George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, do not use this amendment to suggest that we can dramatically change their educational experience. Do not do that. Stand up and say what it is really about. It is about the undermining of the wage enforcement, hours enforcement, of hard- working Americans. It is about those field officers in L.A., in Tucson, in New York, in Miami, who are out there trying to enforce the wage and hour laws of this country. We ought to understand that, and this Congress ought to be committed for its reauthorization. I see the chairman of my subcommittee sitting there, the reauthorization on a unanimous basis. Why did you not strip the mandate out of 40 percent then? Why did you not increase it then? Because you know what? You know the Federal Government is trying to do the best we can under the budget we have been given. But the answer is not to strip American workers of their protections. It simply cannot be. We cannot use these children for that effort. This is thinly veiled, if veiled at all, because when the gentleman got up to speak the second time on his amendment, he made it very clear that this is about provisions of the wage and hour laws that he disagrees with. This is about provisions that he wishes this Congress had not passed, but this Congress did pass; and those are the laws of the land and the people of this Nation, the workers in this Nation, are entitled to have those laws enforced. It is very clever to suggest that we are pitting some faceless bureaucrat in some pejorative sense against a child with disabilities. But what we are really pitting against here is the ability of those children to have their parents' wages enforced by hard-working officials in the Labor Department, in the regional and local offices, against employers that make a conscious decision, a conscious decision to deny people overtime, to deny people minimum wage, to deny the rights of workers in the fields, in the sweatshops of this country. They make a conscious decision. And how do those people fight back? How do they fight back without a Labor Department that can enforce their rights? But, of course, many of the supporters of this amendment do not much give a damn about those workers' rights, do not much give a damn about whether they get the minimum wage or not. But that is unacceptable. It is going to be unacceptable to the people when we vote on this amendment, and it is clearly unacceptable to the American people that support overtime pay, that support a 40- hour workweek, that support a minimum wage. And this amendment will not disguise that agenda. I would hope my colleagues, when they come to the floor, will understand that they need to strip the camouflage off this amendment, they need to look at the intent of this amendment and understand that this is just more of a consistent attack, a consistent attack against the rights of working men and women in this country, and a specifically consistent attack against those who are the lowest paid and the least protected of the American work force. I would hope they would vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say one of the Hopkins' programs, again one of the successes they have is they now have parents coming to the school, participating in their education. If they work, the parents are coming to the school, dropping their children off, spending time there, and a novel idea, they are serving them coffee so they can hang around and talk to the teachers. The point of the matter is that these programs, in fact, work, and that is where we ought to be putting the dollars, and for those school districts that are turned off by the notion that they might have to reform the whole school, then they should go elsewhere and look for dollars. In my area, in the San Francisco Bay area, the funding now to try to replicate this program is being picked up by industry who are announcing for the first time that they can improve the schools by an investment by the private sector in these very same programs. I mean, that is the kind of credibility we have in terms of the expansion and the workability of these programs.

Mr. MILLER of California. Is the gentleman objecting to my using the time? I was yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] so they could carry on, and I would just like to have the debate.

Mr. MILLER of California. We yield time to you and then you object to cut off the debate on a subject that you say is terribly important.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I would like to join this debate and say I think the gentleman from Wisconsin is quite correct. If we are going to spend $150 million of the public's money, we have some obligation to spend it in that area where we have some evidence that it will be an effective expenditure of the moneys. These kinds of reforms that are suggested in this legislation are those reforms that have years of research and demonstration behind them as to their effectiveness. There may be districts that want to reform in some other manner. Fine. Go ahead. But for those who believe, because this is not a matter of a demonstration. There are hundreds of school districts and hundreds of schools that are engaging in one or another of these programs, a total of thousands, where local communities, local school boards, local school administrators have initiated the effort and are reaping the benefits. If you want to do something else, you can do something else.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Let me just say I think the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Wisconsin have put it quite properly. We have spent, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and I who sit on the committee, billions and billions of dollars in title I funds, and we have not exactly gotten the return that we think we should on that dollar. A number of these programs, not all of them, but a number of these programs are about the reorganization of those dollars where we get a better bang for the buck. The John Hopkins program comes in because schools invite them in, and they go into low-income schools, and they take that title I money, and they reorganize it along some management techniques, along the wise use of resources, they get the school headed off in the right direction, and the fact of the matter is they get kids, a much, much higher percentage of kids, reading at grade level. They did not do that because we told them to do that; they did that because the local school board could no longer face the parents with the results that they were getting. That is what these programs are about, and the fact of the matter is that these programs have research and pragmatic experience in districts, and there are thousands of districts and schools that are inviting these programs in because they work. So, if we are going to spend $150 million, we ought to, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, put it where we think we can get the best return on their investment. This is not an exclusive list. This is a illustrative list of programs that have some substance to them. I guess the flip side of whole school reform would be partial school reform; take that home to parents: Oh, we are going to reform part of the school. The point is this: If they do not want to do it, do not come get the Federal money. We think we should put the money where there is a strong, strong demonstration that we are getting the results we want for these children, and that is what this amendment is about. It is an alternative, as the gentleman pointed out, to some of the things the administration wanted to do. We thought, the committee thought they would go with some of the empirical evidence, and the fact of the matter is that these are being demonstrated over and over again in all different types of schools in all geographical locations that they are leading to effective change and they are improving the ability of children to compute and to read and to critically think and they are getting parents involved. But the first step has to come from a school district, from a school administrator or from the parents who are seeking to improve their schools and then they go to their States and make application.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. MILLER of California. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, not that I am overly excited about all the details in the bill, but as a fiscal conservative, I have some problems with it. But the bottom line is, with the election last November stating we are going to have a Democratic President and Republican Congress, we must work together. I am concerned that the total amount of money is too much. I wish we could have frozen the amount of money and forced ourselves here to reprioritize how money should be spent in the committee. I wish we were not funding all the new programs. I do not think we need to fund new programs. We need to get a better handle on the spending we have to date. I wish we could zero out some more programs that we do not need any more. We have over 200 education programs in this bill. Maybe the total amount of dollars is okay for education, but do we need 200 programs? A lot of them are small programs. We made a big effort last year to start reducing those programs. We are moving in the right direction. I wish we could continue more in that direction to consolidate programs and not have as many programs. There are big programs like LIHEAP, and I know that is a major issue with the ranking member of this committee that I think has outlived its need in this country. It was started back in the Jimmy Carter days when he was President. We have changed. That is $1 billion a year. I would rather put it in the National Institutes for Health. There are some programs that I think are overfunded in this program, and I wish we could change them. I think NLRB is almost $200 million for government lawyers. I do not think we need that much money for the NLRB. I think Howard University is getting $18,000 a year subsidy for every student at the school. I support Howard University, but I wonder, do we need to provide $18,000 for every student there? I think we could make a better use of our dollars and spread it out for all the other minority universities and colleges around the country. And then there are some programs that I think we should even increase more. I was delighted that the NIH got an increase of 6 percent. That is a $764-million increase. The President requested only a 2.6-percent increase. I think we could do even better. If we are going to have a goal to go to $25 billion of funding for something that, to me, is a Federal priority, that is good for this country, that is one of the crown jewels of the Federal Government, I think we need to continue pushing that. But the bottom line is, we need to govern. The President was elected last November and we need to work out a compromise. This is the best we can do. I commend the chairman for the work he has done.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I can reclaim my time, if I might, and let the gentleman respond to the gentleman.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would just say that in a number of these programs, one of the interesting by-products we are having is that the number of children that are later eligible for special education is substantially reduced because, by concentrating on basic skills at the earliest level, the grade level, we find it was really a reading problem that these children had that later caused them to be classified as eligible for special education. Those children are being maintained in the regular classrooms.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the cancer of soft money that is growing on our political system continues, and the cancer of soft money that is corrupting and ruining our ability to govern this Nation is continuing. Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times pointed out that there has been a 250-percent increase in soft money contributions to the Congress in the first half of this year. They point out in the 1996 election that $260 million was collected in soft money contributions, contributions that go around the limits that are placed on Federal elections, and that is three times the amount that was spent in 1992. Just recently, the American public witnessed large soft money donors to the parties in this Congress, being rewarded with tax breaks in the tax bill, tax loopholes, and tax preferences that no one else could achieve but those who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money. The time has come for the Congress to ban soft money. The time has come for the Republican leadership to put campaign finance reform on the agenda of this House so the people can go back to having their voices heard and not those of the special interests who are giving soft money contributions.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for offering this amendment. I think this is an important amendment. I rise in strong support of this legislation to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to promote or support the African elephant ivory trade or trophy hunting. Contrary to what Members may have heard, this amendment does not prohibit and will not prohibit trophy hunting within the Communal Areas Management Programs for Indigenous Resources, known as the CAMPFIRE Program. Nor is the Fox-Miller amendment in any way inconsistent with the recent decision of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to permit the limited resumption of the ivory trade. The issue here is whether or not United States tax dollars should be used by organizations and agencies implementing the CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe to Promote activities that are clearly opposed by the vast majority of people who pay taxes, our constituents. A poll completed earlier this year found that 88 percent of Americans opposed the resumption of the ivory trade. That was also the position of this administration. That is nearly 9 out of 10 Americans who oppose the activities that are funded in the bill as it currently exists. That is why we need this amendment. This amendment is not aimed at CAMPFIRE, whose programs I have visited in Zimbabwe and whose mission of rural economic development is highly admirable. To this point, much of the revenue that CAMPFIRE has generated for local economic development has come from trophy hunting. Very wealthy hunters pay $12,000 or more for a permit to shoot elephants and other exotic animals, and much of that money is repatriated to these villages for economic development. CAMPFIRE officials told me over and over again that they are committed to moving away from trophy hunting as a major source of revenue for the Program. These officials recognize that while trophy hunting may provide large amounts of quick money in the start-up phase of CAMPFIRE, that we are now beyond that stage and a more diverse program of economic development is needed. Moreover, there is no need to use U.S. taxpayer money to promote trophy hunting. That is already done through international hunting groups, magazines, and others. There has been no difficulty in attracting a sufficient number of hunters to satisfy the annual quota of elephants. We certainly do not need to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to convince hunters to do that which they are already prepared to journey halfway around the world and pay $12,000 plus all of their expenses to do; that is, to hunt elephants. Some might suggest withholding all U.S. aid from the CAMPFIRE program. I think that would be unwise. I think it would be an unfortunate action and would deprive the program of critical funds to assist rural development in Africa. Instead, what we should do is we should assist the development of a more diversified economic program promised by CAMPFIRE involving non- hunting activities such as camping, photo safaris, local craft sales, lodges, and much, much more. We should target our U.S. tax dollars to these meritorious and noncontroversial efforts, rather than to continue to squander our constituents' tax dollars on promoting big game hunting by very wealthy individuals. That is the goal of this amendment, to diversify and to stabilize the CAMPFIRE Program. Our amendment would also end the unacceptable practice of using United States tax dollars to fund organizations like the British-based Africa Resources Trust, that lobbies CITES to overturn the ban on the international ivory trade, that lobbies Congress to weaken the Endangered Species Act. We should not be sending taxpayer dollars to these organizations to lobby against positions of the U.S. Government and to lobby within this Congress for those tax dollars. Do not let anyone tell you that this amendment would injure CAMPFIRE or the struggling villages and populations for whom the program holds so much promise. This amendment puts our tax dollars exactly where CAMPFIRE is headed, in economic diversification, not a program heavily dependent upon shooting elephants to generate revenues. Do not let anyone tell you that the Fox-Miller amendment will interfere with the recovery of the African elephant promoted by CAMPFIRE; 8 out of 10 elephants in Zimbabwe do not live in the CAMPFIRE areas. It is not trophy hunting and culling that has allowed for the growth in the African elephant herds; it is the international ban on hides and ivory, which has been weakened due to the vigorous lobbying of CAMPFIRE and groups it supports with United States taxpayer money. CAMPFIRE, the local villages, the Zimbabwean Government can all continue their hunting and culling operations as necessary for trophy hunting, species protection, and human safety. CITES can go forward with the limited sale of ivory from existing stockpiles.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for her statement and for her support of this amendment and for her clarification. The suggestion of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] that somehow this is an effort to defund CAMPFIRE is just outrageous in the sense that the gentleman understands, if he reads the amendment, it is a very simple amendment and that is not what it does. What this amendment suggests is we should not be using taxpayer dollars to fund an activity that over 88 percent of the taxpayers in this country find abhorrent and do not agree with. They would agree with the CAMPFIRE Program, but what they do not agree with is using their dollars to support trophy hunting of big game. That program, that component, that part of CAMPFIRE can stand on its own, because it has centuries of tradition, if you will, and a constituency of people who seek to do it. More people apply to do it than are allowed to do it each and every year. Mr. Chairman, what we ought to now be taking is this risk capital in USAID and putting it into diversification of these rural economies so that more and more people in these economies can participate and these economies hopefully can prosper and increase the standard of living within those rural economies in Zimbabwe and other countries. But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey cannot come here and suggest that somehow this is about defunding CAMPFIRE. That amendment will eventually come if we keep funding trophy hunting, because the American people do not want anything to do with trophy hunting with American taxpayer dollars. Or if CAMPFIRE continues to lobby, then we will have an amendment that will wipe out the whole program. What we are trying here to do is to preserve the best of this program and the use of taxpayer dollars and let that very strong part, that is a very strong constituency, trophy hunting, stand on its own and then get on with the diversification of the program.