George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, many Members have come down to this floor and commented on a number of good projects in this bill, and that is, in fact, accurate. But many Members who have good projects in this bill will be opposing this legislation because they understand that they are being used; that they are being held hostage to get some very bad pieces of legislation enacted into law. In fact, many of the organizations that are supporting many provisions that are in this bill oppose this bill because they understand that the harm that will be done by this bill is greater than the good that will be done by those provisions, many of which have bipartisan support. They also understand that this legislation, that a good portion of these bills, in fact, have received no hearings. Some 33 provisions of this legislation have received no hearings, 62 provisions have never been reported from committee, and yet we are told at the end that we have to take these provisions so that we can have a few good pieces, in many cases noncontroversial pieces of legislation, pass. That is not the way this place should work and that is not the way it will work. Why? Because there is another way to do this. We started negotiations about this legislation, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and others started negotiation separate from ours about this. We told them there were things we thought should be put in this bill. They took those things but they refused to take any of the bad pieces out. They kept trying to add more things to it that were better in this bill so they could continue to pull the bad pieces of legislation with it. It has turned out that that simply will not work. The people understand that and the environmental organizations understand that. That is why they are opposing it. The administration understands that. That is why the administration is opposing it. That is why it has been recommended that the President veto this legislation. Members have said, well, 2 years ago we did the same thing. No, 2 years ago we did not do the same thing. Two years ago we had this kind of bill and we could not even get it to the floor of the Congress. Then, later, we negotiated it out in real negotiations, between Members of each side and the administration, and we worked basically on a bill that passed overwhelmingly and was noncontroversial with huge bipartisan support. That is the way this legislation should work. We should not be coming here at the last minute and lumping in water projects, lumping in bad environmental projects, lumping in projects that have had no hearings, that have not gone through the committee process, that we do not know the cost of them, that waive environmental laws, that waive all kinds of planning and process that are necessary to protect the environment. In fact, many of the local organizations that have supported these projects in many instances did so because they believed that they would continue to have a local voice in how those projects were designed and what the benefits were and what the detriments were so they could have a project they are proud of. Now we have legislation that, in fact, waives many of those provisions for that kind of planning and environmental review of these projects. That is why this legislation should be rejected. That is why this legislation should be rejected on a bipartisan basis, because it is not about whether or not a few of the provisions in here that are noncontroversial, that are bipartisan in their support, that have support from the administration are good or not, it is the fact that this legislation has numerous, numerous components of it that are offensive to environmental policy, that are offensive to environmental planning, and that are, in many cases, offensive to local communities that oppose them. Those bills ought to be brought to this floor and they ought to be debated in the light of day. They may still pass on a majority vote, but they ought not to be put in this bill to sink this bill down so that it cannot happen. The best thing we can do for people who want provisions passed is to kill this bill and then get on with the negotiations to negotiate a bill that, in fact, upholds the standards of environmental policy in this country, that will pass the administration's review and will have bipartisan support and then can pass the Senate. If this bill goes over to the Senate in the number of days left, given the controversy in the bill, we will end up with nothing. We will end up with nothing. So the point is, if we really and truly want our projects, what we should do is understand that we ought to negotiate from a good bill, not trying to add things on to a very bad bill and hoping that that will make it pass. I ask for the Members to oppose this legislation, to join the administration, to join the taxpayer organizations, and to join the environmental organizations in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The supporters of this legislation have been promoting it as noncontroversial, bipartisan initiative that is good for the environment. It simply is not true. It is misrepresentation of what is in this legislation. This is a very bad environmental bill with some noncontroversial items in it to try to provide the camouflage so the Members will pass this legislation. But let us make it very clear from the beginning: the administration opposes this legislation, the major environmental groups in this country oppose this legislation, The League of Conservation Voters oppose this legislation, and this legislation ought to be rejected. Yes, we can do a major parks bill at the end of this session, but we must do it based upon noncontroversial measures with bipartisan support. It is said that this legislation has bipartisan support. Let us also understand that it has strong bipartisan opposition to this matter. Why? Because many of these measures have not gone through committee. They have not received hearings. They have been brought up at the last minute in spite of the fact that we have had an awful lot of time in this Congress to deal with these kinds of items. Because it also contains some very contentious measures that, if brought out here on their own, would simply not pass, and that is why they are put in this legislation to see whether or not, in fact, they can package a bill that would be passed. We ought to take the packaging off this legislation and understand exactly what it is, and that is that it is a very bad bill for the environment and without support either in the House or in the Senate.

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) be allowed to control 10 minutes of the 30 minutes allotted to me.

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, this rule is adequate for this purpose. It does provide for an amendment. Obviously, the problem is that this bill cannot be amended in such a fashion to make it a better bill. We have declined to offer an amendment. We think the bill should be defeated. It should be defeated because it is contrary to the procedures of this House. It is contrary to sound environmental policy. It has many, many bad provisions in it. It also has some very good provisions in it. Unfortunately, those good provisions are being used as bait. They are being used to try to enable some bad things to happen in this legislation, and to provide camouflage for the underlying provisions in this bill that are very bad policy. That is why the administration has said it will recommend a veto of this legislation, should it pass. The reason Members ought to listen to this recommendation is so we do not go through this charade and then end up with nothing. The fact of the matter is there are many, many portions of this bill sponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle that are noncontroversial, that have bipartisan support, and that can be dealt with and passed out of the House almost immediately on unanimous consent. We can deal with those pieces of legislation. There are others that have had no hearings that we know very little about, or are so controversial that they simply drag the whole package down. So Members can make a decision. They can vote ``no'' on this. Then we can concentrate on passing legislation that will be without controversy, that will address the needs of many, many Members, or they can continue the charade that somehow this bill is going to pass, when many of the Senators who are responsible for the jurisdiction of this bill have indicated that the Senate will not give consideration to it. Unfortunately, the Senate has passed some noncontroversial portions of this bill and sent them off to the President. So the constituency for this bill is declining, and the controversy is increasing. That does not sound like a formula for success at the end of the session. The fact of the matter is we have had all of this year in which many of the provisions of this bill could have been brought before us and then we could have dealt with them. But at the end of the session, this is a veto. It is unacceptable. It is bad policy, and I would urge all Members to vote against it and understand that not only the administration, but all major environmental groups oppose this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to strongly support this major piece of legislation that has been nearly six years in the making. I wish to compliment Congressman Faleomavaega for all of the hard work and energy he has spent on this bill in the last four years. I know that he has personally met with a number of Indian tribes seeking recognition and was involved with the important White House meeting with a broad coalition of non-recognized tribes in January of 1995. His staff, in particular, Marty Yerick, has worked countless hours along with my committee staff to get this bill to a point where it now enjoys tribal and Administration support. I would also like to compliment the attorneys who have helped with this process, including Arlinda Locklear, and many of the staff at the Native American Rights Fund. As you know, the past two Congresses have not been a hotbed of legislative activity that could be said to actually benefit Native Americans. Just about anyone can who has been watching Congress lately can see that Indian tribes, the leadership of the Resources Committee, and the Administration have been spending a lot of energy fighting measures that would erode tribal sovereignty. Compared with the 103rd Congress, and Congresses before that, there has been a dearth of pro- Indian legislation. In fact, I am hard-pressed to name more than one major piece of Indian legislation signed into law these last two Congresses. But, fortunately, this is different. This is a major piece of legislation that will have resounding impact across the country. This is legislation that is historic and long overdue. We have a chance, as a Congress to finally make some positive strides in terms of our relationship with the Native American tribes of this country and I hope that we take full advantage of the few chances that we get whenever they come our way. As previously described, this bill revamps the federal recognition process for Indian tribes that is now handled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. We are making this change for five significant reasons. First, the BIA is inherently biased against adding new tribes to its existing budget. Second, the process is too expensive--costs per tribe range from $300,000 to $500,000. Third, the process is too lengthy--the BIA completes an average of 1.3 petitions a year, meaning it will take more than a century to finish pending applications. Fourth, the process does not provide petitioners with due process (i.e. cross examination, and an on-the-record hearing. Fifth, the same experts who conduct research on a petitioner's case are also the judge and jury in the process. In a recent case, a federal court found that the BIA's procedures were ``marred by both lengthy delays and a pattern of serious procedural due process violations.'' H.R. 1154 would eliminate bias and conflict of interest by establishing an independent three member commission outside of the BIA to review tribal recognition petitions. H.R. 1154 also provides tribes with the opportunity for formal, on-the-record hearings. Records relied upon by the Commission will be made available in a timely manner to petitioners. In addition, H.R. 1154 affirms the precedential value of prior BIA recognition decisions and makes the records of those decisions readily available to petitioners. The bill also sets strict timelines for action on pending petitions. In addition, H.R. 1154 streamlines and objectifies the recognition criteria by aligning them with the legal standards in place prior to 1978 laid out by Assistant Solicitor Felix S. Cohen in the 1942 Handbook of Federal Indian Law. H.R. 1154 would require a petitioning tribe to prove: (1) that it and its members have been identified as Indians since 1934; (2) that it has exercised political leadership over its members since 1934; (3) that it has a membership roll; and (4) that it exists as a community by showing at least one of the four following requirements: (a) distinct social boundaries; (b) exercise of communal rights with respect to resources or subsistence activities; (c) retention of a native language or other customs; or (d) that it is state-recognized tribe. The Administration had informally indicated certain objections to the criteria of H.R. 1154 as introduced. Principally, the Administration viewed H.R. 1154 as a dramatic departure from the criteria in the acknowledgment regulations which, if enacted, would disservice the goal of consistency in policy in this area. Thus, Congressman Faleomavaega invited representatives of the Department of the Interior to discuss how the goal of reform could be accomplished without a complete break from the regulations. As a result of this discussion, two sets of changes were made to the H.R. 1154 criteria at mark up. The first set of changes relate to the structure of the criteria. The acknowledgment regulations contain seven mandatory criteria, while H.R. 1154 contained fewer mandatory criteria and allowed petitioners options for proof as to some criteria. In the interest of maintaining consistency, the substitute bill adopts the structure of the regulations--it requires that tribes prove the same mandatory criteria that the present acknowledgment regulations require. However, the substitute bill uses 1934 as the starting point in time for the mandatory criteria just as did the original bill. The second set of changes relate to the terms of the mandatory criteria. Since the goals of reform are to shorten the review process, make the process more open, and make the outcome of the process more predictable, it was necessary to tighten the criteria themselves and eliminate the need for subjective determinations. To that end, the criteria are redefined as follows in the substitute bill: 1. Indian identity--defined substantially the same as in the acknowledgment regulations, with the exception that absence of evidence of Indian identity resulting from official acts or policy of the Federal or relevant state government shall not be the basis for declining acknowledgment. 2. A distinct community--defined substantially the same as in the acknowledgment regulations. This criterion did not appear in H.R. 1154 as introduced, but was added in the substitute so that the criteria track those of the acknowledgment regulations. Experience with this criterion under the regulations, though, shows that it requires subjective determinations by staff, with results that appear inconsistent from one petitioner to the next. The substitute bill deals with this problem by adding quantifiable indicia that shall be deemed conclusive proof of community, such as measurable geographic proximity and in-marriage rates. In addition, community can be demonstrated in the substitute bill by certain forms of proof of political influence, just as under the acknowledgment regulations. As a result, in some cases criteria 2 and 3 will merge into one. 3. Political influence--defined substantially the same as in the acknowledgment regulations. As with community, though, this criterion requires subjective determinations by staff. Again, the substitute bill deals with this problem by adding objective indicia that shall be deemed conclusive proof of community, such as a continuous line of leaders recognized by a state government. 4. A copy of the group's governing document--defined substantially the same as in the acknowledgement regulations. 5. Descent from historic tribe(s)--defined substantially the same as in the acknowledgment regulations. This criterion has been troublesome in application since it essentially requires a petitioner to demonstrate tribal existence from the time of first sustained white contact, even though the other criteria expressly require proof of each since 1900 only. The substitute bill deals with this problem by establishing a presumption of continuous existence that arises from proof of descent from an Indian entity since 1934. In addition, the substitute bill lists types of evidence that are acceptable for proof of descent, evidence that includes first hand professional research or reports about the group in addition to genealogical records. 6. Petitioner's members are not members of other tribes--defined substantially the same as in the acknowledgment regulations. 7. Proof that the tribe has not been terminated by Congress--appears as the seventh mandatory criterion in the acknowledgment regulations. This requirement does not appear as a mandatory criterion in the substitute bill. However, section 5(a)(3) of the substitute bill expressly excludes terminated tribes from the act. The net affect of changes made to the criteria in the substitute bill are twofold. First, it utilizes the basic framework of the acknowledgment regulations by requiring that petitioners demonstrate the same mandatory criteria. This provides for some consistency in policy with the last twenty years' administration under the acknowledgment regulations. Second, it limits the time period for which petitioners must demonstrate the criteria and minimizes the need for subjective evaluation of data by staff. This provides for a speedier process and one that produces consistent results from one petitioner to the other. Finally, the substitute includes new provisions that more accurately reflect the historic experience of non-federally recognized tribes and insure that tribes will not pay the cost for federal and state efforts to suppress or outlaw tribalism at various times in history. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and actually, somewhat relieved that we have finally gotten back to the point we were two Congresses ago, passing recognition legislation out of the House. I hope that the Senate will take prompt action on this bill and send this to the President this year. I believe that this is a historic opportunity to right some of the wrongs visited upon the nearly two-hundred tribes that still seek recognition. By making the process by which the Executive Branch acknowledges their existence fairer and clearer, we will ensure that this country resumes the government-to-government relationship and trust responsibility owed many of these tribes.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, next week, President Clinton will sign the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, passed unanimously by both the House and Senate earlier this week. This is, on balance, a good bill that will make a real difference in the lives of our Nation's students. With the Higher Education Act, we have established a proud tradition over the last 34 years of providing opportunities to millions of Americans--giving them the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in their careers and to be active and productive citizens. Above all, we have given these millions of Americans, particularly those with lower- incomes, life options they simply would not have had otherwise. That is something we can all be proud of. Student Interest Rate This most prominent feature of this bill is the lowering of the student loan interest rate. Under this bill, a student with an average student loan debt of $13,000 will save $700 in interest payments. Students with higher burdens of debt will save even more. This is a good deal for students and for parents who help pay for their children's education. Unfortunately, this bill continues what I, and many others, consider to be unnecessarily high subsidies to the banks and guaranty agencies that participate in the student loan program. I seriously question the fairness of the burden that, as a result, will continue to fall on our nation's taxpayers. In this authorization, we have shaved slightly the rate of return to banks. But since we went much further in lowering the rate that students pay, we had to come up with more than a billion dollars to makes up the difference to maintain the hefty profits that banks in the student loan program enjoy. Ironically, a great deal of the cost will be born by students who are least able to afford it, those with loan debt who encounter financial hardship. It did not have to be that way. Earlier this year, the Treasury Department published a thorough and detailed analysis which showed that we could have gone much farther in reducing interest rates while still keeping the program profitable for lenders. Unfortunately, Congress chose to largely ignore this report. One of the problems in finding the ``right'' interest rate is that if Congress were to go too far in cutting rates, it would risk causing a major withdrawal of bankers from student lending, which would be very disruptive to students and parents. One would hope to be able to rely on information from the lending community in making such a determination, but instead the banks have traditionally played a game of chicken in which they have threatened to leave the student loan program each and every time Congress has sought to lower interest rates or trim unnecessary costs. Of course, they have never followed through on such threats because the reality is that student loans have been, and under this bill will continue to be, a very profitable enterprise. I believe there are better places--Head Start, Pell Grants, TRIO, Title I--to put billions of federal education dollars other than in the coffers of already wealthy financial institutions. President Clinton and members of Congress, particularly Congressmen Andrews and Senator Kennedy, have worked hard over the years and in this reauthorization to create a fairer and more efficient system for setting interest rates. I look forward to continuing working with them on this issue. Teacher Quality Provisions This bill contains a number of provisions aimed at strengthening teacher quality, including those drawn from my bill, the ``Teaching Excellence for All Children Act'' (HR 2228). I appreciate the opportunity we have had to work together in a bipartisan fashion on these issues, and particularly want to thank Chairman Goodling, Ranking member Clay, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Graham, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. McCarthy, and Mr. Ford, as well as Senator Jeff Bingaman, for all their hard work in crafting what I think is a fairly strong package. I also want to commend the excellent policy analyses, particularly those by the Education Trust, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, and the Congressional Research Service, that have done so much to inform the work we did here. All across the nation, states and local school districts are raising standards for what students should know and be able to do. Research clearly shows that qualified teachers are key to children's ability to succeed in school. In fact, after parental involvement, the quality of a student's teacher is the most important factor in their academic career. We now have, for the first time, a bill that addresses, from a federal perspective, issues of teacher quality at each stage in the process: preparation, recruitment, placement, professional development, and retention. This bill provides financial incentives to attract qualified individuals into teaching and authorizes funds for support and mentoring to help make sure that qualified teachers remain in the profession. This will also help ensure that the taxpaying public gets its money's worth, by improving the quality of teacher preparation, by providing better information to parents regarding the quality of their child's teacher, and by implementing a more rigorous system of accountability. For the first time, federally funded teacher preparation programs nationwide will publish and disseminate information on the percentage of their graduates who pass state licensing tests. States will be required to identify low-performing teacher preparation programs. And, ultimately, federal funds will be withheld from consistently low- performing schools. Teacher preparation is the foundation of our entire educational system. Many schools do a good job in preparing teachers, but the evidence is clear that too many others fall far short. In this bill, Congress is sending an important notice to colleges and universities: we will hold you accountable for the billions in taxpayer dollars you get each year. You owe it to students, their parents, taxpayers and to the teachers themselves to raise the bar on teacher training. Labor Codes of Conduct for University Merchandise I am also pleased that the House and Senate agreed to include my amendment to call on universities and colleges to adopt labor codes of conduct to prevent the use of sweatshops or child labor in the manufacture of university merchandise that they sell. These codes of conduct are on the agenda for universities and colleges across the country and I applaud the students and administrators that are working to see that schools of higher learning do not participate in the lowest forms of exploitation. By adopting this amendment, Congress sends an important message to schools across this country: Use the power of your purse. Tell businesses what you will accept and what you will not, and they will adhere to your demands. The market for university merchandise like sweatshirts and baseball caps is big enough to influence the way the goods are made. In fact, schools sell nearly $2.5 billion worth of goods each year. Without a code of conduct, schools will not know whether they are participating in labor exploitation. And without a good code, promises made about good labor conducts can be easily broken. A quote by the provost of Harvard, made in another context, illustrates the importance of codes of conduct to schools. He said, ``All members of the University and the institution as a whole benefit when its name is well used, and suffer when it is ill used.'' Codes of conduct alone are not enough to assure honest wages, a safe workplace, and respect for workers, and I believe Congress should look to take additional actions against child labor and sweatshops. There are many bills pending in the House today that would help in that effort. But simply raising the issue can make a difference. Look at the soccer ball industry. After widespread publicity and outrage over the manufacture of soccer balls by small children in Pakistan, a few of the manufacturers announced they would no longer use child labor for soccer balls. The international economy today places great pressure on companies to compete for low wages and low standards. Consumers are the last defense for workers and children in the United States and around the world. The codes of conduct for universities and colleges are one important weapon in our arsenal against exploitation. Continued Eligibility for the Freely Associated States As passed by the House, this legislation included language which would have abruptly ended eligibility to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau for Pell Grants, Special Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), and the College Work- Study Program. I am therefore particularly pleased that the conferees were able to agree to continue these programs and thereby honor our commitment to these Pacific islands to assist them in becoming self-sufficient. Under the conference report students will continue to benefit from these important programs through 2004, by which time the Compacts of Free Association with these nations will have been renegotiated. Caution on Trade and Proprietary Schools Trade and proprietary schools play an integral role in educating and training our nation's workforce and we should do whatever we can to ensure that students have access to the high quality training that they provide. But, unfortunately, this bill contains new loopholes that will weaken monitoring and enforcement of current laws that address trade school abuses of federal student aid programs. In the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress tightened oversight of proprietary and trade schools in response to widespread instances of fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Since 1990, more than 1,500 trade schools have been kicked out of federal student aid programs, saving taxpayers millions of dollars and protecting thousands of students from being ripped off. The Department of Education's Inspector General recommended this year that we tighten program requirements even further. But instead the Congress, under heavy pressure from trade school owners, has decided to retreat in the battle against fraud and abuse. I fear that once again we will see a spate of press accounts of schemes to bilk students and taxpayers. I fear that once again, a few bad apples will be allowed to tarnish the reputations of schools that are doing an effective job of training and educating students. I intend to monitor the implementation of these new provisions closely and hope that if and when problems do arise, Congress will act swiftly and responsibly to protect students and taxpayers. education Can And Should Be A Bipartisan Endeavor On balance, however, this is a good bill with many important provisions that will benefit America's students and workers. It is an example of what can be accomplished when partisan differences are set aside and members work together to find common ground on issues of great importance to our nation. It is an example I hope we continue to follow on education legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing Marilyn Berger, the retiring office manager for the Contra Costa Central Labor Council. Ms. Berger has held together the operations of our country's organized labor for almost 20 years. Her outstanding service is being recognized in my district at a Labor-to-Labor banquet held on Tuesday, October 8, 1998 in Concord. I wish to express my sincere gratitude for a job well done. Marilyn has kept the Central Labor Council on the cutting edge of technology and is self-taught in her computer skills. Her talents as office manager saw her through the terms of three Secretary-Treasurers of Labor Council. Marilyn Berger has been a member of the Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 29 since August 1, 1979. She held two positions before coming to the Central Labor Council. As a teenager, she worked for the FBI in San Francisco, and she was a secretary for the Inlandboatmens Union, also in San Francisco. She has led a full life as a working women and a devoted mother of two sons and two daughters. Marilyn has many interests outside of work including biking, and attending opera, theatre and film presentations. I know everyone associated with the Central Labor Council and all of us who need to call their office from time to time are going to greatly miss Marilyn Berger when she retires. I wish her the very best retirement has to offer.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) to the legislation pending before us. I do so because of many of the points that the two authors of this substitute have pointed out. When we read the committee report, we see the documented concerns that have been raised both about age discrimination, about displacement, about unemployment in various regions of the country, and the overdefining of some of these jobs, and I think that it is incumbent that we ask employers to make the kinds of efforts necessary to make sure that in fact these jobs cannot be filled from United States citizens before we go overseas to look for them. I, like the proponents of this legislation, also accept the notion that there are in many instances jobs that cannot be filled from the domestic work force, for one reason or another, and it may be temporary in some cases, or what appears to be permanent when we consider the rapidity of change within these industries. But not all of these jobs are the narrow band of jobs on the cutting edge where, in many instances, those individuals do not exist within the American work force, and we ought to make sure that, therefore, we can go overseas and recruit those individuals and bring them here to help companies remain in the competitive position. But many of the other jobs in fact are available, but they may not be available in that immediate geographic region. It ought to be incumbent on people to go out and to see and recruit individuals that can fill those jobs, either because they have been laid off of their jobs in another region of this country, or they can be readily retrained for those jobs that these employers are looking for. For that reason, I believe that the substitute is a preferable work product in assuring that we make sure that American citizens who are looking for work, who have these skills, are in fact considered first, because that really is the obligation that these companies should have. If they are not available, then we ought to make sure that we also provide a vehicle so those people can be brought into the work force. Again, I support the substitute.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this legislation, and I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his long and difficult negotiations and successful negotiations to work out this legislation, and I want to recognize the contribution of Deborah Williams and many others at the Department of Interior who have worked hard to develop this consensus legislation. Again, I thank the gentleman for all his efforts in developing this consensus legislation, and I urge the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2000 is the third generation of Alaska Native technical amendment bills. The fundamental premise is that these bills are developed on a consensus basis between the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska, and other affected parties. The notion is to avoid controversy, leaving those battles to other bills and other forums. And while there have been bumps in the road, the two previous Alaska Native technical amendment bills have become law and it appears that H.R. 2000 is now also acceptable to the Administration. One of the more difficult issues in this bill involves the acquisition of lands owned by Calista corporation and Native village corporations which lie within the boundaries of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. This acquisition was first authorized on a rider added by the Senate to the FY 1990 Defense Appropriations Act, and the process of reaching agreement between Calista and the Department of the Interior has been far from smooth. But we now have before us an agreement which has been carefully negotiated and is acceptable to both parties. Calista and the villages will receive federal property worth $39.4 million and in exchange the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will acquire refuge inholdings totaling over 200,000 acres of subsurface and over 46,000 acres of surface lands and easements. The Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge provides critical habitat for migratory waterfowl and birds on the Pacific Flyway. The value of the Native lands is established in this legislation at $39.4 million, but does not reflect fair market value as established by Fish and Wildlife Service appraisals. Instead, in the judgment of the Department of the Interior, this is the price tag that is necessary to make this a willing seller transaction. The payments in excess of fair market value are considered to be a grant of federal assets which are needed to recapitalize Native corporations in the most economically deprived region of Alaska. As noted in the description of current social conditions set forth in the land conveyance document, the state of living conditions for most of the Native people of the Calista region can be difficult for outsiders to comprehend. Most of the basics of life which the rest of America takes for granted--such as running water and flush toilets-- barely exist within the region. Among many serious problems, this area has the highest infant mortality rate in the Nation. It is for these reasons that the Administration is willing to exchange more economically valuable assets for the Calista properties within the wildlife refuge boundaries. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially recognize the contributions of Deborah Williams and many others at the Department of the Interior who have worked very hard to develop this consensus legislation. I thank the Chairman for bringing H.R. 2000 before the House and I urge support for the bill.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), and I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker. Section 11 of H.R. 4068 authorizes a one-time disbursement of $8,000,000 in interest accrued on the Tribal Development Fund established for the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians pursuant to section 105 of the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-575, 102 Stat. 4000). Each band would receive $1,600,000 for investment and economic development purposes. None of the money could be used for per capita payments to Band member. The section further provides that the United States would be exempt from any liability with regard to any Band's use of the funds after the disbursement. Full implementation of the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act is conditioned on the acquisition by the United States of a source of 16,000 acre-feet of supplemental water for the Bands. However, in the decade since enactment of the settlement, no source of supplemental water has been secured, despite good faith efforts by all of the settlement parties. This delay in securing a water supply has been years longer than what the Congress and the settlement parties anticipated when the settlement was enacted. The delay in implementing the settlement has adversely affected the five Bands. While the non-Indian communities of Vista and Escondido have continued to enjoy the use of low-cost, local water to which the Bands have a claim, the Bands have had the benefit of neither water nor funding for economic development as provided for by the settlement. Under these circumstances, the House Committee on Resources has found that the Bands' request for a one-time, partial disbursement of interest earned on the Development Fund that was establishment for their benefit is reasonable and appropriate. The other settlement parties, including the Department of the Interior, have informed the Committee of their support for the Band's request. The San Luis Rey Tribal Development Fund was capitalized with approximately $32,000,000 appropriated by the Congress in 1989 by Public Law 101-121. The Fund has since grown to more than $52,000,000. With the distribution authorized by this section, the Fund will retain a balance of more than $44,000,000, which will continue to accrue interest and remain an incentive to the Bands to see the settlement through to full and final implementation. The Committee on Resources expects that the factors that have prolonged fulfillment of the requirements of the settlement will not persist indefinitely. Accordingly, the Committee urges the Secretary to use the full measure of his authority to secure the acquisition of the supplemental water supply required by the Settlement Act at a cost that will enable its economical use for the benefit of the Bands and the complete implementation of the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement. The Committee on Resources recognizes that the Act's dual command that the Department arrange to obtain or develop not more than 16,000 acre feet per year of supplemental water, without bearing any development costs, has been a major impediment to finalizing the settlement. Nevertheless, the Committee does not agree that these requirements support an interpretation of the Act that the Tribal Development Trust Fund, which was established for the exclusive use of the Indian Water Authority on behalf of the Bands, is an appropriate source of funds to finance the delivery of water to the Bands. Section 107(b)(4) of the Settlement Act states that all funds of the Indian Water Authority that are not required for administrative or operational expenses of the Authority or to fulfill obligations of the Authority (emphasis added) under the title, the Act or any other agreement entered into by the Authority, shall be invested or used for economic development of the Bands, the Bands' reservation lands, and their members. The Act places the obligation to arrange for the development and delivery water for the Bands squarely on the Secretary, not on the Bands. To suggest that the Tribal Development Trust Fund should be used to acquire or deliver water to the Bands is to suggest that the Bands use their own money to fulfill the Secretary's obligation to them. This suggestion is inconsistent with the content of the Act. If additional authority or funding is needed to carry out the intent of the Act, then the Department should consider submitting an appropriate request to the Congress.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this legislation. This legislation has been adequately described by our colleagues from Michigan and Ohio. It has bipartisan support and the support of the administration. I urge its passage today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. H.R. 1481, which has already been described by the gentleman from New Jersey, would greatly improve the conservation and management of the fisheries and wildlife of the Great Lakes by implementing the recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration study. The Great Lakes provide a vast source of natural resources for the people of the United States. In 1990, Congress authorized the restoration study to assess the status and needs of the fishery and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes and to provide recommendations for better management and conservation of those resources. Now that the study has been completed, it is time to implement those recommendations to ensure the long term sustainability of these valuable resources. The bill has bipartisan support, as well as the support of the Administration, and I urge its passage today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.