George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. I think it is an important amendment, and I think it is consistent with the underlying debate that requires the Congress of the United States to pay particular attention to the cost of unfunded mandates and the cost of our actions around here. I think it is just as important and every bit as important that we do the same thing with respect to the environment. The problem is that, time and again in this Congress, we have seen matters of the environment come before this Congress with little or no debate, and in some instances with no underlying hearings, to be thrust upon the House of Representatives, very often from the Senate, from time to time in the appropriations bills as matters of riders that deal with the fundamental and basic underlying environmental laws of this country, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the questions of Superfund or brownfields cleanup, forest safeguards, the Forest Practices Act, the mining laws of this country, and multi-million dollar subsidy issues. Time and again, these matters have been brought to this floor with no provisions in the rules for debate. Very often now, we find that they are hidden away in the report language, so we cannot even get at them on the floor of the House of Representatives. We cannot get a vote on these matters. We very often are limited in our time to discuss them. Yet, they have huge impacts on the environment of this country. That is why we need the Waxman amendment, so we will have an opportunity to discuss these in the daylight. There is a reason why these changes in environmental law are not brought before the Congress in a freestanding bill that is brought out here under a rule so it can be debated and voted up-or-down. It is because the legislation cannot support that, or the majority party does not want to be identified in that action. But if you can tuck them away in a larger bill, if you can put them into a must-pass appropriations bill, if you can get them into a bill at the end of the session, fine, they are willing to do it, with total disregard for the impact to the environment and notice to our colleagues here in the House of Representatives. That is why the Waxman legislation is so terribly important. This is not a contest between unfunded mandates and the environment. In many instances, these two situations rise separate of one another. But this is about whether or not, as we do the people's business here, we will have the opportunity to raise these issues and to have a free and fair and open debate. In the history of this Congress over the last several years, that simply has not been the case. That is why we have to ask for this. Our colleague, the gentlewoman (Ms. Furse) raised the issue of the forest rider, a forest rider that went through this House with little or no debate, only to do a great deal of devastation. We have seen on now three different occasions where similar riders have been approached, to be put on legislation coming before the House of Representatives. Our constituents are now spending billions of dollars a year to go back and to correct some of these incredible environmental insults that have taken place with respect to water quality, with respect to the cleanliness of water, with respect to the Forest Practices Act and to the Endangered Species Act. In the committee on which I serve, the Committee on Resources, time and again we see legislation coming from that committee that wants to legislatively state that this piece of legislation or this action to be taken by the Federal Government, by a private party or somebody else is, in fact, sufficient under the Endangered Species Act, it is sufficient under the National Environmental Protection Act. They want to do that by fiat, with no debate, no discussion, just declare the action sufficient. Historically, when we have done that, we have had to go back and spend millions of dollars to make up for the mistakes. Now we see legislation on our committee where they want to seek waivers of the Clean Water Act, wholesale waivers of the Clean Water Act, and then they will be brought out here in suspension, they will be brought out with little or no debate. The Waxman amendment is an opportunity to give the environment the kind of priority that the American people attach to this subject. As we know, in poll after poll after poll the overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves environmentalists. They consider the environment very important. If we even ask them the question of comparing and contrasting it to the health of the economy, they want the environment taken care of. That is what the American people want. That is what most Members of this House say they want, but that is not what happens in the House of Representatives. That is what brings about the necessity of the Waxman amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment as part of the underlying legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last week, legislative larceny was committed in the conference committee on the Emergency Supplemental. As happens too often in this Congress, the hold up was committed by wealthy interests who want to make themselves still richer with money that belongs to the taxpayers of this country. Senator Barbara Boxer put up a valiant fight to prevent the committee from accepting the oil companies' $66 million royalty giveaway amendment, but the industry had the conference wired. The oil industry, which has been cheating taxpayers for years, won. Today, we are introducing legislation to reverse that legislative maneuver and restore the money to the people who own the oil: the taxpayers of the United States. I wrote the provision of the offshore oil law in 1978 that requires that coastal states receive a share from the oil produced from federal lands adjacent to their coasts. But the oil companies have been cheating taxpayers and the states by underestimating the value of the oil and underpaying royalties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service drafted rules to end this underpayment fraud and assure that taxpayers get the money they deserve. But the royalty giveaway amendment stops the Interior Department from implementing new rules that would require more accurate pricing of oil produced from public lands. Those rules, the product of long investigations, would base the value of the oil on actual market prices instead of on the much lower prices reported by the oil companies. Delaying this rule from going into effect will cost taxpayers $66 million a year--$5.5 million for each month that the rule is delayed. That means a loss of $1.8 million a year for California alone. Our state turns federal oil and gas royalties over to the public schools, and most other states share a portion of these revenues with their schools--money that could be used to buy computers or pay teachers' salaries or reduce class size. If the federal government had collected the royalties we were due, California could have paid the salaries of 45 teachers next year. Instead, thanks to this sneaky amendment, that money will line the oil industry's pockets. Senator Hutchison, who sponsored this amendment, claims more time is needed to study the issue. We already spent years studying the issue. A task force has filed its report documenting hundreds of millions of dollars in underpayments. The current system must be changed. The Justice Department recently decided to intervene in litigation accusing four major oil companies of knowingly having underpaid hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties from federal and Indian leases in the Gulf of Mexico, Wyoming, New Mexico and California. There is no justification for preventing the Interior Department from performing its legal mandate: to ensure that we get fair market value from the production from public lands. The giveaway rider ignores substantial evidence of underpayments developed by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, thanks to the leadership of Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who joins us this morning. We call on the Congress to reverse this greedy and unwarranted action and pass the Miller-Boxer bill to restore the royalties that the taxpayers, and the schoolchildren, of this nation deserve.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Many of these workers work up to or in excess of 56 hours a week. Very often they are not compensated for overtime, they are not paid the minimum wage that is required by law in the country, and very often they are hired for short periods of time and they are forced out of the job because they prefer to have younger workers and they force people out after the age of 25. Many of the workers are given quotas that are almost unachievable. It means that they then have to come in and work off of the clock so they can start their new day of work. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud Duke University and Brown University and Cornell University, who is now in the process of considering these codes of conduct and those who have already passed codes of conduct, because I think that they are returning to the roots of the university system and demanding the excellence and integrity and dignity of their name and of those things that are associated with them. I would hope that all schools of higher education would support this effort. Let me also make it clear that I do not believe that code of conduct is enough to ensure honest wages and safety from exploitative workplaces. But our committee has a number of those topics under discussion and those are topics for another time. These voluntary code of conducts, finally let me say, do work. Over 2 years ago an effort was started in both the public and private sector to ask questions about soccer balls. Soccer balls were made in Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and elsewhere using very, very young children because they had tiny hands that could sew the soccer ball; and they used them until they could no longer do it, and then they were thrown out on the streets. We started a campaign that was started by young children, a school- aged boy from Canada, a young boy from India that started this campaign. And today, today the International Soccer Federation will not give its consent to its name being put on a soccer ball if it is made with child labor. Nike and Reebok, when they learned of this, completely reorganized how they construct these balls. They brought it in house. They do not allow labor to be exploited. So a voluntary effort can make a big difference, as we are starting to see in some parts of the apparel industry, as we saw in the Soccer Federation, and I hope we will start to see on the university campuses. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this. I would like to thank so many of the students across the country who have taken up this effort, have brought this to the attention of the university administrations. And I would hope that we would soon have a university-wide voluntary code of conduct with respect to the purchase of this. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record several additional items, including: my complete floor statement; the list of the members of the Apparel Industry Partnership; a copy of the report of the Apparel Industry Partnership to President Clinton that includes the code of conduct that has become the basis for codes being used by other universities and colleges; and, three editorials on the Apparel Industry Partnership's report. Participants in the Apparel Industry Partnership include: Liz Claiborne Inc.; Nike; Phillips-Van Heusen; Reebok; L.L. Bean; Patagonia; Tweeds; Nicole Miller; Karen Kane; UNITE; the Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union; Business for Social Responsibility; the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility; the International Labor Rights Fund; Lawyers Committee for Human Rights; the National Consumers League; and the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights. Report of Apparel Industry Partnership The members of the Apparel Industry Partnership hereby report to the President and to the public on: The announcement of the attached ``Workplace Code of Conduct'' as a set of standards defining decent and humane working conditions; The individual determination of each company participating in the Partnership to adhere to the Code and to implement as soon as reasonably practicable a monitoring program consistent with the attached ``Principles of Monitoring,'' by adopting an internal monitoring program consistent with such Principles and utilizing an independent external monitor that agrees to conduct its monitoring consistent with such Principles; and The Partnership's commitment to work together to form, during a six-month transition period, a nonprofit association that would have the following functions intended to provide the public with confidence about compliance with the Code: To determine the criteria for company membership in the association and for companies to remain members in good standing of the association; To develop criteria and implement procedures for the qualification of independent external monitors; To design audit and other instruments for the establishment of baseline monitoring practices; To continue to address questions critical to the elimination of sweatshop practices; To develop means to maximize the ability of member companies to remedy any instances of noncompliance with the Code; and To serve as a source of information to consumers about the Code and about companies that comply with the Code. The association would be governed by a board whose members would be nominated by companies, labor unions and consumer, human rights and religious groups. The Partnership would work together during this transition period to further determine the governance of the association. workplace code of conduct The Apparel Industry Partnership has addressed issues related to the eradication of sweatshops in the United States and abroad. On the basis of this examination, the Partnership has formulated the following set of standards defining decent and humane working conditions. The Partnership believes that consumers can have confidence that products that are manufactured in compliance with these standards are not produced under exploitative or inhumane conditions. Forced Labor. There shall not be any use of forced labor, whether in the form of prison labor, indentured labor, bonded labor or otherwise. Child Labor. No person shall be employed at an age younger than 15 (or 14 where the law of the country of manufacture \1\ allows) or younger than the age for completing compulsory education in the country of manufacture where such age is higher than 15. Harassment or Abuse. Every employee shall be treated with respect and dignity. No employee shall be subject to any physical, sexual, psychological or verbal harassment or abuse. Nondiscrimination. No person shall be subject to any discrimination in employment, including hiring, salary, benefits, advancement, discipline, termination or retirement, on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, political opinion, or social or ethnic origin. Health and Safety. Employers shall provide a safe and healthy working environment to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the course of work or as a result of the operation of employer facilities. Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining. Employers shall recognize and respect the right of employees to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Wages and Benefits. Employers recognize that wages are essential to meeting employees' basic needs. Employers shall pay employees, as a floor, at least the minimum wage required by local law or the prevailing industry wage, whichever is higher, and shall provide legally mandated benefits. Hours of Work. Except in extraordinary business circumstances, employees shall (i) not be required to work more than the lesser of (a) 48 hours per week and 12 hours overtime, or (b) the limits on regular and overtime hours allowed by the law of the country of manufacture or, where the laws of such country do not limit the hours of work, the regular work week in such country plus 12 hours overtime and (ii) be entitled to at least one day off in every seven day period. Overtime Compensation. In addition to their compensation for regular hours of work, employees shall be compensated for overtime hours at such premium rate as is legally required in the country of manufacture or, in those countries where such laws do not exist, at a rate at least equal to their regular hourly compensation rate. Any company that determines to adopt the Workplace Code of Conduct shall, in addition to complying with all applicable laws of the country of manufacture, comply with and support the Workplace Code of Conduct in accordance with the attached Principles of Monitoring and shall apply the higher standard in cases of differences or conflicts. Any company that determines to adopt the Workplace Code of Conduct also shall require its contractors and, in the case of a retailer, its suppliers to comply with applicable local laws and with this Code in accordance with the attached Principles of Monitoring and to apply the higher standard in cases of differences or conflicts. principles of monitoring I. Obligations of Companies \2\ A. Establish Clear Standards Establish and articulate clear, written workplace standards; \3\ Formally convey those standards to company factories as well as to contractors and suppliers; \4\ Receive written certifications, on a regular basis, from company factories as well as contractors and suppliers that standards are being met, and that employees have been informed about the standards; and Obtain written agreement of company factories and contractors and suppliers to submit to periodic inspections and audits, including by independent external monitors, for compliance with the workplace standards. B. Create An Informed Workplace Ensure that all company factories as well as contractors and suppliers inform their employees about the workplace standards orally and through the posting of standards in a prominent place (in the local languages spoken by employees and managers) and undertake other efforts to educate employees about the standards on a regular basis. C. Develop An Information Database Develop a questionnaire to verify and quantify compliance with the workplace standards; and Require company factories and contractors and suppliers to complete and submit the questionnaire to the company on a regular basis. D. Establish Program to Train Company Monitors Provide training on a regular basis to company monitors about the workplace standards and applicable local and international law, as well as about effective monitoring practices, so as to enable company monitors to be able to assess compliance with the standards E. Conduct Periodic Visits and Audits Have trained company monitors conduct periodic announced and unannounced visits to an appropriate sampling of company factories and facilities of contractors and suppliers to assess compliance with the workplace standards; and Have company monitors conduct periodic audits of production records and practices and of wage, hour, payroll and other employee records and practices of company factories and contractors and suppliers. F. Provide Employees With Opportunity to Report Noncompliance Develop a secure communications channel, in a manner appropriate to the culture and situation, to enable company employees and employees of contractors and suppliers to report to the company on noncompliance with the workplace standards, with security that they will not be punished or prejudiced for doing so. G. Establish Relationships with Labor, Human Rights, Religious or Other Local Institutions Consult regularly with human rights, labor, religious or other leading local institutions that are likely to have the trust of workers and knowledge of local conditions and utilize, where companies deem necessary, such local institutions to facilitate communication with company employees and employees of contractors and suppliers in the reporting of noncompliance with the workplace standards; Consult periodically with legally constituted unions representing employees at the worksite regarding the monitoring process and utilize, where companies deem appropriate, the input of such unions; and Assure that implementation of monitoring is consistent with applicable collective bargaining agreements. H. Establish Means of Remediation Work with company factories and contractors and suppliers to correct instances of noncompliance with the workplace standards promptly as they are discovered and to take steps to ensure that such instances do not recur; and Condition future business with contractors and suppliers upon compliance with the standards. II. Obligations of independent external monitors A. Establish Clear Evaluation Guidelines and Criteria Establish clear, written criteria and guidelines for evaluation of company compliance with the workplace standards B. Review Company Information Database Conduct independent review of written data obtained by company to verify and quantify compliance with the workplace standards C. Verify Creation of Informed Workplace Verify that company employees and employees of contractors and suppliers have been informed about the workplace standards orally, through the posting of standards in a prominent place (in the local languages spoken by employees and managers) and through other educational efforts. D. Verify Establishment of Communications Channel Verify that the company has established a secure communications channel to enable company employees and employees of contractors and suppliers to report to the company on noncompliance with the workplace standards, with security that they will not be punished or prejudiced for doing so. E. Be Given Independent Access to, and Conduct Independent Audit of, Employee Records Be given independent access to all production records and practices and wage, hour, payroll and other employee records and practices of company factories and contractors and suppliers; and Conduct independent audit, on a confidential basis, of an appropriate sampling of production records and practices and wage, hour, payroll and other employee records and practices of company factories and contractors and suppliers. F. Conduct Periodic Visits and Audits Conduct periodic announced and unannounced visits, on a confidential basis, of an appropriate sampling of company factories and facilities of contractors and suppliers to survey compliance with the workplace standards. G. Establish Relationships with Labor, Human Rights, Religious or Other Local Institutions In those instances where independent external monitors themselves are not leading local human rights, labor rights, religious or other similar institutions, consult regularly with human rights, labor, religious or other leading local institutions that are likely to have the trust of workers and knowledge of local conditions; and Assure that implementation of monitoring is consistent with applicable collective bargaining agreements and performed in consultation with legally constituted unions representing employees at the worksite. H. Conduct Confidential Employee Interviews Conduct periodic confidential interviews, in a manner appropriate to the culture and situation, with a random sampling of company employees and employees of contractors and suppliers (in their local languages) to determine employee perspective on compliance with the workplace standards; and Utilize human rights, labor, religious or other leading local institutions to facilitate communication with company employees and employees of contractors and suppliers, both in the conduct of employee interviews and in the reporting of noncompliance. I. Implement Remediation Work, where appropriate, with company factories and contractors and suppliers to correct instances of noncompliance with the workplace standards. J. Complete Evaluation Report Complete report evaluating company compliance with the workplace standards. Endnotes: \1\ All references to local law throughout this Code shall include regulations implemented in accordance with applicable local law. \2\ It is recognized that implementation by companies of internal monitoring programs might vary depending upon the extent of their resources but that any internal monitoring program adopted by a company would be consistent with these Principles of Monitoring. If companies do not have the resources to implement some of these Principles as part of an internal monitoring program, they may delegate the implementation of such Principles to their independent external monitors. \3\ Adoption of the Workplace Code of Conduct would satisfy the requirement to establish and articulate clear written standards. Accordingly, all references to the ``workplace standards'' and the ``standards'' throughout this document could be replaced with a reference to the Workplace Code of Conduct. \4\ These Principles of Monitoring should apply to contractors where the company adopting the workplace standards is a manufacturer (including a retailer acting as a manufacturer) and to suppliers where the company adopting the standards is a retailer (including a manufacturer acting as a retailer). A ``contractor'' or a ``supplier'' shall mean any contractor or supplier engaged in a manufacturing process, including cutting, sewing, assembling and packaging, which results in a finished product for the consumer. [From the San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 17, 1997] ``No Sweat'' requires Sweat Equity A code of conduct pledged by Nike, Reebok and others is only a first step toward ending international sweatshop abuses With strong caveats, we endorse the creation of a code of conduct to fight sweatshop practices around the world. It is a good first step if the participating shoe and apparel manufacturers are serious about making it work. Agreement was announced Monday by several companies-- including Nike, Reebok, Liz Claiborne, Patagonia and L.L. Bean--along with human rights and labor groups that joined together as members of a presidential task force. Some critics, however, said the code would only lead to ``kinder, gentler sweatshops.'' Required under the new code are the elimination of child labor, a guarantee of pay at the minimum wage prevailing in the country of manufacture, a maximum 60-hour week, the end of abusive working conditions and protection of workers' right to organize. Unsettled are details of inspections and sanctions, which are critical to success of the code. In exchange, companies that comply will be able to emblazon merchandise with a ``No Sweat'' label, a signal to buyers that sweatshop labor was not used in its manufacture. The responsibility of American manufacturers toward workers in their foreign plant--in Indonesia, Vietnam, Haiti and other countries--has been a controversial issue. Now, at least, the companies are publicly pledged to uphold minimum standards and to fight abusive conditions. ``This is a breakthrough agreement that really stands to benefit workers around the world,'' said Michael Posner, a task force member and executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights. To prevent the code of conduct from becoming merely a public relations device--a coverup for continued sweatshop activity--we beleive two additional steps are necessary. First, manufacturers must agree to factory inspections carried out by truly independent groups, not just auditors hired by the companies. Inclusion of internationally respected groups such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch would clinch the effort's credibility. Second, violations must be announced publicly and quickly. This carries two beneficial effects: Consumers will be resurred that the inspections aren't a sham, and companies will be prodded to correct deficiencies without delay. Companies that don't must be stripped of their ``No Sweat'' logos. The code will not solve all the world's problems. Nor should it be expected to do so. No realistic, economically sophisticated person should expect Nike or Reebok to pay workers far above their country 's prevailing wage, no matter how ``just'' that may seem to U.S. critics. What's more important is halting abuses such as those reported by USA Today earlier this year in plants run by Nike subcontractors in Vietnam. One factory floor manager was convicted of beating Vietnamese workers with a shoe. Another Nike subcontractor was cited for making 58 Vietnamese women employees run laps as punishment until some dropped from exhaustion and had to be taken to a hospital. Such revelations are not good news for Nike or any other manufacturer that basks in an all-American image. Self- interest, if not humanitarian zeal, ought to be an impetus to just do the right thing. American companies that manufacture abroad are sometimes portrayed as economic pirates. Left unsaid is that they benefit hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, who, after all, are not coerced to work for Nike or Reebok but line up for the chance. They know that a job that pays even a few dollars a day is better than no job. Nothing should absolve American companies of their wider social responsibilities. The code is a beginning. The debate will continue. As long as it's sincere, this joint effort by companies and human rights groups can accomplish more than rhetorical campaigns to improve the lot of international workers. But the ``No Sweat'' labels must mean a real commitment and not a public relations gimmick. Over time, cheaters never win. [From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 16, 1997] A Big No to Sweatshops clinton plan for a code and ``no sweat'' label on clothing is laudable The president of the United States has the ability to do many things but so far not to erase sweatshop labor practices in American and overseas clothing factories. Bill Clinton, however, at least is trying. This week he proposed a voluntary code under which U.S. clothing companies would accept the presence of independent auditors to monitor compliance with a minimum set of workplace labor laws. The code would apply whether the work was done in the United States or abroad. Companies that pay at least the legal minimum wage in the country where the work is being done, use no child labor, have a workweek of no more than 60 hours and give workers at least one day off each week would be permitted to apply a ``No Sweat'' label to their clothes. Cute, and potentially effective. Some critics will argue that the code merely sets forth standards that every company in the world should be observing anyway. But in fact few companies in the clothing industry or, for that matter, in some other handwork industries adhere to these minimum legal standards. Another objection to the presidential initiative deals with the composition of the independent panel that would monitor compliance. Some American union leaders insist that non- governmental, religious and human rights organizations, plus union representatives, perform the process. Employers who have agreed to the code want an international firm of auditors to do that job. This should not be an issue. As long as the auditors do not have any conflict of interest, there should be no problem. The program should have a grievance procedure, however. And there is no doubt that under a grievance process the workers would use their voice to complain about any injustice, whether covered in the code or not. The real test for the presidential initiative will be whether consumers make the ``No Sweat'' label the decisive element when they go shopping for clothes. That will make all the difference. [From the New York Times, Apr. 16] A Modest Start on Sweatshops A newly proposed code of conduct for domestic and overseas sweatshops makes useful pledges to improve the appalling working conditions of apparel workers around the world. But the code is so littered with loopholes its impact will probably be limited unless public and press attention remains fixed on the problems of sweatshop workers. The Presidential task force that developed the code included industry giants like Nike, Reebok, L.L. Bean and Liz Claiborne, as well as representatives of labor and human rights groups. It got industry pledges to provide abuse-free factories, hire children at least 15 years old, limit workweek to 60 hours and protect the right of workers to organize without fear of retaliation by their employers. The code also calls for companies to hire independent monitors that would work with local human rights groups. This provision is vital, since in oppressive societies workers would only voice discontent to groups that have gained their trust. Identifying and publicizing abuses is essential to improving conditions. The coverage of inhumane conditions at Central American factories turning out clothes for Wal-Mart under the name of Kathie Lee Gifford led to creation of the task force. Two years ago, the industry would have brushed off any proposal to monitor its third-world factories. The weakness of the code is its lack of precise commitments. The accord suggests but does not require local independent monitoring of working conditions or public disclosure of infractions. The 60-hour limit on the workweek can be waived for what are called ``extraordinary'' circumstances. Even if a follow-up commission strengthens the wording, the code cannot work unless American consumers penalize non- participants. Some companies will not sign the code. Warnaco, which makes Hathaway shirts, withdrew from the task force because the company fears that the public disclosure of monitors' reports will reveal trade secrets to competitors. If consumers flock to lower-priced clothes produced by companies that ignore the code, the effort will fail. The task force correctly rejected the idea of imposing a ``living'' wage, calling instead for companies to pay only the locally prevailing minimum wage. An externally determined wage would almost surely victimize the world's worst-paid workers. Manufacturers would close shop in countries like Haiti and Vietnam where workers produce too little to cover the higher wage employers would be required to pay, and reopen somewhere else where factories are more productive. The more humane course is to rely on competition to drive up productivity and wages, as has happened in South Korea and other Asian economies. At best, a voluntary accord that includes industry can only accomplish so much. The task force may help reduce the political heat on Mr. Clinton, labor unions and industry to deal with the working conditions in faraway factories. Whether third-world workers will ever see a benefit depends on sharpening the code and intensifying disclosure of companies that violate its provisions.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, today all across America, consumers are taking a closer look at how products that they buy are made. There are some things consumers have always wanted to know: How much does it cost? Where is it made? What is it made of? And was it made with union labor? Was it made with recycled products? For many years, there have been labels on these products to provide consumers this information. Today, however, on the heels of a number of embarrassing incidents involving high-profile personalities and well- known companies, consumers want to know more about the products they buy. They want to know under what conditions were these products made. They want to know, for example, whether the T-shirts, the baseball caps, the sweatpants, and the soccer balls they buy for themselves and for their children were made by children. They want to know if the products they are buying with their hard-earned money were made by workers who were exploited in sweatshops or by child labor. There are no labels to tell consumers that kind of information. Until there is a better way to inform consumers about labor practices, about the methods of production, we think that one of the best ways to do this is for purchasers of these items to engage in voluntary codes of conduct, codes of conduct that are backed up by independent monitoring. We now have some of these voluntary codes of conduct with members of the apparel industry. Some of the big names in the apparel industry, the designer labels, have agreed to voluntary codes of conduct to monitor under what conditions their garments are made, how they are made, who made them, and whether or not it is exploited labor. What we now see on our university and college campuses is that many goods are sold on college campuses in the bookstores, sports memorabilia, college educational memorabilia items, such as this, a baseball cap. A simple baseball cap that might be sold on the university campus, it turns out that it is made in a sweatshop. It is made by exploited labor. In some cases it is made by child labor. Some universities, when they have learned this information, have immediately taken the items off of their shelves. They refuse to sell them. Cornell University just did this. Other universities have said, if we had known that, we would never have purchased them. Duke University and Brown University have just entered into voluntary codes of conduct for the purchasing of these materials. Duke University and Brown University sell a lot of this memorabilia. Alumni go there, the students go there, they buy it for gifts for their brothers and sisters. They have no way of knowing it was made with exploited labor or made with child labor. So now they have a voluntary code of conduct to protect the purchasers, to protect their student body from this kind of condition. The code stipulates that the companies must certify, if they are going to sell to these universities, that this is not made with child labor, that this is not made in sweatshops, that the minimum wage in the area was paid. Different universities have different approaches, but it is to try to raise the awareness and to make sure that the university could protect its consumers. This is a market that is over $2 billion. Over $2 billion of these sweatshirts and sweatpants and T-shirts and baseball caps and other paraphernalia are purchased. Some universities sell a huge amount of this, Harvard University, Duke University, University of Southern California, Notre Dame, and others. Duke University estimates that it sells about $20 million of this licensed merchandise. Cornell says it receives about $15,000 in royalties. What my amendment does is express the sense of Congress to encourage the adoption of these voluntary codes of conduct by colleges and universities governing the merchandise that they license for manufacture. By passing this measure, Congress will lend a helping hand to a growing private sector movement to restore a sense of integrity and decency to our marketplace. As one indication of the growing importance of this issue, the Association of Collegiate Licensing Administrators will convene their annual meeting later this month, and this topic of discussion is on their agenda to discuss such codes as were adopted by Duke University and Brown. In addition, the Collegiate Licensing Company, which represents 160 schools, including Cornell, is in the process of writing a code of conduct for its clients. When we asked Duke, which had adopted its code in March, ``Why did you do so?'' they said for two reasons: One, on moral grounds, it was absolutely the right thing to do; and it was also smart economically. The universities have come to recognize, as pointed out both again by people at Duke and by the provost of Harvard University, that the university has to protect the integrity of its name. If its name is associated with sweatshop merchandise, if its name is associated with child labor, exploited labor, it cheapens the name and integrity of the university. So they have a reason to do this, and yet, these very same universities in a recent report found that a company named BJ&B is running sweatshops in the Dominican Republic making baseball caps for leading American universities, Harvard, Cornell, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Duke, and others and they did not know it. So now they are moving in this direction. I would hope that the Congress would support this effort with this sense of Congress resolution for these voluntary codes of conduct. These are baseball caps that sell for about $20, for about $20. The university gets about $1.50 in royalty and licensing fee. The worker gets 7 cents. So, obviously, there is improvement that can be made here in terms of compensating the people who are making these products.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. There is no doubt that we should do everything we can to discourage the sale and use of drugs by our Nation's youth, but we do the youth of our Nation a disservice by suggesting that they alone are responsible for the Nation's drug problem. And we do them an even greater disservice by coming to the floor with an empty political gesture that plays to the worst stereotype of young people, while at the same time the Republican leadership of this Congress refuses to lift a finger on behalf of this Nation's youth. Today, the Congress will make this simplistic statement about a very complex problem. It will scapegoat our Nation's young people for the problem for which, in reality, we all should be taking responsibility for. It is not a question of America's public commitment to the war against drugs, to the commitment of the parents of our young children to the war against drugs; it is the problem of a very tired, outdated and ineffective war on drugs. Let me also point out what this resolution and this Congress will fail to do. It will fail to reward the vast majority of youth who stay out of trouble, in many cases overcoming great obstacles, such as poverty or difficult family circumstances; it will fail to promise America's youth improved conditions in their schools, conditions which adults would never tolerate in their own workplaces; it will fail to tell America's youth that we want them to share in the benefits of a boom economy and unprecedented prosperity by expanding their educational and economic opportunities; it will fail to promise them the protection of being victims of violence or abuse, either at the hands of their peers, in their own families or someone much older than themselves; it will fail to provide for after-school programs to make productive use of the time that young people have in the late afternoons. The number one complaint among young people is there is nothing to do, and yet we see music programs, arts programs, and educational programs all scaled back. No alternatives. No alternatives to people just hanging out. This Congress will fail to announce a commitment of stopping tobacco companies from targeting our young people by aggressively marketing their product that will ultimately kill more than every illegal drug combined. Instead, the most affluent generation of elders in this Nation's history will scold its youth and tell them they are bad and shirk its responsibility for making things better. It is easy to bash teens. And while we should not minimize the very real problem of drug use by America's young people, let us make sure the record is straight about the entire drug problem. Teenagers account for less than 1 percent of illegal drug deaths. The adult drug death rate is nearly 10 times higher than that of adolescents. While the use of illegal drugs by young people actually decreased between 1979 and 1994, for adults over the age of 35 it increased by 28 percent. The top three causes of death among youth are automobile accidents, homicides, and suicides. The drug that is the factor in most of those car crashes is alcohol, but it is not addressed by this resolution. In fact, just a few short weeks ago we saw the leadership cave to the alcohol lobby. We were not allowed to have an amendment voted on by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to toughen laws against drunk driving. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this measure, as I expect all Members will, because I agree with most of what it says. But the things it does not say and the things it fails to do to provide hope and opportunity for this Nation's young people say more about where we are as a Nation and falling short on our responsibilities to our Nation's youth. Finally, I would like to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has raised a whole series of questions this Congress is afraid to debate. My colleagues should ask their constituents, the next time they are in a town hall meeting, if they believe the war on drugs is working. Tell them we have spent $200 billion. It may be the least effective program we have on the Nation's books. There is no other market in the world where we would spend $200 billion interfering with the market and the price of drugs on the street would never change over a two decade period of time. That is the testimony. The market every day turns in a report on the war on drugs, and the market says the cost of doing business has not gone up one scintilla. We ought to start thinking about new tools and a new approach and we ought to stop pretending like this is only a problem for young people in this country.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Al McNabney last week. I knew Al well, enjoyed our conversations and highly regarded his opinions on local and national concerns. California has lost a tireless leader whose many contributions as an environmental activist will be remembered and revered by the citizens of Contra Costa County and all who knew him. Al McNabney was an outstanding citizen whose passion for the environment began with an interest in birds and later developed into active memberships with a variety of advisory councils and environmental organizations, including his service as Vice President of Conservation for the Mt. Diablo Audubon Society. Al is remembered as a respected source of information about most conservation issues, and he wrote may letters to me about his personal enviromental concerns and pending legislative policy issues. His vision for the development of the Delta Science Center, a state-of-the-art facility for environmental research, education and recreation, will soon become a reality and a valuable resource for the citizens of my district. My heart goes out to Al's wife Helen, to whom Al was married for 57 years, his family and his friends. Al will be sorely missed, but his contributions toward environmental conservation will be enjoyed for generations to come. I ask that the following article from the Contra Costa Times, ``Al McNabney Battled for Nature in East Bay'' be printed below in the Congressional Record. [From the Contra Costa Times, May 3, 1998] Al McNabney Battled for Nature in East Bay (By Abby Collins Sears) Walnut Creek.--There may never be another environmentalist like Al McNabney in Contra Costa County, say friends, fellow advocates and even opponents. The man was synonymous with environmentalism in the East Bay. He died Friday morning of natural causes. Al belonged to more environmental organizations, projects and advisory councils than Heather Farm Park has trees, the Delta has islands or Mount Diablo has trails, he said in a January interview. He knew because he monitored them for more than two decades. ``He was a great environmental warrior,'' said Walnut Creek resident Steve Barbata, who knew Al for 12 years after meeting him at an environmental event. ``Even before that, I was always aware of his eminent presence,'' he said. ``He made the environment more tolerable for all life forms.'' Heavily Involved Funny thing was, Al rarely got outdoors. In his later years, the Rossmoor resident used most of his energy to read land-use studies, attend meetings and write letters. On average, he wrote more than 25 letters a week to developers, politicians and public agencies. He also subscribed to 37 conservation publications and would read every page. When one saw Al in action at a city planning commission or the county Board of Supervisors meeting, you would know that was no exaggeration. He would spew facts and figures at bullet speed--without forgetting to flash a smile. ``He was exceptionally competent and always very thorough,'' said Martinez resident Ted Radke, a member of the East Bay Regional Park District board. ``He earned a great deal of respect from everybody he came into contact with, whether people agreed with him or not.'' Defusing tension Several people commented that one of Al's greatest talents was infusing dry humor into heated discussions. ``He would defuse steamy or difficult situations with humor,'' Barbata said. ``He knew people learned better through humor than pointed criticism. He was a master of it.'' His presentation were often facetious. He often gave a spiel about the bugs and bees, birds and flowers, water and soil, animals and trees--yet steely facts would glint through the friendly fluff. Al's passion to save the county's natural milieu from eradication began about 30 years ago with a simple affinity for a bird. Every day, he passed the pet shop near his former San Francisco home. Eventually he made regular stops to admire one bird--a green Amazon parrot. One day the owner suggested Al take it out of the cage. It bit him. But the owner said he handled the bird very well. So he bought that parrot, and soon after, another. Love of birds Al then read everything he could about parrots, an interest that expanded to other birds. He even took a job studying hospital systems in Australia so he and his wife, Helen, could spend their free time studying the country's native species. Al and Helen were two lovebirds themselves. Even after 57 years of marriage, they still exchanged affectionate glances and coy grins. Helen matched Al's clever witticisms with her own gentle quips. She said she appreciated numerous qualities about him, but was shy about commenting on her husband out of respect for his humble and private character. Helen's only half complaint was having to put up with his bird Coco, a talkative African gray parrot that he had for more than 30 years. She and Coco could never hold a conversation. Volunteered after retiring After retiring in the late 1970s, Al said he had nothing better to do so he volunteered with the Mt. Diablo Audubon Society. It was the beginning of his environmental work. ``They sounded like they had something to do with birds, and by then I was pretty well steeped into bird life,'' he had said in the interview earlier this year. The organization made Al vice president of conservation, and he fought to maintain ecological equilibrium ever after. That involvement sprouted into other environmentally related issues, such as overseeing effects of Tosco refinery emissions, and developing the Delta Science Center, a proposed research, education and recreation facility that became his pet project the past five years. ``He called it a world-class center,'' said Radke, the park district board member. ``He wanted everyone involved with it to think big. It was a dream of his, which will someday soon become a reality.'' Many memberships Al was also a member of the Sierra Club, CalFed, Advocates for Bird Conservation, Committee for the American Federation of Aviculture, Commission for Endangered and Exotic Species, Committee on the Conservation on International Trade and Endangered Species, and the Lindsay Wildlife Museum. Al also watched over practically every development plan proposed in Contra Costa, making him the county's environmental conscience. He said he had lived so long that his many lives all helped in his role as an effective activist. Al was a hospital administrator for medical facilities in San Francisco and Tucson, Ariz., and he was once a labor leader and belonged to the American Arbitration Association. Modest activist But when asked about other accomplishments, he was always self-effacing. ``There's not a huge rush of people wanting the job and the environment is going to pot in a hand basket,'' he said a few months ago. ``As long as I can negotiate, talk and walk I'm going to keep doing it.'' Helen said there will be no services because her modest husband wouldn't have wanted it. She plans to privately scatter his ashes. ``I thought of doing it in the Delta or Shell marsh or maybe Mount Diablo,'' Helen said. ``I'll have to really think about it because he truly loved all those areas so much.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, by request, the Tribal Trust Fund Settlement Act of 1998. This legislation sets up a process through which Indian Tribes could enter into negotiations with the Department of Interior in order to agree on account balances for some 1,500 trust fund accounts held in trust by the United States. Since the early 1900's the Department of Interior has managed funds derived from land resources for Indian tribes and individual Indians. These funds have been badly mismanaged and the Department can not verify account balances. After a 5-year and $21 million attempt to reconcile accounts, it became clear that because of the volume of missing documents, reconciliation would be impossible. This legislation is a good step in the right direction by admitting mistakes and moving forward to clean up the problems of tribal trust fund accounts. Under the legislation, the Department of Interior would make an offer to settle each tribal account. If the offer is rejected, both parties would enter into informal dispute resolution in order to try to come to agreement without the cost and time incurred by litigation. If agreement cannot be reached, tribes would be free to pursue recourse through court action. I am hopeful that we can reach some agreement during the legislative process that provides tribes with a guarantee that if they choose to go to court, they will have swift access to the courts. Settlement funds agreed to under this legislation would come from the judgment fund made available for judgments against the United States and not from the already strapped tribal programs in the Interior Department. I commend Secretary Babbitt for his diligent work and commitment and hope hearings will be held immediately so that we may hear from the affected Indian tribes on this proposal.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this misnamed emergency supplemental bill. Many Members will debate provisions in this bill that are very troublesome and that have been well publicized. I want to take a few moments to alert Members to a few provisions that certainly do not qualify as ``emergency'', and that have no reason to be in this legislation except to shower additional taxpayer dollars on special interests. Just yesterday, during the Conference meeting on this bill, the conferees added language at the behest of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, that will allow oil companies to avoid paying taxpayers a fair royalty for oil and gas produced from public lands. Now, this provision was not in the House bill. It was not in the Senate bill. But we all know what happened: the oil industry saw an opportunity to make millions of dollars off the taxpayers, who own the oil and gas, by getting a rider in an emergency spending bill. So the oil industry went to a friendly Senator and suddenly, a multi- million dollar gift falls into the industry's lap, and the taxpayers once again are left shortchanged. I am told that the lead lobbyist from the American Petroleum Institute, which was advocating this maneuver, was actually seen sitting at the Conference table, presumably helping the proponents craft the rider in just the right way to maximize profits for the oil industry at the expense of the taxpayer. How convenient. Members should understand that we are now aware that the taxpayers have been shortchanged hundreds of millions of dollars by energy companies operating on the public lands. That is well documented. And the Administration rightly has taken legal action to recover those millions of dollars for the taxpayers. But this amendment--drafted by the oil industry--would stop the Interior Department from doing what it is legally charged with doing: assuring a fair return to the public from the production of its own oil and gas! But the conferees didn't stop there. No, they have lots more expensive gifts for the oil industry--paid for by the unwitting taxpayer. A few years ago, Congress very unwisely created a ``royalty holiday'' for the oil industry in the supposed deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. Companies willing to drill in these supposedly perilous depths were given leases that included millions of barrels of oil on which they would not have to pay the standard 12.5% royalty; in fact, they wouldn't have to pay any royalty on tens of millions of barrels of oil. Of course, we knew oil companies would pay more for these royalty- free leases; why not, since they knew they wouldn't have to pay out royalties. But Congress still insisted that the Secretary of the Interior should have the flexibility to modify royalty rates (when they finally do kick in) to assure that taxpayers receive fair market value. That was the deal the oil companies signed off on when they endorsed the royalty ``holiday'' bill. Now, everyone knows oil exploration and production in the Gulf is at fever pitch. In fact, deep water development was proceeding at an unprecedented rate even before we unwisely enacted the ``royalty holiday.'' But apparently the incentives weren't high enough, because stuck in the Statement of Managers for this so-called ``emergency'' bill is a provision that prevents the Interior Department from using authority granted in the ``holiday'' law to increase future royalty rates if, as we predicted, it might be needed to compensate for the excessive ``holiday'' giveaway. The oil industry, which so happily embraced the royalty ``holiday'' in 1995 now wants even more; having benefitted from the ``holiday'' law for the past two years, now it wants more profits at taxpayer expense. And the conferees are going along with the deception. Mr. Speaker, the oil industry does not need these provisions in this so-called ``emergency'' bill. Well completions were up in 1997; production in the lower 48 was up for the first time in 6 years in 1997. If restricting the authority of federal officials to ensure that the taxpayers are properly compensated is so important, then let the Resources Committee bring legislation to the floor of the House, not sneak it into legislation intended to provide urgent assistance to our citizens.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to join my colleagues in again congratulating our chairman the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the subcommittee chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for all of the work here. This is one of the more unusual bipartisan coalitions we have put together in the last couple of years, but we have done it because I think everybody on the committee recognizes the importance of this legislation to America's families with children who are pursuing higher education and pursuing education for the purposes of taking their place in our economic system. This legislation is an important vehicle, and it opens the doors of opportunity for those families. I think as we look through this legislation, to my colleagues who are not part of the committee, they will start to see that the hearings in this committee made a difference, that this committee was willing to listen to people who were constructive critics of the current system and have made a series of changes that I think are terribly important. We provided loan forgiveness, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) pointed out, to teachers to go to high-poverty schools, but we also said that those teachers have to be qualified. No longer should poor children have to suffer poor teachers. We have provided grants to States for upgrading the State teacher preparation and certification system. We created partnerships between colleges and school districts to provide new teachers intensive professional development and mentoring programs and better information to parents about the qualifications of the teachers of their children, the teachers who are spending many hours a day with their children. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand that we listen to these critics, we try and shape and mold this program, we try to reduce the cost of higher education to young people and to their families; and I think we successfully did so. Finally, I would just like to make one remark that was pointed out by our colleague the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). I am disappointed that the legislation, as currently written, will result in students from the Freely Associated States being denied access to Pell Grants. I think it is important that we try to honor our commitment to these people from the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau to make sure that they do have access to institutions of higher education here on the mainland; and I look forward to working with the committee on that matter.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, teacher preparation is the foundation of our entire educational system. All across the Nation, States and local school districts are raising the standards for what students should know and be able to do. If we are truly serious about helping all of these students meet these new standards, we must ensure that the teachers of the future have the requisite knowledge and skills to get them there. One important step in meeting that goal is to strengthen the quality of programs that prepare our prospective teachers. While many colleges and universities do a fine job of preparing teachers, others fall short, sometimes far short, in providing the prospective teachers with the education and training that they need. This bill presents an opportunity. In the committee, I offered an amendment which would have cut off funding for teacher colleges that did not meet a certain test. That amendment was not accepted. Since that time, I have been spending time with the minority and other members of the committee to work on this amendment to see whether or not we can get it acceptable. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, for all of their help and support on this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for all of his help with this amendment. We offer this amendment to try to encourage States and to increase, one, the information about their schools of education and how they are doing, and to make sure that that information is disseminated to prospective candidates to those schools so that they will understand when they go to that school what is the passage rate at that school; and also to disseminate to the policymakers within that State exactly what is the status of that school. I think this is very important because the Federal Government provides about $1.8 billion in Federal support to schools of education, that is grants, loans, and work studies, in 1995 and 1996 alone and does not count other Federal monies that flows to these schools. I think it is important that we know and the prospective students in these schools know what it is that they will get when they enroll in these schools. What my amendment would do, after much conversation and consultation with the minority and others, it would see to it that the schools of education would try and prepare the students who want to become teachers of the future to meet the quality standards set by those States; not quality standards set by the Federal Government, but quality standards set by those States. It is intended to spur the schools of education to undertake reforms that will upgrade the quality of the teacher preparation programs. It is designed to send a message to schools and to colleges and universities that they should raise the status of teacher education to a level similar to the programs of other professionals. We very often hear that we do not pay teachers enough or we do not treat them like professionals. But until such time as we have the quality standards to gain the confidence of the American public, it is likely that we will continue to underpay our teachers. I think that that is most unfortunate. This amendment is also designed to provide greater accountability for the money that the Federal Government spends. Why do we do this? We do this because teacher quality is important. Earlier this evening, I talked about how our committee held hearings and listened to constructive critics of the current system of higher education and teaching and education and all that went with it, and we heard a lot of evidence. One of the things we heard over and over and over, we heard it from conservatives and from liberals, from professionals in the field and from critics in the field, the teacher quality is arguably the most important factor outside of family affecting student achievement. I believe that this amendment directs both information to people who want to become teachers and that hold teacher colleges accountable should those States decide to do it. We ought to understand that teacher quality accounts, according to information given to our committee, for 43 percent of the variance in student achievement scores. Other information from the University of Tennessee indicates that poor teachers in early grades have serious and long-lasting effects on the achievement of our students. That is what this amendment is designed to remedy. It does it in a far different fashion than I offered it in committee. I think it is consistent with the concerns the minority had that the States be able to continue to keep control of these systems. It does it in a consistent way with actions that were seen taken in States like New York, Florida, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and others that are all moving in this direction. It augments, I think, some very important steps that have already been taken in this legislation to increase the ability of this legislation to address teacher quality through student loan forgiveness for qualified teachers who teach in high-priority schools, grants to States for upgrading student teacher preparation, and certification systems and partnerships between colleges and school districts to provide intensive professional development program.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do this because we have got to make sure that, for the quality education that we know our economy and American society and the world economy are going to demand of our children and the children, future graduates, of our systems of higher education, that we have got to provide them with quality education. No longer can we have a situation where barely a quarter of the applicants in New York who were seeking a teaching position on Long Island could pass the high school graduation English test. We can no longer accept that. Teachers deserve to have professional status. They deserve to have professional pay. I believe this goes a long way toward helping that situation out and providing some accountability for schools where taxpayers invest billions of dollars. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman, for all of their help and their effort and their counsel in coming to an agreement on this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in strong support of this legislation and thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), for bringing this matter both before the committee and before the House of Representatives. Over the course of the past hundred years, conflict with humans has brought literally thousands of species to the brink of extinction. In the past, those conflicts were often direct and bloody: the Passenger Pigeon, eliminated from this planet by hunting; great whales almost brought to the same fate by the commercial whaling industry; and the African elephant, whose numbers were decimated by greedy ivory traders. Today's story of the rhinoceros and the tiger is a little more complicated. Perhaps the conflict is a little less direct, but it is just as bloody. Throughout their range, these two magnificent species have been brought to their knees by habitat destruction and commercial trade in the products made from their carcasses. While the CITES convention, the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Fauna and Flora, has made great strides in controlling the international trade in rhino horn daggers and in tiger skins, these species continue to decline, due in part to the huge demand for traditional medicines using rhino and tiger products. A few years ago, Secretary Babbitt and the Clinton administration used their authority under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act to impose economic sanctions against Taiwan for failing to control this trade. It was the right decision, and it proved to be immensely helpful in getting the Government of Taiwan to work with the international conservation community to protect these animals. Unfortunately, the global rules of free trade now prevent the United States from using unilateral economic sanctions to protect wildlife, a lesson we have just had driven home to us by the World Trade Organization in its ruling against U.S. laws protecting the endangered sea turtles from irresponsible shrimp fishing practices. That makes this legislation even more important. It sends a clear message that any product imported illegally or labeled as containing rhino or tiger parts will, in fact, automatically be considered as contraband. As a result, our Fish and Wildlife agents can act to seize the product and prosecute the seller, many of whom will be committing a double crime by promoting an illegal product and falsifying the contents with synthetic or other substitutes for rhino and tiger ingredients. I would have preferred that my colleague and I were here today to debate the reauthorization of this Nation's premier wildlife protection law, the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, the committee has been unable so far to move this legislation that would responsibly reauthorize a statute designed to protect hundreds of endangered and threatened species worldwide, and it now appears another Congress will pass without full consideration of this important law. Certainly, the protection afforded by the Rhinoceros and Tiger Product Labeling Act will prove invaluable to these two species. I wish we could agree to protect all the endangered species as well. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is worthy of the support of all of the Members of the House of Representatives. Those of us who have had the opportunity to travel to some of the habitat of rhinoceros, of tigers, of even elephants, have met with government officials in Zimbabwe and other countries where we have seen the contraband that has been seized by poachers who kill these magnificent animals only for a very small part, in some cases the rhinoceros horn, in some cases they kill animals for their gallbladders, they kill them for their bones, for various body parts, and, obviously, the entire animal is decimated. It is destroyed for this trade. When we see the kinds of risk and the kinds of money that is put into the poaching, the illegal taking of these animals, it becomes very clear that we have got to do what we can, within the laws of the United States and certainly within our international trade agreements, to now make it more and more difficult, to have sanctions on countries that look the other way while these magnificent animals are being violated. They look the other way while illegal traffic is taking part; and, in some instances, governmental officials are taking bribes to allow people to engage in this activity. There is an effort to make sure that those who would deal and traffic in the parts of rhinos and tigers are kind of caught in a double whammy here. If they truthfully label their product for sale on the shelves of outlets in the United States, they are in violation of the law. If they mislead the public and they hide the fact it has it, they are in violation of the law. We met and the chairman went to great lengths to meet with the traditional medicine community that assured us there were, in fact, substitutes for these parts of rhinos and tigers that are in keeping with traditional medicine. And what that means and what that tells us is that the slaughter of these animals is simply then about greed and about the illegal trafficking in the parts of these animals. So I would hope that all my colleagues would support this legislation, and again I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for his presentation of this bill and to all of the staff on both sides of the committee that have worked hard to bring this legislation to the floor of the Congress. Hopefully, we will make a major contribution in reducing the illegal traffic and the absolutely unnecessary slaughter of these two magnificent creatures. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday the American public was presented with a front-page article in the New York Times outlining a plan by an industrial group to battle the climate change treaty. This is a treaty that was arrived at in Kyoto, Japan earlier this year, which brought together the international community in a plan to fight against an increase in greenhouse gases that threaten this world with climate change. It was a plan that was negotiated between all of the nations in attendance. Many nations signed on and many other nations have yet to sign on. It is a plan that is necessary if in fact we are going to prevent the worst impacts of global climate change. What the New York Times article tells us is that a group of corporations, mainly large international oil companies, have put together a plan to spend millions of dollars to try to convince the American public that the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding global climate change is somehow shaky and not to be trusted, and that therefore we should not go forward with actions in this and other countries, and with efforts to bring developing countries on board the Kyoto treaty, that we should walk away from that treaty; and that certainly we should not attend the meetings in Buenos Aires later this year where we will attempt to bring on large developing countries such as China, Mexico, Brazil and other such nations that are contributing huge amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere of our world. But rather than work on that progressive agenda, rather than work in an effort to try to see how we can stem greenhouse gases, these oil companies would rather try to convince people that in fact the science is not very good. Now that is contrary to the science itself and is contrary to the vast number of scientists around the world who have joined this effort to look at the science, to look at the data and try to help us predict what in fact is taking place with respect to greenhouse gases and global climate change. But rather than participate in the serious scientific discourse, this group of oil companies has decided that they would take millions of dollars and try to convince the average citizen, under the portion of their plan that says victory will be achieved when the average citizen recognizes the uncertainties in climate science. Recognition of the uncertainties becomes part of conventional wisdom. So when you think about global climate change, about the threat of climate change, about warming, the oil companies want you to think, ``well, the science is not very good so probably nothing much is going to happen.'' Then they would like to move on and have the media recognize the uncertainties of climate science, so when the media presents stories about global change, about what is happening in our world, they would then say, ``Well, we really do not know if this science is very good.'' Then they take more of their money and they would try to make the media balance out, try to get stories into the media about how the science is not very good, and they would hope that the media would then accept, if they spend enough money to convince the media, that they would accept that it is conventional wisdom that the science is not very good. Now mind you, this all comes at a time, it is not a question whether the science is very good or not--the science is getting better and better. But unfortunately, what the science tells us is that the problem of global warming is becoming more and more a realistic problem for the future of the world and that steps must be taken. But that is not what these oil companies do. They want to change the mind set of the media, of the American public, of industry and certainly of the government. And what they really want to do is arrive at a point where the Kyoto treaty is dead, there will be no further action on that treaty, as they spell out in their strategies and their tactics, and to make sure that we do not go forward, we do not go forward in Buenos Aires to bring other nations on to that treaty. How would they measure this? They are going to track the percentage of media articles that raise questions about climate science. They are going to register the number of Members that they have been able to contact and send materials to change their mind about the climate science, the number of communications on climate science received by Members of Congress. So they are going to spend a few hundred thousand dollars tracking their efforts to see whether or not it is working. You know, we have seen this all before, my colleagues. We saw it when the tobacco companies got together to try to convince the American public that there was no link between tobacco and cancer, that there was no link between the usage of tobacco and the incredible rate of lung cancer in this country and of other cancers. They spent millions of dollars to undermine the scientists who were saying there is a link, to undermine the evidence. They told us more and more every year, and when the science came against their wishes, they paid scientists to keep it down, to not tell the American public. Now for the first time what we see are thousands, millions of pages of documents with the tobacco companies engaged in an effort to keep from the American public science that would tell them that tobacco and cancer are linked. Now we see an effort where some industries do not like the scientists, independent scientists. They do not like what they have come up with on global warming. So what they want to do is, they want to establish what they would consider an independent global climate science data center, and from this center would flow information to Members of Congress, to the public, to State legislatures, to the mayors, city council people. But this independent center reportedly would be initially staffed, this is according to the memo from the public relations firm advising the oil companies, it will be staffed initially with professionals on loan from the various oil companies and associations of the major interests in climate change. So here we are going to have a bunch of people who work for oil companies as scientists who are now going to tell us what the independent science is on global warming, as opposed to the independent scientists who have been out there now for a number of years working for universities and foundations and others to try to find out what is happening. They want to create the impression that they have scientists who radically disagree with the prevailing science about the harms of greenhouse gases and the consequential global warming. Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that there is something going on in business in America. Many of us in Congress have had complaints from our constituents about the impacts of HMOs and managed care. People come into our offices because they cannot get care for their spouse who is very ill, and they cannot get care for their children because somebody who is supposed to give a second opinion, some 800 number, they have to call where they talk to somebody, and they say, oh, no, we do not allow that care under your insurance plan. So the Congress got together on a bipartisan basis and decided that what they would do is they would try to have a patients' bill of rights so that patients knew what kind of coverage they had, they would know what kind of care they had, so they had access to specialists, so they had a right to sue managed care plans if some bureaucrat in another city was making a decision against a doctor's recommendation and somebody was harmed. On a bipartisan basis, in the Senate and the House, many State legislatures are doing this, and what do we see? We see corporations in America coming together, raising millions of dollars to try to tell the Congress, ``This is not a problem. These complaints from your constituents are not real. We have it all under control.'' They had a corporate fly-in where they had people fly in from all over the country to tell them we do not need to change anything with managed health care, it is just fine. So we see the tobacco companies, they set up their spin organizations; the health care corporations, they set up their spin organizations; and now the oil companies are going to set up their spin organizations to tell us that all of this we have heard about climate change, greenhouse gases, global warming is nothing for us to be concerned about. Well, the fact is it is something for us to be very concerned about. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that not all oil companies apparently have joined this organization. In the article it suggested Shell Oil USA has not joined this organization. They do not see the merit to it. In fact, Shell Oil USA is one of those oil companies that believes that a good part of its future is going to be about clean energy, about renewable energy, wind energy, solar energy. It has joined companies like British Petroleum that have made major investments in solar energy. Billions of dollars of markets in solar energy are now recognizable, and we see those companies taking a different tack. But yet there are a few companies that have decided that the best they can do is to try to confuse the American public on global warming, try to lobby their Representatives in the Congress not to accept, not to accept what the scientists are telling us now is the future of this planet if global warming continues. Mr. Speaker, I was in Kyoto this year with the Chairman of the Science Committee, and I witnessed the U.S. delegation's diligence in forging a treaty that both protects the U.S. interests and at the same time sets important goals for slowing global warming. The world is looking to the U.S. for leadership on this issue, and while clearly the solution must include participation from developing nations, there is much the United States can do to reduce global greenhouse gases, emissions that cause immediate health effects on our children and the elderly, contaminate our air, water and land, and cost taxpayers dearly to clean up. The truth is the steps necessary to curb global warming present an enormous economic opportunity for the people of the United States. The scientific evidence about global warming compels strong action, not a head-in-the-sand approach that characterizes the organized opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and U.S. energy efficiency measures. To hear some critics describe the Administration's actions to try to push forward with renewable energy and energy efficiency and clean sources of energy, one would think that protecting the environment is a crime against humanity, and that President Clinton should be tried at the Hague. They are accusing the President of trying to use Federal tax dollars to spur public and private investment in energy in energy efficiency and renewable energy. We are seeing more and more countries, more and more companies looking at renewable energy sources as a path to the future. America ought to participate in that. We have the technology, we have the know- how, we have the products. We ought to recognize the economic opportunity that that provides. In fact, the global market for energy efficiency products and services is $80 billion per year and is expected to reach $125 billion a year by the year 2015. Several studies estimated that job growth from energy efficiency and technology innovation will exceed 800,000 new jobs over the next 15 years. I do not know where these critics live, but they do not live in the district that I represent. Earlier this year, in fact, 71 percent of my constituents recently answered a questionnaire that they thought the U.S. should take strong steps against global warming, even if it cost taxpayers more in the beginning to do so. The same is true across the country. In January, Ohio State University conducted a national survey on the American opinion on global warming, finding that 77 percent of Americans believe that global warming has been happening, and 67 percent believe that steps should be taken to combat global warming, and that reducing air pollution is an effective way to do so. Eighty-eight percent thought the U.S. Government should limit air pollution for businesses, and 77 percent thought they were willing to pay more for electricity, gas and oil to reduce the amount of air pollution. It is that poll that is driving the oil companies crazy. It is that poll that is causing the oil companies to consider spending $5 million to change Americans' opinion about the urgency of global warming. It is that consortium that is coming together that recognizes that the American people understand what is going on, and now they want to change their mind. It is too bad, because most of the last couple of decades, this country has been built on greater and greater efficiencies. We see it in the computer industry, in telecommunications, in marketing, in transportation. We see it throughout the entire global economy. But somehow, when we get to energy, the coal companies and the oil companies, they do not want us to be efficient. They want us to burn more oil and more coal; it is just that simple, folks. If we can do it more efficiently and we can save the environment and we can save dollars in the cost of that electricity, and if we can provide jobs and new economic opportunities in the export of American products, they do not want us to hear about it, they do not want us to believe it. They want us just to go on burning the coal and burning the oil in the same old fashion we have been doing for the last 50 years. The problem is if we all do that, and if the developing countries-- China, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Brazil--who are increasing their use of oil and coal as their economies grow, if they just do it the same way we did it over the last 50 years, we will choke this planet to death. We will destroy the environment for our children and our grandchildren, and we will threaten the economic well-being of a good portion of the world. That is what the American people understand. That is what is reflected in the polling data. They trust the independent scientists. They are not going to trust a bunch of scientists on the oil company payrolls to tell them that they are wrong about the science, that it is really shaky. But we have to be diligent in this matter. We have to be aware of what is happening, because as we start to see attacks on the scientists who have studied global warming, attacks on this administration that is trying to bring developing countries on board a treaty to reduce those greenhouse gases--and hopefully at the end of this year in Buenos Aires some developing countries will sign on--as they are trying to do that, they are going to come under attack. They are going to come under attack by a consortium put together by oil companies and coal companies to say that we are all wrong, that global warming is not a problem. Well, I think by now we have seen enough evidence to suggest that global warning is a problem. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that people would be alert to what is taking place and to what is proposed by these oil and coal companies to try and put their spin on the hard evidence that has been derived by independent scientists from many, many countries, from many, many disciplines, over many years, being very conservative about the changes that they have seen. But as scientists drill the ice cores, as they look at what has happened in the past, Nature magazine just reported that the Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for 3 of the past 8 years were warmer than any year since AD 1400. We have to understand the kind of changes that means for the American economy and for the environment of the world. So I would hope that Members of Congress would not give credibility to this effort by the oil companies to put their spin on what is very good, even if incomplete evidence about the problems raised by the continuing burning of fossil fuels and creation of greenhouse gases. I commend to my colleagues the article and memo, which I have enclosed here. [From the New York Times, Apr. 26, 1998] Industrial Group Plans To Battle Climate Treaty draft proposal seeks to depict global warming theory as a case of bad science (By John H. Cushman Jr.) Washington, April 25--Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science. Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's heat near Earth. An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute to put the plan together. Joe Walker, a public relations representative of the petroleum institute who is leading the project, said in an interview that the plan had been under consideration for about two months and was ``very, very tentative.'' Mr. Walker said no industry executives had yet been approached to pay for it. But an eight-page memorandum that he wrote shows in detail how some industry lobbyists are going about opposing the climate treaty. It is a daunting pubic relations task. Whenever the treaty's advocates, including the Clinton Administration, discuss global warming, they present the science as essentially settled and unchallengeable, and they compare dissenting scientists to discredited apologists for the tobacco companies. That view has become widely accepted among reporters and the public. Although mainstream scientists do identify considerable uncertainties in their climate predictions, which are based on computer models, they are increasingly confident that global warming is a serious problem and often say that the uncertainties do not justify inaction. Based on the latest science, most of the world's nations agreed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that industrial nations should cut emissions of greenhouse gases, and the treaty was modified last year to require further reductions in emissions to levels well below those of 1990, over the next 10 to 15 years. But the United States Senate has not yet agreed to that treaty provision, which could require deep reductions in American consumption of fossil fuels. Documents describing the proposal to undermine the mainstream view were given to The New York Times by the National Environmental Trust, whose work in support of the global-warming treaty is financed by philanthropic organizations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the biggest of the nation's pro-environmental grant makers. Phil Clapp, the president of the environmental trust, said he obtained the papers from an industry official. Exposing the plan at this stage, Mr. Clapp said, would probably ruin the effort to raise money to carry out the plan. Industry representatives confirmed that the documents were authentic, but emphasized that the plans had not been formally approved by participating organizations. The document listed representatives of the Exxon Corporation, the Chevron Corporation and the Southern Company as being involved. Representatives of Chevron and Southern acknowledged attending meetings on the project; the Exxon representative could not be reached for comment. The draft plan calls for recruiting scientists to argue against the Administration, and suggests that they include ``individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate.'' But among the plan's advocates are groups already linked to the best-known critics of global-warming science. They include the Science and Environment Policy Project, founded by Fred Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate science. Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming, is involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C. Marshall Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board. On Monday, the National Academy of Sciences disassociated itself from the most recent effort to drum up support among skeptical scientists. That effort came in the form of a statement and petition on global warming circulated by Dr. Seitz, a physicist who was president of the academy in the 1960's. The petition, attacking the scientific conclusions underlying the treaty on climate change, was accompanied by an article that was formatted to resemble one that might have been published in the academy's prestigious peer-reviewed journal. It was not. The draft plan, recently discussed at the oil industry offices, calls for giving such dissenters on climate science ``the logistical and moral support they have been lacking.'' It also calls for spending $5 million over two years to ``maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences.'' It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views. The document says that industry's polling, conducted by Charlton Research, has found that while Americans see climate change as a serious threat, ``public opinion is open to change on climate science.'' Supporters of the plan want to raise money quickly to spend much of it between now and the November negotiating session in Buenos Aires, where important details of the international treaty are to be decided. A proposed media-relations budget of $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 ``respected climate scientists'' recruited expressly ``to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the `prevailing scientific wisdom.' '' Among the tasks, the petroleum institute's memorandum said, would be to ``identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.'' What the industry group wanted to provide, the memorandum said, was ``a one-stop resource on climate science for members of Congress, the media, industry and all others concerned.'' The industry group said it wanted to develop ``a sound scientific alternative'' to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a large group of scientists advising the United Nations that has published the most authoritative scientific assessments of global warming. That panel has predicted that the next century will bring widespread climatic disruptions if actions are not taken to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The draft plan suggests that despite industry efforts to convince the public that the climate treaty would be costly to carry out and unfair to the United States, the treaty remains popular partly because environmentalists are winning the debate on the science. ``Indeed, the public has been highly receptive to the Clinton Administration's plans,'' the memorandum said. ``There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those `inside the Beltway' with vested interests.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments and contributions of a truly remarkable man, Dr. Joel Fort. Dr. Fort was an early visionary in the field of public health. He was one of the first professionals to understand that social problems such as substance abuse and violence were not going to be solved by the criminal justice system alone, but rather required a collaborative approach which included public health expertise. Dr. Fort's personal commitment to this field brought about the creation of the San Francisco Department of Health's Center for Special Problems and the Center for Solving Special Social and Health Problems. These Centers have reached thousands of individuals, and serve as a model for replication throughout the United States and abroad. Not satisfied to stop there, Dr. Fort influenced a generation of public health and social service professionals by taking his philosophy into the classroom--teaching at several universities on subjects of drug abuse, criminology, ethics and conflict resolution. Dr. Fort's many achievements have earned him numerous accolades, most notably the recent completion of Oral History of Joel Fort, M.D.: Public Health Pioneer, Criminologist, Reformer, Ethicist, and Humanitarian by the Regional Oral History Office of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Throughout this rich and varied career, Dr. Fort always held his family as his top priority. Therefore, it is only appropriate that we join with his wife of 46 years, Maria Fort, and his three children and three grandchildren, in celebrating his life and his legacy. Dr. Joel Fort is an undeniably outstanding member of our community, and I speak for the entire U.S. House of Representatives in this tribute to him.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, our national effort to hold the tobacco companies responsible for their criminal behavior of the past, of intentional efforts to hook our children on tobacco and nicotine, was dealt a major setback when the Speaker of the House has indicated that it may be difficult for the House to pass tobacco legislation. It will only be difficult if the Speaker of the House does not schedule the bill. It is the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), who has the power to schedule the bill or not to schedule the bill, and then the House can address the outrageous behavior of the tobacco companies toward America's children. The Speaker spent the last 2 weeks traveling in America talking about lessons learned the hard way. Maybe the lesson learned the hard way is if they take their money, a million dollars of tobacco money, the Republicans cannot find it in their hearts to get America's children off of tobacco. If Members take a million dollars of tobacco companies' money, they try in the middle of the night, as the Speaker did last year, to put a $50 billion tax break for the tobacco companies in the Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, the lesson learned the hard way is that children need tobacco out of their lives.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Two things about today's tax bill are important to note: First, it is a waste of time, and therefore--ironically--a waste of taxpayer's money. And second, it is a diversionary tactic, intended to distract the public's attention away from the fact that the Republican leaders have stifled action on issues that most American families really want, like: Protecting thousands of teenagers and pre-adolescents from predatory practices of cigarette companies; passing a bill to protect the rights of patients unfairly treated by their HMOs and insurance companies; and enacting real campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of special interest money in politics. Instead, because it does not want to act on any of these critical issues, the Republican leadership is running out the legislative clock by bringing to the floor a bill that has failed time and time again. This proposal failed in 1996. It got even fewer votes when it was brought up in 1997. And the Republicans know full well that it will fail again today. Today, ladies and gentlemen, you are witnessing a show. But shows belong in the theater, not on the floor of the People's House. If Republicans had really wanted to get something done for taxpayers, they would have already sent the bipartisan IRS reform bill to the President for his signature. The reason today's bill has failed in the past, and the reason it will fail again today, is that it is bad legislation. Despite what you are being told, this bill would do very little to help, and a lot more to hurt, the average taxpayer. In fact, this legislation is custom-made to perpetuate some of the most egregious inequities in the current tax system and to frustrate efforts at real reform, all at the expense of the American taxpayer. This bill would effectively prevent any tax reform which would close tax loopholes for corporations and special interests. It would make it virtually impossible to pass comprehensive tobacco legislation like the bipartisan bill developed by Senator McCain. It would cripple the ability of the government to act during national crises. And it could saddle America with financial disaster by foreclosing any revenue increases to deal with future deficits. This bill is yet another effort by this Republican leadership to further restrict the democratic process in the House of Representatives and to prevent a majority of Members from exercising its will. Under this bill, all it would take is one-third of members to block real tax reform or to block a tobacco settlement. I congratulate my colleagues in advance for their resolve in standing up to the Republican leadership and voting against this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, recently, some of my colleagues on the Resources Committee have been trying to convince the public that the Administration is placing an unfair burden on western property owners by deliberately implementing the Endangered Species Act more harshly in the western U.S. The facts simply do not support the allegations. While no one can argue that California has far more endangered and threatened species than most states (Hawaii has the most), my colleagues have confused the simple logic of cause and effect. The western and southern states are the most biologically diverse and unique regions in the nation. In California alone, we have an extraordinary range of coastal and upland forests, deserts, grasslands, and shrublands--all with large numbers of rare and endemic species which are vulnerable to the effects of our economic prosperity. While my colleagues would argue that environmental protection laws like the Endangered Species Act inhibit economic growth, the facts lead to a very different conclusion. In 1996, the average number of housing starts per month were 661,000 in the southern states. In the western states, they averaged 361,000 a month, while there were only 132,000 a month in the Northeast. Florida's growth rate is legendary; Texas is growing at a rate of about 6 million new people per decade; and California is expected to have 18 million more people by the year 2025. The reality is that the West, and California in particular, are at the forefront of the ongoing battle between development and open space. What is really needed in the West is a means of addressing the loss of family farmland and open space while we address the needs of endangered species and their habitats. Any rewrite of the Endangered Species Act must contain incentives for small, private landowners--not loopholes for large corporate landowners. We should require that all federal actions be consistent with the recovery of endangered species. Only then can we get landowners and farmers out from under regulatory control and back to the business of driving the economy. H.R. 2351, the Endangered Species Recovery Act, which I authored and which currently has 102 cosponsors, seeks to address these concerns by establishing incentives for private landowners and local governments that will allow economic planning and development to move forward while recovering the imperiled species that are under federal protection. H.R. 2351 was not written with large corporate landowners in mind, but strives to provide something for everyone, whether they reside in the East or the West, and regardless of whether they own a small family farm or a suburban development. I am inserting in the Record today two editorials from the Casper, Wyoming, Star-Tribune championing H.R. 2351--evidence that support for the Endangered Species Act is alive and well west of the Mississippi River. Senate Endangered Species Act Bows to Industry (By Charles Levendosky) When the Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, R-Idaho, work together on a piece of environmental legislation, warning sirens should pierce the air. Kempthorne is one of the Senate's top recipients of donations from the timber industry. Last year, Kempthorne introduced the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997 (S. 1180)--a bill that would reauthorize but significantly change the original Endangered Species Act of 1973, one of the most important environmental and ecological laws our nation has enacted. Kempthorne was first elected to the Senate in 1992. In the years from 1991 to 1996, he has received $341,216 in campaign funds from forestry and forest products, oil and gas, and mining industries. He votes logging. A glance at other co-sponsors of S. 1180 tells the same story: Sen. Paul Coverdell, R-Ga, who gathers in even greater amounts of timber PAC money than Kempthorne; Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, who never saw a tree that wasn't timber and has the money to show for it; and Sen. Ted Stevens, R- Alaska, who took in more than $200,000 in campaign funds from timber and mineral industries in the span from 1991 to 1996. The Natural Resources Defense Council calls S. 1180 an industry bill: ``It gives big developers and multinational mining, timber and oil corporations a . . . loophole . . . that lets them destroy endangered species habitat.'' In an interview Friday, Babbitt wasn't shy about admitting his role in the creation of the Senate bill: ``I don't think it's any secret that I participated pretty intensively in the drafting and the negotiations that led to 1180. It's obviously a consensus product designed to appeal across the center, as much as reasonably possible. I've indicated it's an excellent start. It's the only starting place. ``If we're going to re-authorize this act, we have to move this bill out for discussion on the floor of the Senate. . . . Is it perfect? No. But it's got a lot of good things in it. It incorporates most of the innovations that we spent so much time on, kind of inventing over the last five years. ``These are ideas that ought to be specifically laid out in legislation, because they're not there now. That would be Habitat Conservation Plans, the species conservation agreements, the safe harbor concept, no surprises, all important concepts. And they're all in this bill.'' According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 80 percent of endangered species live on private lands. In order to protect those endangered species, some incentives had to be offered to private landowners. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) allows a landowner whose lawful activity might harm an endangered or threatened species to negotiate with the Department of the Interior to mitigate and minimize that impact. The ``no surprises rule'' means that once a landowner has made a commitment to an HCP, there is assurance that the government won't make additional requests or restrictions. The Senate bill would lock in those agreements for 100 years. Species conservation agreements protect rare species through a program of inventory, monitoring, research and public education. ``Safe harbor'' allows land developers to set aside a portion of their property to provide habitat for threatened or endangered species in that area. In exchange, the government allows them to develop the rest of the land without legal restrictions. These policy developments have been helpful in gaining the cooperation of private landowners. The Senate bill will put them into law. Critics, like the National Center for Public Policy Research, contend that it will codify these policies and ``extralegal arrangements large timber companies have negotiated with federal officials that are currently vulnerable to legal challenge.'' Babbitt recognizes that the Senate bill currently has two major problems--the appropriation level is much too low to make the law effective in achieving its intent, and it ``has a very complex set of procedural requirements for recovery plans--in some respects it's overly complex.'' The positives, according to Babbitt, are ``giving legislative sanction and predictability'' to policy innovations. Babbitt didn't mention a competing bill with the same name introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., (H.R. 2351). The bill has 101 bipartisan co-sponsors. Miller receives most of his campaign donations from unions and lawyers, nothing from the timber industry and only $6,000 from the oil and gas industries in the 1995 to 1996 election cycle. The House bill also codifies the on-the-ground policies that have helped protect endangered species on private lands--however, the bill's landowner incentives contain provisions to ensure wildlife protection. Asked about H.R. 2351, Babbitt responded, ``I haven't looked at it carefully. I really haven't . . . I guess I'm trying to do one thing at a time.'' Environmentalists, conservationists and sportsmen like the House bill. Almost without exception, they consider the Senate bill a sell-out to industry. Bill Snape, legal director of the Defenders of Wildlife, considers the differences between the House and Senate bills to be a part of a philosophical debate: ``The Kempthorne bill is sort of the ``same old business as usual; let's just sort of keep species hanging on by a thread and that's OK. While the Miller bill actually tries to put in place some sort of recovery process to get species doing well and doing what we need to do to protect species.'' Snape hit the Senate bill's jugular vein: ``The biggest problem is the fact that they're going to authorize these 100-years no surprises permits and agreements. They are essentially locking in land management practices for huge chunks of time in a way that defies every scientific point of view there is. It just doesn't make any sense. They're doing it because that's what industry says they need to commit to any type of conservation.'' Babbitt's work with Kempthorne may have been an attempt to keep the Senate bill from being too tilted toward industry and to gather industry support for Interior initiatives, but there aren't enough protections for endangered species in this bill. It should die in committee.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it may still come as news to some members of the House that our former colleague, the Hon. John L. Burton of San Francisco, has recently been unanimously elected the President of the California State Senate, elevating him to one of the highest elective positions in our state. John Burton, as all who know or have served with him know, is an extraordinarily gifted legislator, a deeply committed public servant, and very much his own man. There has not been a more dedicated or unrepentant spokesperson for working people, for children, for the poor, for those living on society's margin, than Johnny Burton. His elevation to Senate President caps a remarkable and inspirational career. It also demonstrates that we can disagree, even strongly, but retain the personal relationships and trust that are integral to the operation of a successful legislative body. When John Burton set out to accomplish something on the floor of the House, whether it was expanding food stamp benefits or protecting the Point Reyes seashore, he was unmatched in knowing how to make the inter- and intra-party contacts that led to success. His return to the state Legislature in 1988 was welcomed by Democrats and Republicans alike, because all recognized that here was a consummate politician who knew how to make policy happen and who spoke with a candor and frankness unmatched in Sacramento or in Washington. Mark Shields, one of our most respected political observers, recently wrote a wonderful column about John Burton's election as Senate President that every member of the House deserves to read. Those who knew John here will immediately recognize him; those who did not have that pleasure will instantly know him. A California Comeback (By Mark Shields) Sacramento, Calif.--You may already have heard the joyless laughter that follows the line: George Washington was the president who could never tell a lie; Richard Nixon was the president who could never tell the truth; and Bill Clinton is the president who cannot tell the difference. Well here in California's capital city, the second most powerful position in state government--that of president pro tempore of the State Senate--has just been won in a 32 to 0 vote by a blunt, profane, quick-tempered and unreconstructed liberal Democrat from San Francisco who was elected to the State Assembly in 1964, to the U.S. House in 1974 and who, in 1982, left Congress to seek treatment for cocaine and alcohol addiction. What makes John Burton so appealing in today's politics of slippery hedging and too-clever evasiveness is the man's barefaced candor. U.S. Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., who served with and voted against Burton in the California Assembly, confesses: ``John Burton is just a man of incredible integrity. . . . I love him because he is the most honest liberal I've ever know, He really feels, he really bleeds, for the underprivileged.'' Rogan remembered the night in the Assembly when Burton single-handedly stopped a Republican-backed bill to criminalize the use of cocaine by pregnant women. Burton spoke in stark terms of his own addiction, of the advantages he had as a professional and a member of Congress for treatment at Bethesda and Walter Reed. He told of the daily battle the recovering addict must wage against the demons and of how much more lonely and terrifying it is for the poor addict: ``You don't kick it until you die. You have two choices. Either you die clean or you die dirty.'' As John Jacobs wrote in ``A Rage for Justice,'' his truly masterful biography of John Burton's late brother, Phil, who was arguably the most influential member of Congress ever from California, ``Somewhere in his (John's) mind, he seized on the image of his teenage daughter, Kim, and the thought of her gave him the strength to begin his long, painful recovery. Kim gave him back his life. He gave Kim back her father.'' John Burton, who has been both clean and sober for 15 years now, won back his State Assembly seat in 1988 with the strong backing of his friend of 40 years, now San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. He was elected to the Senate in 1996. Happily, he has not mellowed. His language could still make a long- shoreman blush. His ability to employ forms of a single four letter word as verb, noun, adjective, gerund, participle, prefix, suffix and even infix is truly remarkable. He does not delete expletives. Pleased, almost humbled, by the confidence of his colleagues, Burton questions what all the praise about his integrity and the keeping of his word says about the state of politics today. ``When I grew up, all you had was your word. It was a given that you never went back on your word. It should be that way.'' In an era of carefully crafted non-responses released by elected officeholders who echo the findings of focus groups and then deploy spin doctors, Burton is refreshing. Another old adversary and good friend, former GOP State Senate Leader Bill Campbell, explains that appeal: ``Johnny Burton has great credibility because you and everyone else knows where he stands.'' Where Burton stands politically is where he has always stood. His politics is personal, liberal and decidedly untrendy. He continually embraces the poor, workers, the stranger, the despised--all of those living on the outskirts of hope. Burton fights to prevent the rich from getting too greedy, and to make sure that the poor and middle class enjoy more economic security and receive their share of this society's wealth. ``I don't get this `New Democrat' b-- s--,'' rails Burton. ``There are only so many ways you can feed hungry people, or get jobs for people who don't have them, and get kids a good education.'' When he took the oath of office as Senate President Pro Tempore, John Burton thanked his daughter and quoted the words of American composer Jerome Kern: Nothing's impossible I have found, for when you find yourself on the ground you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again.'' Whoever said there are no second acts in American life never met John Burton.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the House Report accompanying the Supplemental Appropriations bill contains a little-noticed section that could cost taxpayers many millions of dollars in revenues from public lands in the Gulf of Mexico. Technological advances in recent years have made it much cheaper to find and produce oil and gas in what was formerly considered ``deep water'' in the Gulf. In 1995, the Congress unwisely passed a Deepwater Royalty ``holiday'' to stimulate oil companies (most of whom were already enormously interested in deep water leases) to bid on these tracts. Here's how Congress provided that incentive: instead of charging royalties on oil and gas produced from these new leases, the oil companies would be given as much as 87.5 million barrels absolutely free! We have given away hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in royalties from leases on public lands that the oil industry was already clamoring to bid on. It came as little surprise that companies are snapping up the royalty-free leases and paying higher than normal front end bonuses to acquire them. Why wouldn't you pay more if you know you will get nearly 100 million barrels of production royalty-free? Thanks to improved technology and cheaper production costs, oil exploration and production in the Gulf are booming. As reported in Forbes magazine last year, Gulf of Mexico deepwater development costs have dropped to as little as $3 per barrel, one-third the level in 1987. This is great news for the oil industry, but might not be quite so good a bargain for the taxpayers who own the oil and gas. The Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore production, wants to look at possibly raising the royalty rates on the holiday leases once royalties do begin to apply in an effort to determine whether or not the public is actually receiving fair market value on its oil and gas. MMS is fully allowed to take such corrective action under the 1995 law that gave away the leases royalty-free. But the oil industry, enjoying the benefits of the 1995 law and flush with money from Gulf leases, now wants to curtail the government's legal right to make adjustments to ensure the public's financial interest is fully protected. The House Appropriations Committee's Report on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill includes language to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from making any changes to the lease terms. This language undermines the Secretary's authority to set terms that guarantee the taxpayer receives fair market value on the sale of its mineral resources. Congress should be protecting the public's right to receive a fair return--not tying the hands of the Interior Department when it is attempting to secure fair market value for the taxpayers. This Report languages is irrelevant to the Emergency Supplemental and, by revising the authority granted Interior in the 1995 law, constitutes an indirect effort to legislate on an appropriations bill. I would hope such instructions are not included in the Conference Report or the Statement of Managers. And I would recommend that Members oppose the Conference Report should it be included. If the weakening recommendation is in the Statement, the MMS should ignore this unwise effort to tamper with the law and shortchange taxpayers.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy is about to sell off more than $207 million worth of oil owned by U.S. taxpayers from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At today's low prices, that means the United States would dump about 20 million barrels of oil on a market already awash with oversupply. Congress created the Reserve in 1975 to avoid the devastating effects on our national security and our economy that could be caused by the kind of shortages that occurred when other oil-producing countries stopped producing in order to drive up the price of oil and gas. Last year, Congress directed the DOE to sell over $200 million worth of oil--essentially covering the cost of operating the Reserve. But shouldn't we think about the wisdom of proceeding with this plan at this time? Isn't it foolish to liquidate federal oil reserves now, when oil and gas are selling at very low prices? Even if the price of oil rebounds this year, we would still be selling these federal assets for far less than the $27 to $30 per barrel it cost us to acquire them. Secretary of Energy Federico Pena agrees, noting, ``This is the worst time to be selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'' Good economics would suggest that we buy oil for the Reserve now--not sell it. On March 26, the Senate accepted an amendment to its supplemental appropriations bill to rescind the sale. The House bill passed earlier this week does not rescind the sale. On behalf of taxpayers who stand to lose millions is this unwise liquidation proceeds, I would hope that the House conferees will accept the Senate position in Conference.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, this weekend, Speaker Gingrich went home to his district, and he was giving a speech in his district, and he talked about how, under our system, the power rests with the people, and we as elected officials can only borrow that power, because, eventually, we have to do what the people want. With this rule tonight or with this suspension vote tonight, Speaker Gingrich has ripped the power away from the people who are represented by the freshman coalition. Millions of Americans who are represented by the freshman bipartisan coalition who had a campaign finance bill they wanted to present, debate, and vote on, they cannot do it under this measure. With this procedure, Speaker Gingrich and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) have ripped the power out of the hands of hundreds of millions of Americans who are represented by a majority of this House who want to vote on Shays-Meehan. Those people do not get to exercise their power because their elected officials are silenced by the suspension process. As we just heard, there are no amendments in order. There is no way to spread, to broaden the debate. There is no way to bring up those provisions that are supported by people throughout the country. Why? Because Republicans found out last week, if they let it happen, it would pass. So they had to go back to trickery. They had to go to the suspension of the rules. They had to protect their Members and protect themselves from amendments, from democracy, from free and open debate. That is why we are here tonight. We are here because the Republicans, for the last 15 months, could not stand to trust the people and their elected representatives. So tonight they decided to suspend the rules and give us 20 minutes to debate these measures that are so complicated and so important to the continuation of our democratic institutions, democratic institutions that are being corroded, that are being corrupted by the huge amount of money, tonight the Republicans think the answer is to let wealthy people give more money to campaigns rather than to give the American people a voice in the reform of this system.