George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the working men and women in unions around the country who will showcase their ambitions, visions, successes and heartaches in what is being called a ``Day to Make our Voices Heard.'' We should be proud of their efforts to create unions to give a voice to their aspirations. These men and women embody the democratic ideal. They have joined together to help create better working conditions for themselves and for all Americans. Unfortunately, the limited rights that workers currently enjoy do not protect them from unfair and uncivil treatment by some employees. And even these limited rights are under attack by the Republican majority. Let me give you an example from my district of the unfair actions that some employers will take against employees that have joined together to form a union. One hundred and one workers at Pacific Rail Services, an intermodal yard in Richmond, California, overwhelming voted to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union last September. The Union negotiated an agreement with Pacific Rail Services, which included wage and benefit increases. But just before it was officially signed, Burlington Northern/Sante Fe pulled the contract from Pacific Rail Services and gave it to another company. All 101 of the newly organized workers at Pacific Rail Services were thrown out on March 15 and a new, non-union workforce brought in. Despite outrageous acts such as this one, the Republican majority is determined to weaken even further the right of employees to organize and advocate on their own behalf. The majority has already passed a bill through the House to give employers the power to hire and fire workers based solely on their support for union representation. This so called ``Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 1998'' would undermine one of the most basic rights, the right to freedom of association. The bill permits employees to discriminate against workers on the basis of the workers' union support. It would permit, even encourage, employers to interrogate applicants on their preference for union representation and to refuse to hire an application on this basis. Attacks like these make ``A Day to Make Our Voices Heard'' even more important. They remind us that we should be strengthening, not weakening, the rights of employees to ensure they receive fair and timely resolution of their concerns. I join my colleagues in applauding the efforts of workers all across the country to publicize the strong contributions unions make to a productive and civil workplace and highlight unfair business practices, and to bolster the efforts to those of us in Congress to protect workers' rights.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4060, making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development for Fiscal Year 1999. This bill provides funds for critical flood control and navigation projects in Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area of California. I appreciate the Committee's continued support for these projects. I am particularly pleased that the Committee's bill will assist in the continuation of funding Federal participation in the Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration programs authorized by the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act. However, I note that the FY 1999 appropriation for Bay-Delta is significantly less than the requested amount, and also reflects a reduction from the FY 1998 funding level. I encourage our Conferees to restore funding for this important program. Funding the Bay-Delta programs at the FY 1998 level will allow us to continue critical work to restore the many components of this huge area that have been damaged by human activity. The Committee bill raises for the second year a problem with the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. According to the Committee Report, appropriations for the Restoration Fund will be severely reduced again in FY 1999. This reduction is misguided and jeopardizes important environmental programs. The projects financed with the CVP Restoration Fund are broadly supported and many are non-discretionary projects that must be completed in a limited amount of time. I hope there will be opportunities to reconsider the reductions to the Restoration Fund. Language in the report for this bill directs the Bureau of Reclamation to use its $3 million appropriation for the Animas-LaPlata project to ``implement the modification to the project required by the proposed amendments to the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.'' In effect, the report tells the Bureau to build a controversial project that has not been authorized by the Congress. The Bureau should not follow this unwise dictate since there is no legislation authorizing the modification to the project. I am pleased that bill includes $200,000 that the Administration requested for the Army Corps of Engineers to initiate a feasibility study on the removal of the underwater hazards to navigation near Alcatraz Island. Although submerged even at low tide, these rock outcroppings could be struck by deep draft container and especially oil tanker vessels that frequently pass nearby, posing a substantial risk of an oil spill. The feasibility study will investigate environmental impacts and mitigation, and develop project implementation alternatives and cost estimates. I appreciate the Subcommittee's continuing support of this important navigation project to protect both the environment and the economy of San Francisco Bay. I thank the Committee for its hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4060.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for all of their work on this legislation. They have spent many, many, many months crafting this legislation to address many of the underlying problems that we have in our current campaign financing system in this country; problems that threaten this institution, that threaten many of our democratic institutions; problems that are corroding the way we make decisions in the House of Representatives, in the United States Senate, and within the administration. They are problems that the American people demand that we address and that we rectify and that we once again bring them back in to our democratic decision-making process and not bring them in based upon the size of their wallet, the size of their contributions and who they know, but rather, on the merit of their arguments. That is what this, the People's House, is supposed to be doing. This discussion about the severability amendment is simply a ruse to attack this legislation and to certainly set it up for later attack if it looks like, in fact, it is going to pass. We draw, very often, very complicated legislation in this House. And we know, very often, that we are treading to the end, because people, in fact, are trying to affect court decisions when they draft legislation, when they draft amendments. And to protect the underlying legislation, very often we put severability clauses in those pieces of legislation. We do it in the State legislatures, we do it in city councils, and they do it in the United States Congress, and we have for many, many, many years. In this particular legislation, the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts have addressed a number of the problems that we confront in our campaign finance system. Each and every one of those remedies could stand by themselves, and they are very, very important to improving our system. They are very, very important to improving the participation of the American public in that legislation. That is why we want the severability clause, because of those provisions by themselves. So if a constitutional challenge is brought on one of these single provisions, we will retain the best of this legislation, and that will become part of our campaign financing system, and we will, in fact, have a better campaign financing system than we have today. We will have a less corrupt campaign financing system than we have today. We will have a campaign finance system that encourages people to participate, which our system does not do today. That is why we need this severability. To throw this up and suggest that somehow this is a trick and this is to allow us to do a lot of unconstitutional things is just simply not the case. The authors of this legislation are far more careful about their legislative duties than that. The people that they have consulted have guided us and are relying on past court decisions. Yes, we may not do it perfectly, but we should not be in a position where one challenge against a very small part of this legislation can throw out so many other parts of the legislation that are very, very, very important to us.

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we will vote on this rule shortly. This rule is designed to delay, continue the delay, and to destroy the ability to have campaign finance reform. It has been said here often that it is death by amendment. That is what is seeking to be done here. I would hope we would reject this amendment. I would hope we would get on with the debate on the Shays-Meehan bill and the people would keep their eye on the ball. We all understand exactly where we are today. We are in the middle of a system that the public has lost confidence in. We are in the middle of a campaign financing system in this House and the Senate and many other governmental bodies that is corroding the basis on which we make decisions. We now see, after taking millions of dollars from the tobacco industry, the Senate kills the tobacco bill. We now see a Member from the State of Washington (Mrs. Smith) saying that she has witnessed the people extorting or holding back legislation until they can continue to raise money. That is what is taking place. This leadership does not make any decisions until they calculate how in fact the money is taken. Money is considered in the presentation of bills, presentation of amendments. The design here was, the Speaker shook hands with the President 3 years ago, and now we find ourselves, renounced by the minority leader, that by the August break, we will finish consideration and they will have accomplished their purpose, because they recognize that that leaves little or no time for the Senate to act on this legislation should we pass it. So they have now kicked us into a new cycle of campaign financing where we see time and again the special interests just larding up Members of Congress, our committees, our campaign committees, the national committees of both parties. We spend more and more money every year, and fewer and fewer people vote. If Coca-Cola did this, they would throw their board of directors out. If General Motors did this, they would throw their board of directors out. They would ask, what is wrong? What have we done? We have chased people away from the campaigns. We have chased them away from participation in democracy.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, over the past 3 years, the tobacco companies have delivered millions of dollars to the Republican National Committee and to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and to Republican Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate. Yesterday, the United States Senate delivered for the tobacco companies. Yesterday, the United States Senate, after a month of debate and delay, voted to kill the tobacco bill, which was designed to get back to and pay back many of the health care costs that this government has spent because of tobacco illnesses and death, and to try to keep our young children from smoking. Yesterday the Senate killed that. They delivered on their campaign promises. Today the House sets out to do the same. It is setting out to kill campaign finance reform so that they can continue to keep the tobacco money flowing to the Republican Party.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have brought this bill to the floor today. My bill extends by 2 years the life of the California Advisory Council on Indian Policy, which was created by legislation back in the 102nd Congress. The bill was unanimously reported out of the full Committee on Resources. The Council was created to provide us with a report recommending remedial measures to address the special problems facing California Indians and Indian tribes. The problems include the need to restore California's terminated tribes' lost lands, and to provide tools for economic self-sufficiency, and improve health and educational needs. Mr. Speaker, I will submit the remainder of my statement for the Record, but I want to thank the chairman of the committee for giving the attention of this committee to this legislation; and I also want to thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his attention to this matter. The Council has now submitted its report. Along the way it picked up an inordinate amount of expertise on these issues and my bill would give the Council the chance to share its invaluable knowledge with Congress and other parties as we move forward to the implementation phase. Thus, my bill directs the Council to consult and work with Congress, the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services, the California Indian tribes, and the State in expediting the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Council's 1997 report. This is an important measure. There are over one-hundred tribes in California. Over the course of history, those tribes lost over eighteen million acres as a result of eighteen broken treaties. California Indians own less land, have less money and funding, and less access to health care and education than tribes in other states. California also has the highest urban Indian population of any state. Yet the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs provides services to only one-sixth of the Indian population. California is also one of a handful of states that was allowed to extend state jurisdiction on Indian lands. In the 1950s, thirty-eight tribes were terminated. Fortunately, twenty-seven have been restored. Six years ago, I spoke on the floor about the original legislation that created the Council and authorized the report. I said that ``this report will provide a blueprint for the future of California Indians. We will use the recommendations of the council as we approach California Indian policy in the 1990s and on into the next century.'' That time has come. And that is why I believe it is important to continue to rely on the guidance and wisdom of the Council as we review its recommendations and fashion legislation that will allow us to keep many of the promises we have made to the state's first citizens. I look forward to a new era of relations with the California tribes and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) for yielding me this time, and I commend the gentleman for this resolution and the chair of our committee and the ranking member for bringing it both to the committee and to the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution and it addresses a very important and yet complex problem facing our school systems and our families and their children. Too often parents are told in the school system that their children are doing just fine. Students are told that they are doing just fine. And then they are passed from grade to grade. But later, many of the students find out that despite their good grades, despite their report cards and their diplomas, that they have not achieved even the basic skill levels in math reading and other academic core subjects. I have learned this from talking to students and teachers, observing school districts, and watching how education is applied in the district which I represent. Mr. Speaker, every Monday morning during the school year I teach a high school class. At the end of that year we have a discussion with those students about their education. Almost all of them are disappointed in their education. Almost all of them believe they could have done more work and better work and almost all of them will say that it really was not asked of them. Some of them are quite angry that they are not equipped to go out into the world. Some of them are quite angry that the school did not care enough to really find out how they were doing as opposed to passing them on. I think as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) just pointed out in the well of the House, this is an important process of ending social promotion, but ending it with the alternatives. Too often of social promotion it is said: We do this for the student and for the family so that the kids are not stigmatized, are not held back, and do not have to miss class. However, very often it is done so the school district does not have to be held accountable for what is being done in that school district. They can gloss over the problems of individual children and gloss over the problems of groups of children and give them passing grades and move them along. They do not have to confront the difficult issues about the quality of their teachers, about the quality of their textbooks, about the quality of their curriculum, about the condition of their school buildings. They can simply herd the children along and get them out of the schools. Cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, and States like Texas have had notable success in strengthening the standards and creating more rigorous criteria for the passage from grade to grade. Implementing rigorous standards can be difficult and controversial. The minute we start to tell a parent or start to tell teachers that students may not be socially promoted, all sorts of problems come right to the forefront. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that these rigorous standards may be implemented. Such changes are initially greeted with trepidation, but they have actually served to energize students and engage teachers and parents around homework, tutoring, summer school and Saturday morning classes. Last spring, more than 42,000 students in Chicago were told that they would not be able to advance to the next grade until they met the tough standards set by the large district. Students had to attend summer school. The move was not popular, but the early results are starting to suggest in this instance the get-tough policy worked. Of the 473 elementary schools, 393 had better math scores this year than last year, and 271 had better reading scores. The point is this. They just did not stop social promotion; they offered intensive math and reading tutoring and mentoring and help to those students that needed it, and they also said to the students who were yet to cross that threshold, they let them know what the standard would be at end of the year. Letting students slide in elementary and high school is not only unwise, it is expensive. A report released in March shows that more than half of the freshmen entering the California State University system last fall needed basic remedial help because they were unprepared for college level math. Forty-seven percent could not handle college level English. How many times must we pay for students to learn the same material that they were supposed to learn earlier in their educational experience? This resolution is important, but we need to step up to the plate and strengthen accountability for Federal education programs. We spend billions of dollars annually on elementary and secondary education primarily through the title I program, but we do not demand the results that we are entitled to, that the students are entitled to, that the taxpayers are entitled to. Last year's Obey-Porter bill was a good first step. It will move title I programs to use up-to-date and proven instructional programs. But we need to go further to make sure that whatever model is being used, the students are achieving academically at the standards we should expect. Higher standards must be coupled with adequate resources. This means better teachers, safe and well-equipped classrooms, and computers with access to the technology and the Internet for all of our students. Here again, the success of today's debate should not be judged by the strength of today's vote but on what we do after today. There is a bit of disconnect in that we all say we are for education and we all say we want better student achievement, but the reality is that this Congress has really fallen short when it comes to taking action. Mr. Speaker, we will know we are doing a much better job on behalf of our students and their families and a good job when somebody slips $50 billion in a bill in the middle of the night for school construction and education rather than for the tobacco companies. We will know we are doing a good job on education when this body struggles to find money for classrooms and teachers with the very same verve with which that they quite appropriately sought funding for roads and bridges. We will know we are doing a good job on education when we put the same energy into strengthening the accountability that we now waste in conducting partisan and fruitless investigations. This resolution says many good things and sets a very good direction on ending social promotion. But the time has come for Congress to act to demand accountability for the money that we spend and to demand accountability so that America's parents and families will know how their children are doing as they proceed through their educational experience. Mr. Speaker, again I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), ranking member and author of this resolution, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), chairman of the subcommittee, for bringing this to the floor.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3035 which would establish an advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations to help create a coordinated federal drought mitigation and response policy. Currently, droughts tend to receive minimal advance attention and are primarily addressed ad hoc in a crisis management mode. The commission established by the bill would recommend ways to coordinate the numerous federal agencies that have a role in droughts. It would also help ensure that federal efforts would compliment state and local programs without diminishing state water rights or environmental protection. H.R. 3035 builds upon the recent work of the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission and the Western Governors' Association. Both organizations have recommended the creation of an interagency task force to develop an integrated national drought policy plan that emphasizes risk-management. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and join our colleagues on the Congressional Black Caucus and our other colleagues in expressing our sorrow and our anger and our sympathy for the family of this very unfortunate victim.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1635, I am pleased that this legislation has finally come to the floor of the House of Representatives for consideration. Although it has been a long and overdue process, I am happy to note that H.R. 1635 now has the bipartisan support of 148 cosponsors. This bill will establish a National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program within the National Park Service, to facilitate partnerships among Federal, state and local governments and the private sector to identify and commemorate the Underground Railroad. This bill comes at a time when divisiveness among our Nation's races and cultures seems to be on the rise. Through the program, structures, routes, and sites which were significant to the Underground Railroad will be identified. The National Park Service will create a logo to identify these sites and distribute interpretive information for visitors to understand the use of the Railroad. The uplifting stories of the risks taken by all involved with the Underground Railroad put against the stark reality of our past with slavery, will provide visitors with powerful examples of the precious value of freedom and the strengthen of cooperation. Mr. Speaker, the Underground Railroad is probably the best example of successful civil disobedience this nation has ever seen and the stories must be told. I commend our colleague, Mr. Stokes, for all his hard work on this legislation and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for H.R. 1635 so that this powerful story may be preserved for generations to come.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering, because I read in the paper this morning that those are the same Republican Governors who will be writing a letter against the budget and are concerned about the money coming out of TANF, the welfare reform proposal I opposed.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what is going on here this morning. The Republican budget process has failed. They cannot reach agreement among themselves, and they have now been forced to cut tens of billions of dollars out of programs serving the most vulnerable people in the United States. They have chosen in their budget to protect every special interest in the country. They have chosen to protect the chemical companies, the drug companies, the western irrigator water users, the grazers, the oil companies, the timber companies, and the mining companies. The President thought it might be a better idea that the mining companies in this country pay the American people something, something for the use of their lands. They chose, rather, to cut nutrition programs. The President thought it made sense that the big timber companies that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to take the timber off of the public lands pay a little something. They chose, rather, to cut Medicaid. The President thought it made sense that the oil companies that have been underpaying the taxpayers billions of dollars and admitting to it every day in court, he thought we ought to recover some of that money for the taxpayers. They chose instead to go after Medicaid. They chose instead to go after child nutrition. They chose instead to go after Title I. That is what is going on here, ladies and gentlemen. They have decided to protect the special interests. The President thought maybe the concessionaires that have made millions of dollars running the concessions in the national parks ought to pay the taxpayers some fair rent for that right. The Republicans have chosen not to do that. They have chosen not to do that. They have chosen, instead, to cut education programs. They have chosen, instead, to cut veterans programs. That is what their budget is. This is an effort to camouflage the vote that they will have to take later today on their budget that cuts billions of dollars, billions of dollars to the most vulnerable people in this country. This is not about fees. This is not about the President's budget. This is about trying to get some cover for the Republicans who they have broken the arms to vote for a budget that is essentially bankrupt, a budget where they refuse to put in hard numbers, a budget where they change it in the middle of the night, a budget that is debated here at midnight, covered up by a bill that was never sent to the committee, never sent to the Committee on Rules, and was decided late last night to be brought to this floor. Why have they done that? Why have they done that? Because, in their budget, they continue to protect the users of the FDA, the drug companies, and the chemical companies, the mining companies, people who are taking billions of dollars away from the taxpayers of this country, off resources owned by you, the American people. They pay no rents for billions of dollars in gold, billions of dollars in platinum, billions of dollars in silver. The President thought maybe, just maybe, we ought to run the government like a business, and we are entitled to some rent. But the Republicans have chosen, instead, to say, why do we not go after Chapter 1, trying to help disadvantaged kids? Republicans have said, instead, why do we not go after the income security in this country and have ways and means? Where are they going to take it out of? Unemployment, Medicaid, Social Security. We will leave it up to the Committee on Ways and Means. This is about choices. This is about choices to be made. Later today, the Republicans will have the glory of not only voting for the user fees in this bill but voting for all of their cuts also on the vulnerable populations in this country. This bill ought to be rejected. It is a sham. It is a cheap attempt to camouflage, because the Republicans know they have a very difficult vote coming up this afternoon for their Members. They have been meeting around the clock trying to get enough people together so they could pass their budget. Maybe they have achieved that. Maybe that is why we are on the floor. But what they do know, they need some diversion so Members can go home and say that somehow they engaged in some great scheme to protect the American people from fees. These fees are about fees on special interests and people who are extracting wealth from the resources owned by the taxpayers. The fees on the Forest Service were put there by the Republicans last year when they decided every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to go out with his family and use the forest is going to have to pay, but not the timber companies. They have chosen the special interests. The President chose to try to protect the people and make sure that those people who are using America's resources should pay something for that.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. They accept the cuts in TANF?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for all of his work and effort in bringing to this Congress for a vote today a budget that is not only responsible, but also meets the priorities and the needs of the American people. It meets the needs of our families in the areas of education and health care. That is a dramatic contrast to the budget that is being served up by the Republican majority. There they failed to set out priorities in education, they failed to set out priorities in health care, and one of the areas where they not only failed to set out priorities, but in fact provide substantial reductions and threats, is to our national environment and the programs provided to protect the environment of this Nation. With an excessive $5 billion cut in the area of natural resources, they threaten programs to improve our water quality, to take care of the refuges, to take care of the recreational areas, the national parks and wilderness areas of this country that are visited by millions of Americans every year. They slashed the programs to acquire additional lands. Each and every year we do this, those lands become more expensive and harder to acquire to protect for the use of the American people. We see that they have refused to provide monies to those agencies that are essential to protecting the revenues that the American people are entitled to for the use of their lands, revenues from mining companies that pay us no rent as they take billions of dollars of gold and platinum off of the public lands, the hundreds of millions of dollars and billions of dollars that the oil companies are underpaying the American taxpayers for the use of those lands as they take off billions of dollars in oil and gas resources from those lands. The Republicans' answer is to slash the budget of those agencies that have oversight of that. Rather than charge those companies a fair rent, a fair charge for the use of the public resources, they would rather cut nutrition, they would rather cut health care, they would rather threaten Medicaid and Medicare, rather than making people pay their fair share. The problem with all of this is it threatens the very resources that tens of millions of people in this country will be using this summer, our national parks, refuges and national forests. This budget is devastating to those environmental programs.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, before I give my one minute, I just would like to publicly thank our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his trip to Sudan and calling attention to a tragic, tragic situation. I thank him. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the California elections, the people of California rejected a cynical attempt to stifle the voices of working families in America, to stifle the voices of concerned nonprofit organizations. Proposition 226 was an effort by the Republican leadership and the Republican Party to lash out at working families and to deny members of unions the ability to participate in the political process in this country, a right that they are guaranteed under the Constitution. It was cynically dubbed the Paycheck Protection Act. It had nothing to do with protecting people's paychecks. It had everything to do with trying to get back at organized labor in this country for the very effective campaign they ran in the last national elections on behalf of President Clinton and on behalf of many Members of the Congress where they told the truth about what the Republican leadership and majority was trying to do in this House of Representatives in denying people the rights and fundamental basic ability to raise their family.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the following column by the highly respected writer Mark Shields appeared in the Seattle Post- Intelligencer on May 18, 1998 and describes the debate in Congress to reform the outrageous practices in the U.S. territory of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that conflict with core American ethics and values. ``Made in the USA Is at Heart of the Second Battle of Saipan'' describes the continuing, widespread labor abuses and problematic immigration policies in the US/CNMI that have prompted a bipartisan group in Congress to support legislation to bring these local laws in conformity with those that apply throughout the rest of our country. Like the battle of Saipan during World War II when American troops fought for 25 days to capture the island chain, the clash in Congress is an uphill battle between those who are working to instill humanitarian reforms in the island's labor and immigration policies and those who hail the existing policies as a cornerstone of ``free enterprise.'' At the root of this ``second battle of Saipan'' is the local control over minimum wage and immigration policies that was temporarily granted to local authorities over twenty years ago when the US/CNMI first became a part of the United States. However, since this local control was granted, the US/CNMI has not made any serious attempts to either increase the local minimum wage to the federal level or closely control its borders to prevent an influx of immigrants as it had promised. Rather, the US/CNMI maintains an artificially low minimum wage of $3.05 per hour and has opened its borders to a flood of foreigners who provide the labor pool for menial, labor-intensive jobs. Currently, foreign workers compose 91% of the private sector workforce and significantly outnumber U.S. citizens in the US/CNMI. Local labor controls and law enforcement are severely lacking, company housing is squalid, abuse is common and this low-cost foreign workforce is easy prey for exploitation. And the nearly $1 billion in garments produced in these conditions by foreign workers bears the ``Made in USA'' label, although the labor protections normally associated with this label are nonexistent. Foreign workers in the US/CNMI can be deported at a moment's notice if they complain about conditions and are forbidden from changing jobs if they have a problem with their employer. Clearly, the experience of these workers in the US/CNMI is not representative of a work experience anywhere else in America. According to Mr. Shields, ``toiling 12 hours a day, seven days a week, without any of the worker protections Americans are guaranteed, is tragically common.'' Congress has the power and the duty to ensure that basic fundamental principals of labor and immigration law are adhered to throughout the United States and its territories. I urge my colleagues to read this column and decide for themselves how they would like to see the ``Second battle of Saipan'' play out. I think you'll agree that if our efforts to apply federal labor and immigration controls to the US/CNMI are successful, as Mr. Shields notes, ``the United States and humanity will win.'' [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 18, 1998] ``Made in the USA'' Is At Heart of the Second Battle of Saipan (By Mark Shields) For Americans of a certain age, Saipan will forever remain that Pacific Island battle where, during 25 days of hell in the summer of 1944, the U.S. Marines captured 47 square miles of strategic real estate. The price was high. U.S. combat casualties numbered 16,612, including 3,225 Americans killed in action. For the Japanese, the numbers are still staggering: 23,811 known soldiers dead added to an overwhelming majority of the 18,000 Japanese civilians on the island who chose death over surrender by jumping off the cliffs into the sea. That mass Japanese civilian suicide helped convince the Truman administration that Japan would never surrender and that the use of atomic weapons would actually save Japanese and American lives. Today, Saipan is the capital of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a chain of 14 islands in the North Pacific. The approximately 28,000 indigenous people of the CNMI, following their own free vote, are all U.S. citizens. But the CNMI was granted local authority over immigration to the islands and over permitting island employers to pay workers at a lower minimum wage than that of the United States. Still, any clothing manufacturer in Saipan is entitled to sew the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label in every garment. And all such garments can enter the U.S. mainland market free of tariffs and quotas. This has led directly to the ``Second Battle of Saipan.'' The island has turned into a legalized sweatshop. Ninety-one percent of the private-sector work force, numbering 42,000, consists of foreign workers from China, the Philippines, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka who are too often exploited on U.S. soil. According to the sworn testimony of U.S. officials, and human-rights and workers-rights professionals, those foreign workers--being paid barely half the U.S. minimum wage--live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks without plumbing. Toiling 12 hours a day, seven days a week, without any of the worker protections Americans are guaranteed, is tragically common. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., has personally visisted the island factories. He has introduced legislation to raise the island minimum wage and impose federal control of immigration. With characteristic bluntness, Miller says: ``Let's be clear. Foreign workers using foreign cloth under the eyes of foreign supervisors are working in a foreign- owned factory producing garments into which they sew a label that reads `Made in the U.S.A.,' and that is the only reason these foreign factories are there--to escape U.S. duties and quotas imposed by the Congress to protect U.S. jobs.'' But Miller is in the House minority. And Rep. Tom DeLay, R- Texas, the House majority whip, who with his family was the New Year's Eve guest of the Marianas government, publicly has vowed to fight any federal takeover of Saipan's immigration and labor laws. As seen and heard on ABC-TV News, DeLay told his host, ``You are a shining light for what is happening in the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system.'' DeLay does have a point that the foreign workers in Saipan are earning more and often under less brutal conditions than they could in their own homelands. But for those who remember the first battle of Saipan, the ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label means standards of quality and standards of conduct. But more important than how something is made is how the people who make that something are treated, that they are free to worship and to complain and to quit. One man who understands that well could be DeLay's worst legislative nightmare: Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the energy and natural resources committee. Murkowski supports legislation similar to Miller's. But the conservative Alaskan has the clout to make things happen. Showing a sense of history, Murkowski rebuts defenders of the Saipan status quo: ``The last time we heard a justification that economic advances would be jeopardized if workers were treated properly was shortly before Appomattox.'' Frank Murkowski is right. If he is successful, the United States and humanity will win the second battle of Saipan.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the attached op-ed printed in the Los Angeles Times on May 17, 1998, concerning U.S.-Chile relations. One of the worst acts of state sponsored terrorism took place right here in Washington, D.C. on September 21, 1976. A bomb was placed under the car of Orlando Letelier, a Chilean exile and former Chilean chancellor under the democratically elected government of Slavador Allende. While driving to work that morning, the bomb was detonated as the car wound around Sheridan Circle, killing Letelier and his American assistant, Ronnie Karpen Moffitt and seriously wounding her husband, Michael Moffitt. With the help of the FBI, several people were brought to trial for the crime, but it was always believed that Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who seized power in Chile in a bloody coup in 1973 and is--incredulously-- now a sitting member of the Chilean Senate, had directed the assassination. There was not enough evidence at the time, however, to directly link him to the crime. More evidence has come to light since then, and other nations have launched investigations of state-sponsored killings directed by the Chilean secret police. Argentina, Spain and Italy for example are investigating past crimes, and Spain in particular is looking into whether Pinochet was directly involved in the Letelier assassination and other killings. Spain has asked the United States for cooperation in this investigation, and regrettably that assistance has not always been forthcoming. Along with my colleague Mr. Conyers of Michigan, I have written the Administration urging their complete and total cooperation with the Spanish investigation. As the following article points out, there is mounting evidence that Pinochet was directly involved in the killing of Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Karpan Moffitt. I urge the Administration to strongly consider reopening its own investigation of those murders as well as fully cooperate with the Spanish investigation. Neither Congress nor the Administration should forego the opportunity to send a strong and clear message that we will not tolerate terrorism on our soil. And our developing relationship with the new government of Chile should not shield Pinochet from responsibility if it is proven that he was responsible for the assassination of innocent civilians. Is a Terrorist Hiding in Chile's Senate? (By Scott Armstrong and Saul Landau) When Bill Clinton addressed the Chilean legislature last month, he did not see the face of Augusto Pinochet. Nor did he mention the name of the recently retired army commander and former president-dictator of Chile. But the unresolved issue of Pinochet's involvement in the worst act of international terrorism in Washington in the past 50 years still hangs over U.S.-Chilean relations. Pinochet figures in problems Chile has with Spain, Italy and Argentina. In each of these countries, official investigations are underway that could link Pinochet directly to overseas assassinations and unsuccessful plots to silence his critics during his 17-year military reign. An Argentine judge is investigating Pinochet on charges brought by the daughter of Gen. Carlos Prats, a former Chilean chief of staff, and his wife. The two were living as exiles in Buenos Aires in September 1974, when a car bomb blew them nine stories high. Argentine authorities arrested a former officer of DINA, the Chilean secret police, who has implicated other senior Chilean secret-police officials. An Italian court is probing Pinochet's responsibility in the September 1975 shooting in Rome, of an exiled Chilean Christian Democrat legislator. Bernardo Leighton, and his wife. A gunman put bullets in the backs of their heads, but both survived. One month later, Pinochet met an Italian fascist leader in Madrid, who was subsequently charged with the shooting. One piece of evidence caught the attention of the Italian magistrate: A Sept. 16, 1975, memo to Pinochet from Col. Manuel Contreras, chief of DINA, Chile's intelligence and secret-police agency. In it, Contreras requests for DINA an additional $600,000 for ``reasons that I consider indispensable,'' one of which is ``the neutralization of the [Chilean] government junta's principle adversaries abroad, especially in Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, the U.S.A. and Italy.'' These countries were all hosts to DINA assassination attempts or to aborted DINA assassination plots. Spanish judges have studied this document, too. In July 1996, the Union of Progressive Spanish prosecutors and lawyers, representing the families of victims of Pinochet's reign of terror, accused Pinochet of international terrorism, genocide and crimes against humanity. In 1978, Pinochet granted an amnesty for himself and his military subordinates who, according to the 1997 official Chilean government record, killed more than 3,190 people and tortured thousands more. Later, Pinochet arranged to retire from the military as a ``senator for life,'' a status that, when combined with the amnesty, amounted to impunity from prosecution in Chile. Recently, a Chilean judge accepted the complaint of Gladys Marin, a Chilean communist, who has accused Pinochet of kidnapping her husband and other leaders, torturing them and making them ``disappear.'' But few hold out hope of an investigation, a prosecution and conviction in Chile. Spanish Judge Garcia Castellon certified Spanish jurisdiction in a similar case. More than a dozen Spanish citizens, including priests, fell victim to the excesses of Chile's military dictatorship. The judge also cast his investigative net for evidence to Washington, where DINA had struck on Sept. 21, 1976. On that day, Orlando Letelier, former Chilean chancellor under President Salvador Allende, and Ronni Karpen Moffitt, a U.S. citizen and colleague of his at the Institute for Policy Studies, were killed by a bomb planted under the seat of their car. FBI agents tracked the murders back to DINA's Contreras. A 1978 Washington grand jury indicted him and eight other named conspirators and several unindicted co-conspirators. Two former U.S. prosecutors and two of the FBI agents who worked the Letelier-Moffitt case have declared they believe Pinochet was responsible for the murders. The U.S. government also learned some details about Chile's overseas terrorism from Michael Townley, a U.S. citizen working for the Chilean secret police, who confessed to organizing the Letelier assassination. In 1980, Townley told a U.S. court that he had received orders from Contreras to assassinate Letelier. Townley flew to the United States under a false name, recruited a gang of anti-Castro Cubans to help him do the job, then made the bomb and detonator and placed the explosives under Letelier's car seat. Two Cuban exiles, who later pleaded guilty, detonated the bomb. After plea-bargaining for a reduced sentence and testifying against his fellow conspirators, Townley gradually disclosed to the FBI other information about DINA. After the September 1973 Pinochet-led coup that overthrew the Allende government, Townley had ingratiated himself to DINA by demonstrating his electronic expertise. He also showed an aptitude for more exotic tasks and, by 1974, he had received an assignment to kill abroad. Townley, according to bureau agents, began to think of himself as DINA's jackal, referring to the 1960s French killer who almost assassinated President Charles DeGaulle. FBI Special Agent Robert Scherrer slowly developed a father- confessor relationship with Townley, who told him how he and other elite Chilean agents organized the killing of Gen. Prats. The FBI learned of ``Operation Condor,'' an agreement among six Latin American secret-police agencies to spy on their enemies abroad and even eliminate them. In the Prats case, for example, Townley recruited Argentine agents to detonate the bomb he had built. Scherrer also extracted from Townley details about the Leighton hit in Rome, in which an Italian fascist leader pulled the trigger and a Cuban exile group in Miami took the public credit. In 1997, the Italian court condemned (in absentia) Contreras and Townley for attempted murder of the Leightons in Rome. Townley's stores have been reinforced by other evidence to the point that the Letelier case may be reopened. All nine conspirators listed in the 1978 indictment have been tried. The unindicted co-conspirators could include Pinochet himself. Yet, prosecutors lacked direct evidence that would warrant an indictment of the former Chilean president. Then, last December 23, Contreras, now serving a seven-year sentence in Chile for his role in the Letelier-Moffitt murders, declared that he was following Pinochet's orders in every action that he undertook. Since his statement was offered as part of an effort to get his sentence reduced, it's self-serving. But it appears to corroborate the conclusions of the U.S. officials involved in the case. Pinochet has escaped prosecution in Chile because of the amnesty he granted himself and his cronies. But there is one exception: U.S. pressure could compel his prosecution in the Letelier-Moffitt case in Chile. But there is little likelihood justice will be done there unless it is pursued here in the United States. Although he failed to confront Pinochet while visiting Chile, Clinton still can ask Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to reopen the Letelier-Moffitt investigation into Pinochet's role as its alleged author. Such a request would signal a formal end of official impunity under which Pinochet has hidden for more than two decades. It would send a message to state terrorists everywhere.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge the people of America to pay close attention to this debate on campaign finance reform. Pay close attention, because you will hear so many different arguments, facts, figures and legal theories, not just today, but possibly for weeks to come. There will be so much that is said that it may be hard to follow what is really important in this debate. There is only one thing that matters when all is said and done: Will your representative in Congress vote for the only meaningful campaign finance reform bill to be offered this year? Will your representative vote for the Shays-Meehan bill? That is all that matters. The Shays-Meehan bill is the only bill that truly bans soft money and has the support of grassroots campaign finance reform organizations. Huge soft money contributions have become the leading corrupting influence in our political process today. Soft money contributions have caused politicians to do many things that they would not ordinarily do to abandon their constituents, to abandon the taxpayer, to abandon the public interest. My friends, ask yourself this: With all of the evidence of the corrupting influence of campaign contributions on politics, why should it be so hard to reform this system? Why should it be so hard? The answer is because the Republican leaders who control this House are committed to blocking the successful passage of campaign finance reform. The vast majority of Democrats are committed to real reform, and we have been joined by a small group of concerned Republicans. Together, hopefully, we represent a majority. But we do not control the action on the floor. That is why, ladies and gentleman across this country, you must pay attention.

Mr. MILLER of California. * * *

Mr. MILLER of California. As did the gentleman when he just previously spoke. You were also told time expired, and you continued to speak.

Mr. MILLER of California. Remember, there is only one way to determine whether or not your Representative truly believes and supports and is for campaign finance reform. That is, at the end of this debate, did they vote for the Shays-Meehan bill?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, with the cosponsorship of several of my colleagues, to provide a fair return to the public for the commercial use of our national parks and to use those funds to maintain and enhance park resources and visitor services. The National Park Service is being hamstrung in the changes it can make to its concessions policies by the provisions of the outdated 1965 Concessions Policy Act. At a time when families, senior citizens, and other recreational users visiting our parks are required to pay higher fees, the same is not being required of commercial operators who profit from our national parks. For far too long, the public has not received a fair return on the commercial revenues generated in our national parks. It's time to end this situation. ``The National Park Service Concession Policy Reform Act of 1998'' is the successor of the NPS concessions reform legislation of the 103rd Congress, which, although it passed the House in 1994 by an overwhelming vote of 386 to 30 and the Senate by an equally overwhelming vote of 90 to 9, never was enacted into law. The provisions of my bill have been the subject of numerous hearings over the years and addresses problems identified in GAO and Inspector General reports. It is a proposal that has had the support of the Administration, environmental organizations, and taxpayer watchdog groups. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Dale Bumpers. The legislation provides meaningful competition for NPS contracts to provide goods and services to park visitors. The bill eliminates certain preferential rights of renewal and phases out possessory interest, both of which have been major barriers to competition. In addition, it provides that the funds generated from concession contracts will stay in the parks to benefit park resources and visitor services. If we want to increase the return to the public and enhance park resources while still making available to visitors a quality concessions service, we need to install a competitive process instead of maintaining advantages for select commercial operators. The National Park Service Concession Policy Reform Act achieves these purposes. I hope Members will add their support to this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Nat Bingham, an advocate for the fish and the fishermen on the West Coast, whose untimely death earlier this month has left a void so large, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to fill. His list of accomplishments on behalf of the fish and forests was long and varied, forging compromise between opposing groups for the good of the resource. A commercial fisherman for over 30 years, his efforts in fisheries restoration began almost as long ago when, in his typical forward looking way, he headed projects in North Coast watersheds for salmon rearing and stream restoration. He initiated the Sacramento winter-run salmon broodstock program and the Sacramento spring-run chinook working group. He was a critical voice in the debate leading to the enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, rallying the fishing industry to support our efforts to provide water for fish and wildlife. He was active in coho salmon recovery efforts, and was a member of the Ecosystem Roundtable dealing with funding proposals for the Bay- Delta. He was a long-time member of the Commercial Salmon Stamp Committee and the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. He also served as president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association (PCFFA) for 9 years. Through it all he fought tirelessly for the industry and the restoration of the fish they depend on. Nat gave up fishing a few years ago to work full-time on fish and fish habitat conservation as the Habitat Director for PCFFA. In this role, he was instrumental in the developing and building support for new habitat protection measures that were included in the most recent reauthorization of the Magnuson Act. He was a current member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and prior to be appointed to the Council he served as chairman of their Salmon Advisory panel. A proponent for protecting marine areas, he was to be the Pacific Council's representative on the upcoming Year of the Ocean Conference in Monterey. Nat Bingham was an independent thinker, a strong moral voice, and a great conservationist who looked at the long term, not just the present. He would take on large industry--whether it was oil, timber, or agribusiness--the government, the environmental community, or even his own fishing industry when he felt they were wrong. He approached these challenges as a consensus builder not an adversary, however, trying to build bridges between opposing interests for the good of the resources and the people that depend on them. There are some people who have been so important and have been doing the work for so long in their community that their value to the people, the community and the resource is impossible to measure. At the same time, they have been fighting the fight for so long, you can't remember what it was like before they came along. Nat Bingham was one of those people. His contributions to the protection of the resource and our environment were immeasurable, and the thought of fighting the good fight without him is almost impossible to imagine. We will continue to fight however, to save the salmon and their habitat. Nat would expect no less, and it is an appropriate way to honor his memory.