we clearly found out was that at three acres at a time we were gobbling up tens of thousands of acres of wetlands in the current process or the old process, if my colleagues will. Small does not necessarily mean that wetlands are not important, it does not mean that they are not significant. The fact of the matter is that they have to be reviewed and they have to be considered that. The Corps also found out that a considerable period of time is being dealt with this question based upon acreage that really does not render a proper judgment, and that is why they are moving to this activity- based system of wetlands that will hopefully give people greater confidence and greater certainty in that process. And that is why we should support this amendment, because to come in now clearly, as my colleagues can already see, whether it is from the Corps or whether it is from FEMA or other parts of the administration, this has the potential to threaten this entire bill because people have not been able to be heard or make their case on this matter. I have had meetings on this exact point with many members in our community, but I have to tell my colleagues I do not think that many of the people that I have met with would think that this a terribly fair way to resolve that process in this legislation without an ability to offer amendments other than what the committee would agree to here in the case of Mr. Boehlert's, which is clearly an improvement of this. But the Visclosky amendment still ought to be voted on by the House, and it ought to be passed by the House so that we can get back to a thoughtful process that the Corps is currently engaged in. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment. I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that would strengthen our national educational system by addressing the most important education issue facing the country, teacher quality. My legislation will provide a financial bonus, in the form of a tax exemption, to qualified teachers who teach in schools where fifty- percent or more of the children qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. There are many things we can do to increase teacher quality, and some steps are being attempted now through other legislation. But one of the most concrete and important steps we can take is to create real financial incentives for qualified individuals to teach in high-poverty schools. For high poverty schools, attracting and retraining well-qualified teachers is a critical part of a comprehensive strategy to close the achievement gap between rich and poor students and between minority and non-minority students. Schools serving low-income students have far too few adequately qualified teachers. Research suggests that this is one of the primary reasons that the achievement of low-income students lags behind that of more affluent students. This achievement gap is both unnecessary and dangerous. All children can achieve at high levels if they are taught at high levels. The achievement gap threatens not only the life chances of millions of low- income students but also the civic and economic health of the country as a whole. It is incumbent upon us to act quickly and decisively to correct it. We have heard much about nationwide ``teacher shortages.'' Indeed, the U.S. Department of Education estimates that schools will need to hire 2 million teachers over the next decade. But the real problem is not absolute teacher shortages, but rather shortages in specific geographical areas and in certain academic subjects. In particular, there is a dearth of teachers in particular subject areas--such as special and bilingual education, mathematics, and science. And there is a shortage of qualified teachers in underfunded schools, particularly in urban and rural districts. For example, in the largest local educational agency in my Congressional district--the West Contra Costa County Unified School District--62% of all teachers hired this year are college interns or are teachers with emergency credentials. Because West Contra Costa is not as affluent as other neighboring school districts, and therefore cannot offer the same salaries and working conditions, it faces serious challenges in competing for qualified teachers. Furthermore, even within the same school district, where schools offer the same salary schedules, emergency-certified teachers are overwhelmingly concentrated in the highest poverty schools. While the high-poverty schools 50% or more of the entire faculty is under- qualified, in other schools, just miles away, all teachers are fully- credentialed. I believe that higher pay, along with ongoing professional development and support, especially for new teachers, can go a long way in leveling the educational playing field. Boosting pay in key professions is widely recognized as an effective strategy for maintaining quality. For example, the House Defense Appropriations bill for the Fiscal Year 2000 contains $300 million in bonuses to help retain qualified Air Force pilots. We need to mount a similar effort nationwide to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers so that all children, regardless of where they live or their family background, have the opportunity for a world- class education. My legislation would exempt the first $40,000 in salary for teachers teaching academic subjects in high-poverty schools--schools in which at least 50% of the students enrolled qualify for the free or reduced price lunch programs. It would increase take-home pay by about $5,900 for a qualified single teacher with the average national teacher salary of $40,000. In order to qualify for the exemption, teachers who provide instruction would have to be qualified to provide instruction in each and every academic course they teach. Elementary school teachers would have to demonstrate teaching skill and general subject matter knowledge required to teach effectively in reading, writing, mathematics, social studies, science, and other elements of a liberal arts education. Middle school and secondary school teachers would have to demonstrate a high level of teaching skill and subject matter knowledge in the subjects they teach either by attaining passing scores on academic subject area tests or by holding a bachelor's degree with an academic major in each of the subject areas in which they provide instruction. Qualified special education teachers and bilingual teachers also would be eligible for the exemption. I believe a teacher salary tax exemption is an ideal way to solve several critical problems. It would strengthen education, and address the most important education issue facing the country, by steering high quality teachers to underperforming schools. And it would provide targeted tax relief to the middle class rather than an open-ended tax cut that benefits wealthier Americans without solving any critical particular social problem. U.S. teachers teach more hours per day than their counterparts in other countries and take more work home to complete at night, on the weekends and holidays. At the same time, U.S. teachers must go into substantial debt to become prepared for a field that pays less than virtually any other occupation requiring a college degree. I believe taxpayers are willing to direct additional resources to raise teacher salaries to a level commensurate with teachers' knowledge and skills and with the important role they play in our society. But I also think the public wants and deserves to know that such funds are being spent in an effective and responsible manner that results in improved academic achievement for students. That means tying increased pay to teacher qualifications and deploying our most talented teaches in the areas that are having the most difficult time attracting and retaining them. I look forward to working with my colleagues in passing this important legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is rather fitting that we are here late at night, because for weeks we have heard from conservative Republicans how they were upset about the failure of their bill to provide for debt reduction. Then we heard from the moderate Republicans how they were concerned about the size of the tax cut and the failure to meet deficit reduction and some of the programs they were worried that were going to be sacrificed on the alter of this trillion dollar tax cut. Somewhere tonight, they lost the courage of their convictions. On the way to the Committee on Rules, they lost their convictions. But I should say to them, do not fear. The leadership will respect you in the morning. The Speaker said that tonight we are doing something to the American people that has not been done to them in a long, long time. He is right. It has been 18 years since the last time in the middle of the night we passed a Republican tax bill that set this Nation on a sea of red ink, unlike anything we have ever seen. Never had we had a deficit larger than $70 billion, and until Bill Clinton came to office, we were headed for $400 billion deficits every year, each and every year, each and every year. Mr. Speaker, I guess the Republican Party has not learned from history, but the American family has, because they have experienced in the last 8 years the greatest economic recovery since the Second World War, maybe in our history. More of them are working, earning more money; they are buying more houses, more automobiles; they are able to educate their children, because interest rates and inflation are low. But my Republican colleagues have decided tonight, after beating their Members around the head, that they will take out the dice and roll them. They will play dice with the American economy. They will play dice with people's ability in the future to refinance their homes, to pay for their college educations, to take care of their parents, to take care of their children, to provide a first-class elementary and secondary education. That is what my colleagues put at risk tonight with this trillion dollar and soon-to-be $3 trillion tax cut. That is the sea of red ink that my colleagues threaten to launch in this Nation again, and my colleagues should not be allowed to do it. They should take care of the people's money. They should take very good care of the people's money. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party should take care of the American people's money.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting on the answer. Mr. Chairman, every Member of the House ought to support the Goodling amendment, because it does, in fact, dramatically strengthen the legislation that we had in committee. It does provide for increases in accountability and improvements in teacher quality items within the legislation. I think it is a very important amendment, because it embodies what all of us have been saying on both sides of the aisle, that questions of simple class size are not enough; that it is not enough that students spend either more hours with or there is fewer students with an unqualified teacher. What we must put in the front of the classroom are qualified teachers. This legislation with the Goodling amendments, for the first time, demands that local school districts put qualified teachers into the classroom. It demands, for the first time, that we hold school districts accountable, which is the basic purpose of this legislation, and EFCA and that is, in fact, that we close the gap between rich and poor, between minority and majority in this country, and that we hold districts accountable for doing that. Up until the time that this amendment is offered and up until the time that this legislation is passed, we have put $120 billion into this program. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has reminded us time and time again, that money has been sent out, and we never asked, we never asked that the teachers in the classroom be qualified. We said one of the purposes was to close the gap between majority and minority students, but nobody was ever held accountable for it. What we now know and what we have witnessed now over many, many years is that poor and the minorities continue to be held back in this educational system because they do not have qualified teachers and the majority races ahead. We also know from years of research and understanding of how children learn that all of those poor children and all of those minority children can, in fact, learn at the same rate and with the same degree as children in suburban schools, middle class schools, or upper income schools if we do two things. If we reduce class sizes, and we put well-qualified teachers and a first class curriculum in front of those children, they will learn and they will learn at the same rate. We need not accept those losses. The Goodling amendment is the first step to doing this, and every Member of this House ought to support this amendment. I will be supporting the Martinez substitute because of the targeting provisions, but we will talk about that later.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today after the adoption of the rule, we will have the debate on what I believe is a historic bill in this sense; that we have been funding the Title I program and Teacher Improvement Program now for several decades, and never during the process of that program did we ever ask that they use this money to hire qualified teachers and that the States, in fact, put a qualified teacher in every classroom. This legislation, both the Martinez substitute and the bipartisan bill, requires both of that. At the same time, it also makes it very clear that we carry out the intent of the ESEA bill, which was to provide Federal assistance to close the gaps between educationally disadvantaged young children and others in our society. Yet as we continue to measure it, the gap continues to widen all over the country. For the first time in the 30-year history of this program, we are asking the school districts be measured and be held accountable for closing the gap between majority students and minority students and between rich students and poor students so that in fact all students can learn under our system. We know that the biggest single factor in the ability of a child to learn in our educational system is the quality of that teacher; yet we find ourselves throughout this country saddled with tens of thousands of teachers that are not qualified to teach in the core subject matters in which they are teaching. This legislation says that the Federal money ought to be used for that. This Federal legislation also preserves the President's program for 100,000 teachers. I would prefer to preserve it as the Martinez substitute, which will be offered later, does. But the fact of the matter is it is also very logical to look at the way the bipartisan bill does this, which says schools must use this money for class size reduction; but if they cannot hire competent teachers, they do not have the facilities to do it properly, then they can use the money until such time to go ahead with teacher development, improvement, and training, all of the things we know are absolutely essential all over this country to improve the professionalism of our teacher core and to make sure they are in fact certified and qualified to teach in their core subject. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting for the Martinez substitute. I will also be voting without reservations other than the targeting matters for the bipartisan Goodling substitute that will be offered later this afternoon. I would hope that Members would focus on the issues of teacher quality and accountability, because for far too often, we have put in over $125 billion into this program and we have neither gotten teacher quality out of this program nor have we gotten the accountability of school districts for improvement of the students which the money is designed to help. I would urge Members to consider, certainly on our side of the aisle, voting for the substitute, also voting for the bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Georgia who was just at the microphone talking about how the Republicans are working on an agenda and one of the parts of their BEST program was saving Social Security. I also note with interest that right after the Republicans passed their $3 trillion tax bill, the Wall Street Journal wrote that in order to pay for it, they are going to have to dip into Social Security and take $25 billion out of Social Security to pay for this tax bill. The fact of the matter is that America is enjoying the greatest economy in the history of our country, the longest economic recovery since the Second World War, we have more people working, more people are buying houses, more people are entering the workforce from people who historically have not been able to find a place in our economy than any time in the country and we have had relatively low interest rates. All of that has happened since the 1993 economic program of the Clinton-Gore administration when this Congress took a courageous vote but was only able to pass it with Democratic Members of the House and Senate, not a single Republican voted for that. When we voted for that and the Clinton-Gore plan passed, they said that everything was going to go downhill, that interest rates were going to soar, that people were going to be unemployed, the economy is going in the tank, the Dow is going to crash. None of that has come to pass over the last 8 years. It has taken us 20 years to get out of the hole that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts put us in in 1981. In 1981, we had a huge tax cut that we could not afford. It was sort of like increasing your kids' allowance after you have been unemployed. It sounds good, but it does not make a lot of sense. For 20 years, we have tried to dig our way out of that hole. For the first time we are now looking at surpluses and we are looking at surpluses over the coming years. But what the Republicans are asking us to do is to take all that economic prosperity, to take those low interest rates, to take that job creation, to take that employment, to take those new homes and roll the dice with those with the tax bill that is $800 billion in the first 10 years and then goes to $3 trillion in the second 10 years. Now, in order to do that, they tell you that everything is going to stay the same over the next 15 years. You have to believe that nothing is going to change in a negative fashion over the next 15 years. But if you go back to the Wall Street Journal, we already see that the Republicans are starting to think of ways of breaking the current budget caps because they cannot live within them. But the surplus that they want to give people back in tax cuts is predicated upon the fact that those budget caps will not only be enforced at their current levels, they will be reduced so there will be less spending, and yet the Republicans are trying to figure out ways to increase the spending this year because they cannot live under the cap. I think the American people are on to something. When we look at all of the data, what the American people are saying is we know we have a $5 trillion debt that has been run up over the past history of this country. Now the sun is shining on our economy and people are working and they are buying houses and taxes are being generated. Why do we not pay down the debt? Why do we not save that $150 billion in interest? Why do we not take that interest and apply it to the debt just like a family would if they had a windfall? You would pay off the MasterCard, you would pay off the Visa bill, you would try to get out of debt; and the interest you save, you might use to buy your kids some clothes or you might use for whatever purposes you want. And the interest you save on low interest rates would be applied to your family income. You would be able to refinance your home that so many millions of Americans already have under this economic recovery. For all of this we are going to pass a $3 trillion tax bill that the Washington Post tells us mainly benefits relatively few people. The wealthiest people in the country get most of that tax cut. But what does it put at risk? It puts at risk every family's well-being. Because even Alan Greenspan said that if he had his way, he would not cut taxes, he would not increase spending, he would just take the savings we are making now in the surplus and apply it to the debt and let the surpluses continue to run because he knows that not every day is going to be a sunny day for the American economy. The clouds are going to come, the economic cycles are going to reoccur and we are going to have some bad times. What better to go into bad times with than a little bit of extra in your savings account to tide you over? Just like a family does, that is what a Nation has to do. We are going to have some options over tomorrow and the next day. We can decide whether we are going to be prudent, whether we are going to take care of this economic recovery, whether we are going to allow it to last longer so more people can participate, or whether we are going to pick up those dice and just roll them out there on the crap table and see whether we can put it all at risk. I vote to believe. I vote to believe that we ought to be prudent, that we ought not to take Social Security and Medicare and the education of our children and put it at risk because, understand, if you take the Republican proposal, and you take a $3 trillion tax cut, there is no money for anything else. That is why again, as the Wall Street Journal points out, they are already trying to play shenanigans with the spending programs to hide spending; they are already prepared to go in and take $25 billion out of a Social Security Trust Fund that is already broke. That is how they finance their tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a program that American families want to endorse.