George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, these limited sales from existing stockpiles can go forward, but not with the dollars that nearly 90 percent of the Americans do not want expended for that purpose. For 8 years U.S. taxpayers have supported CAMPFIRE, and I would hope that that support would continue. This is a program of merit. But let us not let it jeopardize our participation in the CAMPFIRE Program itself by continuing to fund with American taxpayer dollars those hunting actions that are not acceptable to those very same taxpayers, and that, if continued, will eventually sour the support for the entire CAMPFIRE rogram. I want to say to my colleagues that I had an opportunity to visit these programs, and a number of other Members of Congress have visited these programs. It is a very, very exciting program and a program of merit to bring about economic development in incredibly, unbelievably poor rural communities. This money is being used to develop wells for drinking water, to develop granaries to grind corn into food, and to provide for electrification in some cases of these villages; the bare, bare necessities of any kind of semblance of adequate livelihood. This program is of merit. But what is not of merit is continuing to use the very few dollars we have to lobby, to come back and to pay for trips to Washington, DC and to Europe, and to set up offices throughout Europe to lobby on behalf of GATT and WTO and weaken the Endangered Species Act; and what is not acceptable is to continue to funnel those monies into activities that the very participants in trophy hunting are fully capable of paying for themselves. These are, for the most part, very wealthy individuals who pay huge amounts of money to go out and to get a trophy elephant or some other animal. We ought not to be using these moneys. We ought to be using these moneys for economic diversification of the CAMPFIRE Program, so it will have a lasting effect. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no more important issue for this Congress to address in the waning hours than the need to reform our corrupt campaign finance laws. As my colleagues will recall, many of us have called upon Speaker Gingrich to schedule a vote this month on legislation to ban the large, unregulated financial contributions to political parties known as soft money. These contributions of $25,000, $100,000, and even $1 million from a single individual representing some particular special interest have helped to ruin our electoral and legislative process. Despite our repeated requests for a vote and despite the Speaker's own pledge of support, there has been no vote scheduled on a soft money ban or any other campaign finance reform. My colleagues and our Speaker should be aware that we are prepared to use all our means at our disposal to force a vote this month. No more business as usual, Mr. Speaker. The famous avoidance game on this issue is no longer acceptable. Our ability to honestly represent our constituents depends on our success and reforming the campaign finance laws. Already there is talk of adjourning the Congress as soon as possible to avoid addressing this issue. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable. We will not accept such a cowardice position and the protectionism of special interests.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I and 52 of my colleagues are introducing the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997, legislation which we believe will make this law work--both for species and for landowners. Why this bill and why now? The efforts of the last 3 years to either gut or reform the ESA, depending on your perspective, have proven three things: that the law in its current form is allowing many species to fall through the cracks; that something must be done to provide some relief to landowners; and that, in spite of its problems, the ESA still has tremendous support among the American people. Last year, we reported a bill out of the Resources Committee that was so bad that Gingrich refused to bring it to the floor. This year, the same group who supported that legislation tried again with a rider to the flood supplemental that would have effectively waived all ESA requirements for any water project anytime, anywhere. And again, they failed. The Senate's been trying to come up with a deal for a year and a half--and yesterday they announced that they still hadn't been able to do so. What we've tried to do with this bill is get out of the black box and think in new ways, and I believe we've put some really interesting, workable new solutions on the table. We've provided serious incentives, other concessions for landowners while actually strengthening some of the basic protection provisions. Is this bill going to be enacted, word for word? Of course not. But it's a great place from which to begin seriously talking about ESA reauthorization in this Congress. Endangered species have been used as a whipping post for the left and the right, to no one's advantage. My hope is that we have learned our lessons, that we recognize that landowners and businesses have legitimate concerns that must be addressed, and that the ESA is a law that is invaluable to our country and its future. That said, what does this bill do to improve our species protection efforts? The single most important change this bill would make to existing law is to ensure that all our actions under the ESA--Federal actions or the actions of private landowners--do not undermine the recovery of a species. Recovery and delisting should be the standard we use for permitting incidental takes, approving habitat conservation plans, and allowing Federal actions to go forward. Everyone on both sides of the ESA debate complains that we don't do enough to get species off the list. They're right--we hold both species and landowners in limbo. The bill passed by the Resources Committee last year would have attempted to resolve that problem by changing the most basic tenet of the act, and allowing the Secretary to choose not to recover species, to simply allow them to retain their endangered or threatened status indefinitely. Who benefits from that approach? All that means is that landowners have to live with ESA regulations on many species forever. There's no planning certainty, all development comes to a halt--that`s insanity. Let me give you an example of how important it is to hold our actions up to a standard that means permitted actions can`t undermine recovery. When the Alabama beach mouse was listed as endangered in 1985, fewer than 900 individuals occupied less than 350 acres of habitat. Today, scientists estimate a population low of 45 animals. This species plays an important role in the beach dune ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico by dispersing the seeds of the sea oat--its principal food source--which, in turn, forms the basis for the formation of dunes and protects them from erosion. The dunes protect inland housing from coastal flooding and hurricanes. The recovery plan for the beach mouse calls for maintenance and improvement of all remaining beach mouse habitat. Four habitat conservation plans [HCPs] have been issued since then, authorizing permanent destruction of about 10 percent of the remaining habitat. Two new permits for large condominium complexes in the fragile dune ecosystem are now being challenged by local citizens. These developments would destroy permanently another 44.5 acres of beach mouse habitat. Neither the construction nor the mitigation is consistent with the recovery strategy to improve all existing habitat-- yet these permits were issued by the same agency that approved the beach mouse recovery plan. This bill would address the problems of the Alabama beach mouse by making it clear that permits for incidental takes of listed species cannot undermine the recovery of that species, and thus delay efforts to delist the species. Any activity--clearcutting, damming, housing development--must be judged by whether it moves species closer to recovery. Current law requires that actions be judged by whether they move species closer to extinction, a measure that fails to move species off of the national list. At the same time, establishing a clear recovery standard, backed up by agency recovery plans with biological goals, provides certainty for landowners in terms of permit requirements and mitigation actions. What would we do for the landowners who feel so besieged by this law? The current law fails to give businesses and landowners the certainty they need in the economic development process, so that the first problem we tackled. We`ve streamlined the permitting process, clarified the requirements of the law, and provided tax incentives and liability limits to the private sector. Developers and other business interests, as well as counties and local governments, need certainty more than anything else so they can move ahead with their planning efforts. We`ve combined that need with a recommendation by scientists that regional, multiple land owner, ecosystem-wide conservation plans do the most to save species to allow a one stop shop for incidental take permits when landowners and regional governments come together to develop a regional habitat conservation plan. This provision is built after the San Diego NCCP model. If the county gets the permit from the Fish and Wildlife service, local landowners can go to the county for their own permits as long as they're in compliance with the county's plan. That eliminates the need for each landowner to make sure he's OK with the county plan, then go back to the Feds for an ESA permit. We would also streamline interagency consultations, some of which can hold landowners actions up for months, by allowing Federal agencies to consolidate their consultations. For a number of similar or related agency actions within a particular geographical range or ecosystem, the Federal agency may request one consolidated consultation. In the case of the levee repairs that caused so much concern in the California floods of this year, the Army Corps of Engineers could request that all levee repairs in the same area be consolidated under one consultation, decreasing delay and expense. This also may benefit endangered species by allowing the agency to consider cumulative impacts. In addition, by conducting these consolidated consultations well before and emergency strikes, the Corps of Engineers or a local water district can formulate an emergency plan of action. What about some financial assurances? This bill would guarantee that permit holders--whether a county or an individual, business or small landowner, will not incur unforseen mitigation costs if they file a performance bond to cover the cost of reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures necessary to protect species. This provision not only protects landowners by capping their liability but it also protects taxpayers from having to pay for negligence by other parties. As part of the specific requirements of an HCP, landowners, working with FWS, will determine the reasonably anticipated costs of the mitigation measures they are required to undertake as a condition of receiving an incidental take. Those reasonably anticipated costs will be used to determine the amount of the performance bond. The landowner's economic liability is effectively capped by this provision. Landowners will know the cost of the mitigation up front, and will be able to proceed with their project. More importantly, in return for the performance bond requirement, landowners receive an assurance that the financial burden of any additional mitigation required by unforseen circumstances will be borne by the Federal Government. For smaller landowners who may have difficulty obtaining a performance bond, we allow the use of certificates of deposit, letters of credit, or other financial securities to fulfill this provision. In addition, for large habitat conservation plans that may have formidable mitigation costs, we allow the use of phased bonds. Using these, a landowner can obtain a bond for the portion of a project currently underway. The legislation also authorizes the use of adjusted bonds, by which a landowner can request to have a portion of the bond released after that portion of the project is completed. To encourage the development of regional, multiple landowner plans, the bill authorizes a county or other local government authority to obtain the incidental take permit and the bond. Landowners under that regional plan would not then be required to get individual bonds. Landowners wishing to work together without a government authority can pool their bonds. Finally, there's tax relief. If landowners are willing to enter into endangered species conservation agreements that go beyond what's already required by law, they can qualify for a deferral on estate taxes, a Federal deduction equal to 25 percent of the deduction allowed for State and local property taxes, and a credit for the costs of complying with the agreement. In addition, land donated to a habitat conservation land--by which you would be giving up all use of the land--would qualify as a charitable deduction. In the coming months, I intend to pursue additional ways in which we can offer tax relief to businesses and landowners who want to conserve species on their lands. I believe that most landowners want to preserve species, and that with a little creative effort we can find a number of ways to provide economic relief without undermining our efforts to recover and delist species.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, water supplies for California cities are extremely limited. Whenever possible, cities attempt to use their water storage and conveyance systems in the most efficient ways they can. The city of Vallejo has tried to use its water supply facilities more efficiently, but has been frustrated by a limitation in Federal law that prohibits the city from sharing space in an existing Federal water delivery canal. The city of Vallejo simply desires to wheel some of its drinking water through part of the canal serving California's Solano Project, a water project built by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 1950's. Vallejo is prepared to pay any appropriate charges for the use of this facility. Allowing Vallejo to use the Solano Project should be a simple matter, but it is not. Legislation is required to allow the city to use the Federal water project for carriage of municipal and industrial water. Congress in recent years has expanded the scope of the Warren Act to apply to other communities in California and Utah where there existed a need for more water management flexibility. The legislation I am introducing today will simply extend similar flexibility to the Solano Project and to the city of Vallejo.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, over 2 years ago the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, and President Clinton shook hands saying they wanted to reform the campaign finance system in this country. A bipartisan group of Members of Congress wrote the President the beginning of this session and asked that we do campaign finance reform in the first 100 days. Just this last week, 25 Members of Congress asked the Speaker to schedule campaign finance reform in September. We have heard nothing from the Speaker since he shook hands with the President of the United States over 2 years ago. We have received no response from the Speaker, and campaign finance reform is not scheduled. This leaves us only one alternative. Those of us who believe that this is a critical matter on the agenda of Congress, and that we should have a right to vote on ending soft money for the next election, will use all of the authority given to us by our constituents to make sure that this is on the agenda in September. If the only alternative we have is a showdown in September to end soft money, we will take that offer, Mr. Speaker. Members should come early and plan to stay late.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today--H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, as amended by S. 39--is a compromise. Normally, we would consider compromise to be the backbone of the way the congressional process works: Members with various viewpoints, representing very different constituencies from Maine to California, working to find the common ground that is necessary to national legislation. Unfortunately, this compromise represents something very different. We are brought to this point by pressure from a foreign government, and that is not the way this institution should function. This is not a bill to which I can lend enthusiastic support, although I will vote for it. I believe that, overall, this compromise represents a far better deal for dolphins than they would have received under the bill originally passed by the House, and that is due primarily to the untiring efforts and the commitment of Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who wrote the original dolphin protection law in 1990 and who has stood up to those on both sides of the Rio Grande who have sought to weaken that law. We vigorously opposed an immediate change in the Dolphin-safe label, as was sought by Mexico and by the Administration, because there is a great deal of concern within the scientific community that the kind of fishing sanctioned by this bill will cause serious harm to dolphins. We insisted that an impartial scientific study be conducted to determine whether, as asserted, it is now possible to fish with purse seine nets and not harm dolphins. I am therefore pleased to see that on this key point, we have been successful by requiring a three-year study on the impacts of chasing and netting on dolphin populations. Neither I nor the scientists I have consulted are comfortable with an automatic change in the meaning of ``dolphin safe'' after only 1 year of study unless the Secretary determines that chasing and netting dolphins has a significant adverse impact on the animals. The scientists tell us that these dolphin populations should be growing at 4-6 percent annually, and that anything else should be considered a significant adverse impact. I assume the Secretary will base his decision on objective, independent scientific advice and not succumb to political pressure. However, this bill now contains new language--not previously reviewed by the House and not subject to any hearings in either House or Senate--which, in my view, sets a dangerous precedent for the future of eco-labeling. The language of this bill appears to exempt the government-defined ``dolphin safe'' label from FTC standards on truth in labeling. This language prohibits American citizens from suing the federal government over the accuracy and truthfulness of the label that purports to signify ``dolphin safe'' tuna. The bill technically allows the use of labels other than the government label, which I support, but then contains a plethora of provisions and restrictions designed to ensure that competing labels will be all but impossible to use. This bill requires the Secretary to make a determination on whether the use of other labels is ``substantially undermining the conservation goals of the International Dolphin Conservation Program,'' and to then recommend to the Congress how to ``correct such problems''. It also contains a provision--added to the last minute at the insistence of tuna companies--making it a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act to ``use a label in a campaign or effort to mislead or deceive consumers about the level of protection afforded to dolphins under the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.'' To my knowledge, no other provision of law contains such extensive limitations on the right of the American consumer to know the impacts of their purchases on the environment or anything else, and I am extremely uncomfortable about setting this precedent at a time when eco-labeling or other labeling efforts are under tremendous fire from global big business, without hearings or time to determine the exact extent of these limitations. I intend to remain very engaged over the next 18 months as we undertake the study to determine the safety of purse seine nets on dolphins, and I know there are many outside Congress who will be watching this study, too. I expect that those who will engage in the study will utilize scrupulous scientific standards, and that the recommendations that result from the study will be scientifically sound rather than motivated by political or trade considerations. Lastly, let me say that those of us who will be called upon to cast votes in the near future on fast track trade authority or on the expansion of NAFTA and other trade agreements would do well to study the history of this legislation. If there ever was a question that environmental and labor standards should be included as integral components of such agreements, not as side agreement afterthoughts, this legislation provides a clear example of why such provisions should be incorporated. This legislation is the result of foreign governments telling American consumers and the U.S. Congress that we--and only we--must weaken our domestic product labeling laws because of this international agreement--an agreement, I might add, that not one person in this Congress had any role in drafting or approving. Trade and foreign demands are the engines of this legislation; sound science, mammal protection, consumer information all are being sacrificed on the almighty altar of free trade. This goes far beyond the issue of tuna and dolphins. It goes to the issue of who makes the laws and the rules that govern this country and our constituents. Do we make decisions based on fact and science, or on the demands of foreign economic competitors? The best reason to vote for this legislation is that, should this shaky compromise fail, a far worse version is waiting in the wings and undoubtedly will pass. In fact, there is some indication that the Mexican Government is already looking to weaken even this compromise. So, I thank Senator Boxer and Senators Biden and Smith for their efforts to make this bill less onerous, and I pledge to work with them in the coming year and a half to monitor the study that will determine how the label is to be written in the future.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as the ongoing Senate hearings and news reports have revealed, both parties are circumventing our campaign finance laws to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money. The time has come to ban soft money. Over 2 years ago the Speaker and President Clinton shook hands on campaign finance reform, but since that time nothing has been done. How many more pressing issues will Congress fail to address because of the insidious influence of money and politics? As we all know, delay means death for campaign finance reform. Recently 25 Members and I wrote to the Speaker asking for a floor scheduled vote on banning soft money in the 1998 election cycle. If no such schedule is designated before we leave this week, Mr. Speaker, all Members should be prepared to arrive at work early and stay late, because regular order is intolerable while campaign finance reform remains absent from our calendar.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the amendment, the gentleman takes some of the money out of this account and makes it available for breast cancer research. I was just wondering does that prohibit other kinds of cancer research, in the case of prostate cancer research, and does the bill allow for that?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican leadership of the Congress has demonstrated its very strong hostility to policies to promote a strong environmental policy for this country. I am sure that every Member of this House remembers that when the budget agreement was signed by the congressional leadership and President Clinton, it included at the President's insistence sufficient funding to acquire lands threatened with ruinous development that would present severe dangers to California's ancient redwood forest and to our first national park, Yellowstone. These development plans could result in the cutting of some of the most significant trees in North America--one of the very last ancient stands--and in the locating of a massive mine just upstream of Yellowstone Park. Now, we included in the budget agreement sufficient moneys to acquire these lands, and then to provide additional acquisitions from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As you know, some $900 million each year comes into that fund from offshore oil and gas development on Federal lands, and that money by law is to be used for land acquisition. Instead, the Congress has refused to appropriate sufficient funding to keep up with the need to protect our national resources, and a $12 billion surplus has developed in the fund. The President thought he had struck a deal with the Republican leadership to provide $65 million for the New World Mine lands, and another $250 million for the Headwaters redwood grove, and then an additional $295 million for other long-awaited acquisitions. That was an important part of the budget deal. And, frankly, I would have thought that a party whose environmental reputation is as justifiably low as the Republican Party's would have honored its commitment and its promise. But instead, the Republicans have reneged on their agreement and, in the midst of the summer when tens of millions of Americans are enjoying our parks and other public lands, the Republicans in Congress have repudiated their commitment. The House bill provides no funding for these high priority park purchases, and the Senate bill is hardly better, adding additional, unnecessary bureaucratic steps that everyone knows will doom the funding. I hope the public understands this Republican sleight of hand that clarifies once again that leadership's utter indifference to our national parks and other public lands. And I would like to enter into the Record an editorial from today's New York Times that correctly challenges the Republicans in Congress for their failure to keep their promises on environmental protection. Environmental Promises to Keep As part of their budget agreement with President Clinton last May, Republican leaders in Congress pledged to provide funds to protect several particularly vulnerable pieces of the American landscape from further degradation. They would give Mr. Clinton enough money to carry forward the largest environmental rescue operation ever undertaken--the restoration of Florida's Everglades. They would also approve generous funds for Federal land acquisition that would allow Mr. Clinton to purchase a potentially ruinous gold mining operation near Yellowstone National Park and to acquire California's Headwaters Redwood Grove from a private lumber company. So far, Congress has not lived up to its end of the bargain. This puts a special obligation on senior Republicans like the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, and Senator Pete Domenici, who helped negotiate the budget deal, to remind their colleagues that their party may suffer if they break good-faith commitments. It also means that the Administration cannot relax its vigil. Indeed, Mr. Clinton might think about threatening to veto any spending bills that do not contain the promised funds--a weapon he used to good effect in the last Congress when Republican conservatives tried to dynamite the country's basic environmental laws. The Yellowstone and Headwaters projects are especially at risk. The House has refused to provide a penny of the $700 million in extra money promised for land acquisitions, including $65 million for the mine and $250 million for the redwoods. The Senate appropriations committee approved the $700 million but then added a caveat that could doom the Yellowstone and Headwaters purchases. The purchases cannot be consummated, it said, until Congress passes separate legislation specifically authorizing them. That would throw the matter back to the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is full of people eager to deny the President an environmental triumph. The truth is that no separate authorizing legislation is required. The Interior Department and the Forest Service, which would carry out the deals, have pre-existing authority to make the acquisitions as long as the money is there. Mr. Lott and Mr. Domenici must see this mischievous and unnecessary language for what it is--an opening for anticonservationist Republicans to torpedo Mr. Clinton--and make sure it is removed when the bill comes to a floor vote. The news about the Everglades is much better, at least so far. The appropriations committees in both houses have provided full funding for the Interior Department's Everglades Restoration Fund--a $100 million program aimed primarily at creating buffer zones between the Everglades and two of its greatest threats, the agricultural regions to the north and the exploding urban populations to the east. This is only a small down payment on the Federal share of a restoration effort that may eventually cost $3 billion to $5 billion. But it is an important start. At the same time, however, both the Senate and House have denied the Administration more than half the $120 million it requested for restoration projects to be undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in South Florida. The corps plans a massive replumbing project aimed at replicating the historic flow of clean water from Lake Okeechobee southward to the Everglades and Florida Bay. This is a vital part of the overall scheme and for that reason was specifically promised in the budget agreement. To honor their word, Mr. Lott, Mr. Domenici and their counterparts on the House side. should make sure that these funds are restored. The Republicans keep saying that they want to spruce up their environmental credentials. Breaking pledges on matters of transcendent interest to environmentalists is not the way to go about it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the Teaching Excellence for All Children [TEACH] Act of 1997. This legislation addresses a longstanding concern that many of our Nation's school children are being taught by teachers who are not qualified to teach in their subject areas. This is a disservice to students, to parents, to the teachers themselves, and to taxpayers. The problem, documented in several studies, will only get worse as the student population continues to rise along with the demand for ever more new teachers. Parents have a right to know whether their children are being instructed by qualified teachers. And taxpayers have a right to expect Congress to do all it can to ensure that Federal education dollars are being spent in a responsible manner. I believe this legislation addresses both of those important demands. Under this legislation, States receiving Federal education funds would set clear standards for teacher quality. The bill also will ensure accountability for federally supported teacher education, provide financial rewards to teachers who choose to teach in high-need schools and who pursue advanced teaching credentials, and establish local community partnerships to help to schools to recruit and retain qualified teachers. two million teachers needed over next 9 years The number of elementary and secondary school students is expected to increase each successive year between now and the year 2006, from the current level of 51.7 million to an all time high of 54.6 million. The need for qualified teachers will increase accordingly. Between now and 2006, enrollment and teacher retirement together will create demand for an additional 2 million teachers. The shortage right now of qualified teachers to fill this demand is a significant barrier to students receiving an appropriate education. Too Many Teachers Are Not Fully Qualified To Teach In Their Subject Areas Last September, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that one-quarter of classroom teachers were already not fully qualified to teach their subject areas. An even newer report-- forthcoming from the Department of Education--indicates that 36 percent of teachers have neither a major nor minor in their main teaching field. Both reports show that the problem is even more serious in academic subjects such as math and science and in schools with high numbers of low-income and minority children. Research evidence suggests that teacher quality is probably the single most important factor influencing student achievement. Now is the time to redouble efforts to ensure that all teachers in our Nation's public schools are properly prepared and qualified and that they also receive the ongoing support and professional development they need to be effective educators. A Fair Deal for Teachers Teachers are among the hardest working people in our country and they certainly have one of the most important jobs in our country. The vast majority of teachers deserve our wholehearted admiration, respect, and gratitude. Unfortunately, our public policies have not always reflected this attitude. As the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development recently pointed out, ``teacher education, which encompasses preservice preparation as well as ongoing professional development, has suffered a chronic lack of funding, resources, and status in the United States, particularly as compared to education in other professional fields.'' In addition, the Teaching for America's Future report pointed out that: ``Not only do U.S. teachers teach more hours per day but they also take more work home to complete at night, on the weekends and holidays.'' At the same time, the report goes on to say that ``Other industrialized countries fund their schools equally and make sure there are qualified teachers for all of them by underwriting teacher preparation and salaries. However, teachers in the United States must go into substantial debt to become prepared for a field that in most States pays less than any other occupation requiring a college degree.'' I think the public is willing to address these issues. Education tops the list of concerns in most public opinion polls. But at the same time, parents and taxpayers want greater accountability to ensure that any additional resources directed at improving teacher quality have a maximal impact on student achievement. By coupling support for teachers with enhanced accountability, this bill is a win-win for all those involved: educators, parents, taxpayers, and, above all, our Nation's schoolchildren. Let's Work Together Last week, the President announced his intent to put the issue of teacher quality at the top of his educational agenda. With the issue of teacher qualifications receiving increased attention in Washington and across the Nation, I am more optimistic than ever that we can work together to achieve the goals set out in this legislation. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2203, making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2203, making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998. This bill provides funds for critical flood control and navigation projects in Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area of California. I appreciate the committee's continued support for these projects. I am particularly pleased that the committee's bill will assist in funding the initial share of Federal participation in the Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act. Funding the Bay-Delta programs will allow us to begin a comprehensive effort to restore the many components of this huge area that have been damaged by human activity. The California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act went into effect when California votes approved proposition 204, which sets aside nearly a billion dollars for Bay-Delta water programs and guarantees that the State of California will pay a fair share of its costs. The Bay-Delta initiative is one of the boldest ecosystem restoration programs ever conceived. Funding for Bay-Delta programs in fiscal year 1998 has the full bipartisan support of the entire California congressional delegation, and I believe this initial appropriation deserves the full support of the Congress. The committee bill raises a new problem with the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. According to the committee report, the restoration fund is to be cut $14 million in fiscal year 1998 to eliminate funding for the Water Acquisition Reserve. I believe this reduction, apparently suggested by the General Accounting Office, is misguided, and I hope there will be an opportunity to reconsider this matter in conference. Specifically, I believe the Water Acquisition Reserve is a sensible approach to water management needs in California, and that it is well within the authorities granted by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. I will be pleased to work with the committee to resolve this matter prior to conference. Lastly, the bill includes funding to study the removal of rock hazards near Alcatraz Island that threaten oil tankers and risk a devastating oil spill in San Francisco Bay. This funding is an important first step in determining how to remove these navigation hazards in a cost-effective and environmentally sound way. I thank the committee for its hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2203.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer The Teaching Excellence for All Children (TEACH) Act of 1997. This legislation addresses a long-standing concern that many of our Nation's school children are being taught by teachers who are not qualified to teach in their subject areas. This is a disservice to students, to parents, to the teachers themselves, and to taxpayers. The problem, documented in several studies, will only get worse as the student population continues to rise along with the demand for ever more new teachers. Parents have a right to know whether their children are being instructed by qualified teachers. And taxpayers have a right to expect Congress to do all it can to ensure that federal education dollars are being spent in a responsible manner. I believe this legislation addresses both of those important demands. Under this legislation, states receiving Federal education funds would set clear standards for teacher quality. The bill also will ensure accountability for federally supported teacher education, provide financial rewards to teachers who choose to teach in high-need schools and who pursue advanced teaching credentials, and establish local community partnerships to help to schools to recruit and retain qualified teachers. two million teachers needed over next nine years The number of elementary and secondary school students is expected to increase each successive year between now and the year 2006, from the current level of 51.7 million to an all time high of 54.6 million. The need for qualified teachers will increase accordingly. Between now and 2006, enrollment and teacher retirement together will create demand for an additional 2 million teachers. The shortage right now of qualified teachers to fill this demand is a significant barrier to students receiving an appropriate education. Too Many Teachers Are Not Fully Qualified To Teach In Their Subject Areas Last September, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that one-quarter of classroom teachers were already not fully qualified to teach in their subject areas. An even newer report-- forthcoming from the Department of Education--indicates that 36% of teachers have neither a major nor minor in their main teaching field. Both reports show that the problem is even more serious in academic subjects such as math and science and in schools with high numbers of low-income and minority children. Research evidence suggests that teacher quality is probably the single most important factor influencing student achievement. Now is the time to redouble efforts to ensure that all teachers in our Nation's public schools are properly prepared and qualified and that they also receive the ongoing support and professional development they need to be effective educators. A Fair Deal for Teachers Teachers are among the hardest working people in our country and they certainly have one of the most important jobs in our country. The vast majority of teachers deserve our wholehearted admiration, respect, and gratitude. Unfortunately, our public polices have not always reflected this attitude. As the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development recently pointed out, ``teacher education, which encompasses preservice preparation as well as ongoing professional development, has suffered a chronic lack of funding resources, and status in the United States, particularly as compared to education in other professional fields.'' In addition, the Teaching for America's Future report pointed out that: ``Not only do U.S. teachers teach more hours per day but they also take more work home to complete at night, on the weekends and holidays.'' At the same time, the report goes on to say that ``Other industrialized countries fund their schools equally and make sure there are qualified teachers for all of them by underwriting teacher preparation and salaries. However, teachers in the United States must go into substantial debt to become prepared for a field that in most states pays less than any other occupation requiring a college degree.'' I think the public is willing to address these issues. Education tops the list of concerns in most public opinion polls. But at the same time, parents and taxpayers want greater accountability to ensure that any additional resources directed at improving teacher quality have a maximal impact on student achievement. By coupling support for teachers with enhanced accountability, this bill is a win-win for all those involved-educators, parents, taxpayers and, above all, our Nation's schoolchildren.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, as the press now starts to report and to analyze the Republican tax cut legislation, the reviews are coming in from across the country and from independent journalists. What we now see is a recognition that what the Republican bill does is provide for a forced feeding of tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country. As Time magazine's journalist Jonathan Alter noted, the Republican bill showers millions of dollars on the richest 1 percent of Americans. As the Wall Street Journal noted, it allows the IRA provisions to create opportunities primarily for upper income Americans to shift large chunks of their assets into tax-free accounts, where they would be beyond the reach of Uncle Sam forever. The Washington Post notes that the Republican tax bill is heavily tilted toward the better off, and the Democrats are right for calling the Republicans on this. They go on to note that the plain facts are that the bill would not only benefit the better off but would cost the Government revenues it cannot afford. Yesterday, the Post quoted a number of economists supporting different political parties which reached agreement that the Republicans are relying on numbers that mask the extent of the size of the Republican tax proposals favoring high-income households which would mushroom over the years to come. What we now see as the conventional economic analysis suggests that the permanent benefits of the tax cut will favor high-income individuals, and it will do so by denying the $500 tax credit to families who pay thousands of dollars in payroll taxes but the Republicans have determined somehow are welfare families and not entitled to the $500 tax credit. Unfortunately, for thousands of working families in America today, they pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes; and yet the Republican proposal would not share the child care tax credit with them. What we now see is someone like Gary Bauer, the conservative head of the Family Research Council, saying, ``The family tax credit ought to go to any working families that pay income or payroll taxes. That is not welfare.'' Gary Bauer has it right. The Republicans have it wrong. These families are entitled to share this. But why can't they share in the tax cuts, the family child credit tax cut? They cannot share in that because the Republicans are so busy providing capital gains tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country, the vast majority of which goes to the top 2, 3, 4 percent of the taxpayers in the United States. These are not the people who need relief from taxes. The people who need relief from taxes are people who are trying to raise their children, educate their children, provide shelter for their children and are doing it on a few thousand dollars a year. Yet the Republicans say they cannot do that. They cannot do that because they want to get rid of the alternative minimum tax that suggests that corporations ought to pay something for the privilege of doing business in America. When they get done with all of their deductions, where they can eliminate their obligation to pay taxes, there ought to be something they pay in this country. By giving away capital gains tax, by doing estate tax relief for the wealthiest people in this country, there is no money left. There is no money left for hard-working families in this country that, unfortunately, earn between $15,000 and $30,000 a year; and the Republicans are going to deny them a tax cut. The bill should be changed in conference, it should be fair, and it should take care of working families. It does not do that now.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who spent his life and career working on behalf of Indian tribes and people to ensure that the United States lived up to its trust responsibility to them, Marvin Sonosky, of Alexandria, VA. On July 16, Mr. Sonosky died of heart failure. He was 88 years old. I join the many friends of Mr. Sonosky in mourning the loss of one of Indian country's greatest advocates. I would like to convey my personal sympathies to his wife, Shirley Freimuth Sonosky, his three daughters, Judith Kreisberg, Joann Hirsch, and Karen Hecker, and to his seven grandchildren and to his one great grandchild. Mr. Sonosky was born in Duluth, MN. He graduated from college and law school at the University of Minnesota. After four years of private practice in Duluth, Mr. Sonosky came to Washington in 1937 and joined the Lands Division of the Department of Justice, where he served for 17 years. He was named a special assistant to the Attorney General and frequently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1951, Mr. Sonosky returned to private practice, first in association with two Washington law firms and later as a sole practitioner. In 1976, he founded the law firm of Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse, where he practiced until his death. Through the last week of his life, he remained active in the trial practice of the firm. Mr. Sonosky was a unique individual in this city, in that he was one of the best advocates in his field, yet he never sought the accolades or tributes that so many seek to obtain. Instead, his tribute came from knowing that every day that he worked he had the potential of improving perhaps just one Indian person's life. I would like to share with my colleagues some of the many legislative initiatives involving Indian tribes that were the brainchild of Mr. Sonosky. These are but one measure of the impact that Mr. Sonosky had in improving the lives and opportunities of Indian tribal governments and their people, and which has done much to ensure that the United States stands behind its trust obligation to them. Following devastating losses of Indian reservation land, and its resulting poverty, Mr. Sonosky worked with Congress to secure the enactment of Federal statutes that returned over 1 million acres of undisposed of surplus lands within those reservations to the tribes-- the resources from which have been vital to the economies of many Indian communities. Mr. Sonosky also brought to the attention of Congress the need for legislation authorizing Indian tribes to recover just compensation for lands taken by the United States, so that the damages awarded would not be unfairly diminished by the value of food and rations that the United States had otherwise promised in exchange for the lands acquired. And when government officials unlawfully offset welfare claims against trust funds of individual Indians, Mr. Sonosky successfully challenged that practice in Federal court, after which he worked with Congress to ensure that all individual Indians who had been harmed by the practice were properly reimbursed. While much of Mr. Sonosky's work with Congress focused on righting past wrongs, an equal part of his work has resulted in legislation that will protect Indian rights for generations to come. Through his efforts, Federal law that had previously allowed States to assume jurisdiction over certain matters on Indian reservations were amended to expressly require tribal consent prior to application of State jurisdiction. And most significantly, when limitations contained in the statutes governing Federal court jurisdiction effectively barred Indian tribes from invoking that forum to vindicate federally protected rights, Mr. Sonosky successfully pushed for legislation that today vests the Federal courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate any claim brought by an Indian tribe. The honor of the Nation with regard to our obligations to Indian people has been well served by Mr. Sonosky. We will miss him dearly.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's consideration in allowing us to discuss this amendment, and I hope we can work with him in the future to make sure the full authority is restored to this board as well as its funding.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for his support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]. Mr. Chairman, in January of this year a hydrocracker reactor exploded at an oil refinery in my district and killed a worker, Michael Glanzman, and injured 44 others in a blast that could be felt 20 miles away. The year before that, again in my district, two workers were injured when a hydrogen unit blew up. The explosion sent a 24-inch elbow pipe which crashed into a trailer normally filled with workers but, thankfully, was empty during the accident. In 1993 a toxic cloud of sulfuric acid spread throughout one area of my district, sending thousands of residents to the hospital and spurring a widespread effort to provide a better warning system to the local community in the event of future industrial accidents. These accidents have cost these industries tens of millions of dollars. The amendment offered by my colleague from West Virginia on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] seeks to devote adequate resources to prevent the kinds of horrific industrial chemical accidents that have killed and injured workers by the score over the years, terrifying and polluting our communities across this Nation. The Chemical Safety Board, if funded today, would help prevent fatal chemical accidents from occurring in the future. It will not do so by punishing companies for past accidents but by providing information on those accidents so that the industry can learn from their mistakes rather than simply pay for them. While responsible parties must accept blame in the face of appropriate penalties for violations of the law, the board's job is not to assign blame. That is the job of the regulatory agencies. The reports prepared by the board cannot be used to sue chemical companies or to prosecute them. The board will determine whether the accident is just that or whether systematic errors are at the heart of the tragedy, systematic errors that can be addressed and hopefully be remedied. The board is modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board, which has helped to make flight one of the safest means of travel in the world. The Chemical Safety Board is an investigatory board that examines the root causes of industrial accidents resulting in serious injuries, fatalities and major property damage. Mr. Chairman, the Congress was correct when in 1990 it established a Chemical Safety Board. It has erred, however, in failing to fund that board since then. The current system of root cause investigation is unacceptable. President Clinton, in an effort to reinvent government, divided the board's responsibilities and assigned them to the EPA and to OSHA. EPA, part of the overall funding increase in this bill, has been given additional funding to carry out this mission. OSHA, on the other hand, has been asked to perform this with additional responsibility with no additional funding, further taxing the limited resources of this important agency. Mr. Chairman, I support the work of EPA and OSHA, but it is improper and impractical to ask them to carry out the investigation of the root causes of chemical accidents. EPA and OSHA are regulatory, not investigatory agencies. For better or worse, they have often had adversarial relationships with the industries that they are now being asked to investigate. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, EPA and OSHA are facing difficulty working together under this vague memorandum of understanding referred to by the gentleman from West Virginia. In the 2 years since they have taken on the board's mission, they have yet to produce an accident report jointly, sometimes in violation of these deadlines. More importantly, they have questionable statutory authority, a startling fact noticed by industry. In my own district, EPA officials approaching a plant to investigate a recent accident were stopped at the gate by the plant employees who requested written authority to enter the plant. EPA officials were not able to produce such authority and I understand were denied entry. The authority, Mr. Chairman, resides completely within the Chemical Safety Board. This does not sound like prevention to me. I understand there is support for the efforts in the Senate, and I would urge the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member to consider supporting amendments today to transfer to the board and give funds to EPA to do the board's work. It is not a large amount of money, but the board is not a large institution. Let us fund the mission, let us send a message to the communities like mine and so many others across the country that Congress supports an effort to make them a safer place to live.

Mr. MILLER of California. Exactly. That is the importance. And I would hope that the committee, in further deliberations, would consider funding this board. I think this board that was arrived at is an answer that was arrived at by industry, by concerned citizens, by professional organizations so that we could, in fact, get to the root causes of some tragic, tragic accidents, that I will go into in a moment here that have happened not only in my district but elsewhere in the country; and, again, I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes an important point that this board holds out the prospect of allowing the communities and the industries to cohabitate, because the industry knows that it can invite this board in to look at the root causes of these serious accidents and explosions and other incidents and not suffer the concern about liability; that this evidence or this discussion or this investigation can be used in litigation. And then they can share that with others in the industry in similarly situated facilities and hopefully reduce and improve their efficiency, reduce the accidents and have some confidence of the community that, in fact, an effort is made to get to the root causes. In my own community we have suffered a number of accidents in this recent year, but the problem is that the community has lost its faith in the regulatory agencies. They are in a confrontation with the regulator, with the industries. They have lost their faith in the industry. I believe this board can provide a circuit breaker so we can get back to a discussion of the problems that confront these industries. I just wondered if the gentleman knows, my understanding is this memorandum of understanding has not been completed, and EPA itself has some serious questions about whether or not they have the authority to conduct their part that has been assigned to them by the administration.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank him very much for offering this amendment and for the committee's indulgence in our consideration of this amendment. I believe that this is a terribly important amendment. Like the gentleman from West Virginia, I represent a constituency that has many petrochemical industries within the boundaries of my congressional district. We have refineries and we have manufacturers of chemicals and users of those chemicals.

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the industry has got to be reluctant to allow EPA in because EPA has another function. OSHA has another function. That is, in fact, they have to fine them or deal with the industries in a regulatory sense if they see these flaws. And yet those are the same agencies we are asking to come in and do an impartial discussion, investigation of the root causes.

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