George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich]. (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I think this is a bad bill. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the dolphins. It is bad for American trade policy. And I urge the House to vote ``no''. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I differ with my colleagues on the other side. I think, in fact, we are here because of the international trade agreements. I believe we are here because there are those who insist that somehow that American environmental labor standards will be destroyed on the altar of what is called free trade. This is a bad bill. It is bad environmental policy, it is bad trade policy, and it is bad foreign policy. It does precisely what we were told NAFTA and GATT would not do: It demands that U.S. sovereignty play second stage to the demands of our trading partners. I appreciate why the gentleman is involved, and he is involved in good faith in this legislation, but we are here today because of those international agreements, because of those demands of our trading partners that somehow we change the label because they view this as a trade barrier to free trade. Rather than them change the manner in which they fish, rather than their engaging in fishing as our fleet does, as a good portion of the Mexican fleet does, they have chosen to go ahead and to decide to fish in a manner which is dolphin unsafe. Less than a decade ago, millions of American consumers, led by the schoolchildren of this Nation, demanded the creation of the dolphin protection law because of the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of marine mammals by tuna fishermen. The U.S. tuna industry responded by announcing they would only sell dolphin-safe tuna. The Congress, after lengthy deliberations that included all the stockholders, passed a law establishing dolphin-safe labeling standards. Those efforts have had a dramatic success. That is the current law. Dolphin deaths last year were less than 2,400 dolphins compared to more than 100,000 a few years ago. The dolphin protection law has worked, but because the bill before us today would renounce the very program that has achieved the goals we sought when the dolphin protection law was enacted, I do not think we should go along with those calls for repeal. Why on Earth would we so grievously weaken the very law that has worked so well? Not on behalf of American consumers, not on behalf of dolphin protection, no, it is on behalf of Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and other nations that are trying a little bit of environmental blackmail. They have said that if we do not weaken our laws, if we do not allow dolphin unsafe tuna into this country, they will go out and slaughter more dolphins. That is the blackmail. If we do not change our laws that American consumers demand, they reserve the right to go out and fish in a manner that would cause the slaughter of thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of dolphins. What they will find out is that product is not welcome here and it is not welcome anywhere. We cannot become a party to that deception. There are some very serious problems with this legislation, and the most important is that it would do exactly what the proponents of the trade agreements pledged it would not do, driving down these environmental standards through pressures from countries who do not want to meet those standards. Let us be clear. The driving force is Mexico, that does not want to meet these standards for dolphin-safe labeling. The fact is that H.R. 408 allows the dolphin deaths to double. On its way to zero it insists it has to go to 5,000. The fact is it is a little bit like the balanced budget amendment last night. On our way to a balanced budget in the year 2002, we have to increase the deficit in 1998 and 1999. I do not get it, the American people do not get it, but that is why 80 labor, environmental, animal rights organizations from all across the country and all across the world have joined to oppose this legislation, and we ought to stand with those individuals. We understand that it is not just about dolphins being killed, it is about, as allowed under this legislation, the continued harassment, the encircling and the injuring of those dolphins. If they can kick a live dolphin overboard, if they can throw them out of the net, then somehow it is all dolphin-safe. Yet, we do not know that to be true. That is why they have a study. We would suggest maybe they would want to do the study and find out in fact whether it is true or not before they decide to change the label and allow people to fish in the dolphin unsafe fashion. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are here is because we fully understand what is attempting to be done in this legislation; that is, to go from the current dolphin kill of 2,400 up to 5,000 with the intent of zero. I appreciate the intent to zero. The 5,000 is not in the law. That is an agreement. That is a voluntary agreement that we have. The other thing that we know is not real about this is, again, there is an intent to reduce bycatch but there is no requirement that the bycatch be reduced. That is why over 80 organizations, labor organizations, organizations concerned about the humane treatment of animals, environmental organizations have all come out against this legislation. I appreciate you have five environmental organizations. These are the same people that went out and negotiated along with this administration on NAFTA, told us this would never happen. And now as a result, we are back here because the Mexicans threaten either to kill more dolphins or to go the World Trade Organization and tell us to overturn American laws designed to protect consumers and to protect dolphins. That is why we are here today, because of the arrogance of these people in Mexico who have been fishing dolphins unsafe for the last 10 years.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, to say that the gentleman has the sequence mixed up. It is current law that is driving that down. If we pass this law, we can add a dolphin on the bottom of the chart for the 5,000. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [(Mr. Bonior].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the question that we have to ask ourselves is simply, when is enough enough? How much longer can we sit here as Members of the House of Representatives and pick up any morning paper in almost any city in the United States and read yet another story about some campaign committee, some officer of the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the White House, the congressional campaign committees, engaging in activities either that are illegal, or have so distorted the system that those who write large checks, those who have access to money, get access to government that the ordinary citizen could never dream of. This is supposedly the people's House. Yet we find that money, money is becoming the means of access, as opposed to your rights as a constituent to Members of Congress. Every day we see more and more decisions brought forth in the press that were distorted by money: decisions of regulatory agencies, decisions of committees, decisions of subcommittees, where money influenced the outcome of the deliberations. The Republicans like to suggest that it is all just about illegal contributions. The tragedy at the end of all of these investigations will be that the vast amount of money that causes the distortions in the system in terms of representational government is legal. It is legal. It is legal to the extent that it is simply swamping the ability of local constituents to have a say in their election. We need campaign finance reform. At the very beginning of this session, I and 100 of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, wrote to the Speaker and asked him to give us a date to bring it forth within the first 100 days of Congress. May 26 is the 100th day and he has not brought it forth. The President has asked to do it by July 4. There is no indication that will be done. In 100 days we defeated Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf. In 100 days the Brits defeated the Argentinians in the Falklands. In 100 days Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid the groundwork for a New Deal. In 100 days, 2 years ago we passed most of the Contract With America. In 100 days one can do great things. This House, this Speaker has chosen to do nothing in this first 100 days with respect to a cancer on the political system of American government. We need that debate on this floor. We need a wide open debate. Our beloved former Speaker, Tip O'Neill, when asked by people, what is the greatest power that the Speaker of the House of Representatives had, he said, the power of recognition, because the Speaker controlled the agenda. If the Speaker does not recognize you, you cannot come forth on the floor. The Speaker of this House owes it to the House and to the American people to use his power to call forth the debate on campaign finance reform and let the chips fall where they may. The investigations will continue and, as the investigations like to point out, they are investigating matters that they believe are already illegal under the law. That is not the problem in terms of representational government, and that is not the problem in terms of this institution. The problem is the volume of money that is now foreclosing the voices of millions of Americans who would like to weigh in in the decisions that we make in the people's House.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, while there are many important policy matters addressed in the budget agreement before us today, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the provisions concerning natural resources, native Americans and the environment. I am encouraged that the resolution includes several vital functions of the Department of the Interior in the category of protected domestic discretionary priorities. Specifically, the National Park Service, operations of national park system, land acquisition, and State assistance, Everglades restoration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and tribal priority allocations are funded at levels proposed in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget. In addition, I am pleased that the resolution provides for $143 million in fiscal year 1998 to implement the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act and $700 million for priority Federal land acquisitions, such as the Headwaters Redwoods Forest in California and the New World Mine Property bordering Yellowstone National Park. These are highly justifiable and appropriate uses of public funds. In fact, these priorities adopted in the budget agreement were also identified in the budget views and estimates of Resource Committee Democrats. Let me briefly address the priority items. Of critical importance to California is the commitment to provide $143 million in funds requested by the President for the California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration initiative. Federal financial support for bay-delta restoration was authorized by Congress in 1996. By voter initiative, California has set aside nearly $1 billion for bay-delta water restoration programs, guaranteeing that the State will pay its fair share of the costs. There is widespread, bipartisan support for the bay-delta ecosystem restoration effort and it deserves full support from Congress. Mr. Chairman, if there was any doubt whatsoever about the importance of our national parks, the public outcry and harm to local economies during the Government shutdown last Congress made it clear that national parks are among this country's most value assets. Unfortunately, while we in Congress have created a system of national parks on par with any in the world, we have not been very good stewards of that public trust. The Park Service would be the first to admit that the June 1997 edition of Consumer Reports is right on target: Visitor facilities in many national parks are in terrible shape and getting worse. There is an estimated $5.6 billion backlog in maintenance and repair needs. Although the budget agreement incorporates the President's request for a 6-percent increase in fiscal year 1998 park funding, more needs to be done. Congress should continue to seek sources of funding, from park fees, concessions reform, and other initiatives, in order to deal with the repair and maintenance backlog and to continue to provide for the use and enjoyment of these vital national assets. Mr. Chairman, we also have a special trust responsibility for American Indians and the budget resolution seeks to meet that responsibility by including the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal priority allocations as protected domestic discretionary priorities. The $1.73 billion requested for BIA programs in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget is equal to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1995. But considering that the funding for Indian programs has been cut significantly by Congress in each of the last 2 fiscal years, the budget agreement at least stops the backsliding. The needs for these funds are great: Economic, medical, educational, and social conditions on most Indian reservations are bleak. Of the 1.8 million native Americans in the U.S., 603,000 live below the poverty line and unemployment exceeds 40 percent. Mr. Chairman, no other area more visibly demonstrates the progress in this budget agreement than does the funding provided for land acquisition for conservation purposes. The budget provides funding at the levels requested by the President in fiscal year 1998 for land and water conservation fund acquisition and the Everglades restoration initiative. Moreover, the resolution makes an additional $700 million available over the President's request, for priority land acquisition. This is in stark contrast to the budget resolution adopted last Congress which eliminated all funds for land acquisition. Land and water fund appropriations for the last 2 fiscal years which have fallen below fiscal year 1995 levels, despite efforts by myself and Representative Farr in offering amendments to restore funding. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act dedicates revenues from the leasing of offshore oil and gas resources to a trust for the permanent protection of conservation lands. The act intends that these funds are to be used to purchase lands from willing sellers as additions to national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, and Bureau of Land Management Lands. The annual income to the land and water trust fund has been steady at $900 million, resulting in an unexpected balance in the trust of over $12 billion in fiscal year 1998. The price of not using the land and water conservation fund for its intended purposes is paid by increasing threats and in diminishing opportunities to protect and enhance our parks, refuges, forests, and public lands. Using the land and water conservation trust for deficit reduction, rather than for its intended acquisition purposes, is not only committing a fraud on the American people, it is short-sighted because it will increase the long-run costs to the taxpayers for protecting the environment and providing recreational opportunities. Let me cite one example to illustrate the point: The City of New York is faced with the choice of spending $600 million to protect its watershed by purchasing forested land in the Catskills which is threatened by development or alternatively spending $4 billion on a water treatment system to provide clean drinking water. In large part because of the difficulty in getting Congress to appropriate land and water conservation funds, the administration has resorted to proposing exchanges of Federal assets in an attempt to acquire the Headwaters Forest in California and the New World Mine outside Yellowstone Park. But the $700 million provided in the budget agreement for acquisitions provides much better alternative to asset swaps which raise environmental and complicated valuation problems. This is an important step forward in using the assets of land and water conservation fund as the act intends. I commend Chairman Kasich, Ranking Member Spratt and others involved in the budget negotiations for their leadership on these critical issues.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in both parties today to support this remarkable achievement on behalf of children with disabilities and their families. I have always believed that it is an honor and a privilege to serve in Congress. Today I can say that I am truly proud to serve in Congress and to have played a role in upholding the laws that protect our children and their families. We had some very serious disagreements when we started this effort 2 years ago to revise the two-decades-old law on disability education. At that time, there were several critical points that prevented us from coming to an agreement. I believed then and still believe that all children, regardless of the nature of severity of their disability, must be guaranteed a free and appropriate public education and that no child should be denied an education. I said last year that if the California Legislature could conclude that this sound educational and social policy does not compromise school safety, then Congress should do so as well. The language in this bill before us specifically prohibiting cessation of services accomplishes that goal. I believed then and still believe that treatment of children with disabilities should be guided by what we know about the nature of the child's disability and its effect on his or her behavior. Unfortunately, this knowledge needs to be more widely disseminated. Language proposed in consideration of this bill previously would have allowed schools to discipline disabled students solely for so-called ``disruptive behavior''. Most of us assume this was a well-intended effort, yet nonetheless it would have resulted in a situation where any of a wide-range of nonthreatening but, to some, unpleasant behaviors, could have been grounds for suspension or expulsion. I am pleased that my colleagues had the good sense to strike this provision from the bill. I believed then and still believe that parents are entitled to pursue all legal avenues available to them to ensure their child is treated fairly. Unfortunately, some had argued for provisions which would have curtailed or severely diminished these rights. I am pleased that the bill before us maintains the fundamental rights we established when this groundbreaking law was written over 20 years ago. The bill before us today resolves these differences to the satisfaction of the many different parties that have contributed to this process and who are affected by this legislation. Other more, specific aspects of the bill also deserve note. First, this bill permits a hearing officer to decide whether to place a child in an alternative educational setting for no more than 45 days if a school district proves beyond a preponderance of evidence that maintaining the child in his or her current educational placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. The standard substantially likely was established by the Supreme Court in Honig versus Doe. In that case, the Court described the children who could be moved as those who are truly dangerous, and noted that it was up to the school district to rebut the presumption of maintaining the child in the current placement. In deciding whether the district has met this burden, it would not be permissible to move a child based on behavior that is not truly dangerous. In addition, H.R. 5 requires the hearing officer to consider the appropriateness of the child's placement and efforts by the school district to minimize the risk of harm. Thus, the bill assumes that it would not be permissible to remove a child when the child's behavior can be addressed in the current placement. In placing the additional authority with the hearing officers, the proposed bill recognizes the important role already assigned to these individuals in guaranteeing the rights of children with disabilities. It is because of the importance of this role that the Act requires that hearing officers be impartial and prohibits the designation of an employee of the child's school district as a hearing officer. It is expected that hearing officers will be provided appropriate training to carry out this new responsibility in an informed and impartial manner and that both State educational agencies and the Secretary of Education will closely monitor the implementation of this provision. The intent behind this bill was to strengthen the least restrictive environment requirement and participation of children with disabilities in the general curriculum and the regular education classroom. In keeping with this goal, the bill clarifies that the regular education teacher is part of the IEP team if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment. With respect to the IEP team, it is also important to underscore the right of parents to bring advocates or anyone else they care to bring to support them in the IEP process. Parents often need this support to level the playing field and allow them to participate meaningfully in the IEP process. I am particularly pleased that the bill strengthens enforcement of IDEA by providing the Secretary more flexibility in withholding funds in cases of noncompliance and by explicitly clarifying the Secretary's ability to refer matters to the Department of Justice for enforcement action. Enforcement of this Act has been one of the main obstacles to full implementation. These new features will help assure that noncompliance will not go unchecked. This process we went through in crafting these agreements was not easy. We had to overcome very real and difficult disagreements. Those of us who believed the rights of children and their parents were going to suffer were able to work with our colleagues in Congress who saw this issue differently and were able to agree that these rights should be protected. What we strove to achieve, and what I think we've accomplished, is a bill that protects the rights of children with disabilities, and at the same time fosters cooperation between parents, teachers, school boards, administrators, and State and local agencies to help ensure that each recognizes their responsibilities and that each must make a commitment to work collaboratively to serve the best interests of all children. I particularly wish to thank Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for allowing us the arena in which to make this achievement. It was a remarkable process. Senator Lott's dedication, and that of his chief of staff, David Hoppe, have served us all well. I would also like to thank the other members of the bipartisan House- Senate IDEA working group--Chairman Goodling, Representatives Riggs, Castle, Martinez, and Scott, and Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Harkin, and Coats--along with their staffs, for the extraordinary effort they made in putting this agreement together. I would also like to extend special thanks to Assistant Secretary of Education Judy Heumann, whose commitment to and effectiveness in addressing issues affecting those with disabilities, and whose impact on my knowledge and understanding of these issues, is second to no one's. Judy was an integral part of this process from beginning to end and this agreement simply would not have been possible without her. Mr. Speaker, during our deliberations on this act I received in the mail a letter from an old friend of mine, retired superior Court judge Robert J. Cooney, enclosing a copy of a book written by his son, Peter, describing what life is like for a child with Down's syndrome and for that child as he becomes an adult and seeks his place in American society. Over the years I have had the opportunity to watch Peter grow as he progressed through school and participated in the Special Olympics and achieve greater and greater independence. Peter makes it clear in his book the importance of family and the available resources: ``it is the love of parents and others that make the person special. We need help sometimes. Parents and teachers and counselors should help us when we need help but don't do too much for us.--Some counselors need to think of us as special. Part of their job is helping us become independent.'' Peter is now 32 years old, lives in a residential facility and works in the food service business at Cosumnes River College when he is not attending a book signing. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about empowering parents and students to be able to get the best education they can, so that like Peter they too will have the chance to participate fully in American society. We should never forget why we went through this process. Before the IDEA law was on the books over 20 years ago, more than a million children with disabilities were not being educated. Schools refused to take them, and States did not force them to do. IDEA is a civil rights law. For a parent with a disabled child, there is nothing more important than knowing your child will get as good an education as any other child. You would think that is not so much to ask in this great and rich country of ours. In fact, twenty years ago, it was too much to ask. But it is not any more.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, as ranking Democrat on the Committee on Resources, I wanted to address several important natural resource and environmental matters raised in this bill. At the outset, I want to commend the leadership of the Appropriations Committee for providing vital funding in addition to that requested by the administration for flood-damaged national parks, wildlife refuges, BLM public lands, and national forests. In California, the severe flood that inundated Yosemite National Park has caused extensive damage to many park facilities and resources, destroying or damaging hundreds of housing units and campsites and other infrastrucure. As a result of the extensive damage, the park was closed and visitor access curtailed. Yosemite is one of the crown jewels of our national park system and the millions of visitors each year contribute significantly to the state and local economies. While the park service is working to conduct the most urgent repairs to roads and infrastructure using existing funds, the supplemental is urgently needed to reopen park areas in 1998. In the long run, with $186 million in restoration funds and $10 million in funds to implement the Yosemite Valley transportation plan, we have the opportunity to enhance the visitor experience and better protect park resources in what is truly a national treasure. I also am pleased with the committee's efforts to increase funding over the administration's request for flood-related restoration on national forests. In California and other States, ill-advised logging practices and road construction have had a severe impact on watersheds and water quality, contributing to runoff which increases the severity of flooding downstream. The bill provides $37 million for fish and wildlife habitat restoration, soil stabilization, road and trail maintenance and relocation, $15 million of which is allocated to national forests in California. The committee also provides over $32 million for road and trail and facility reconstruction, $9.2 million of which goes to California forests. Given the extensive flood-related damages to national forests in California and other States, it is vital that the forest service use these funds in a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial manner. Top priority should be given to allocating these funds for road decommissioning in watersheds and unstable areas where poorly designed and maintained roads have contributed to water runoff, stream sedimentation, and mudslides. I would also like to comment on section 303 of the bill which is intended to allow flood control project repairs to go forward without concerns regarding consultations under the Endangered Species Act. Clearly, this is legislative language which is subject to a point of order under House rules. However, last week the House had a vigorous debate and reached a decisive conclusion on this matter by adopting the Boehlert-Fazio substitute to H.R. 478. Substantially similar language, acceptable to the administration, has also been agreed to by the other body. It is unfortunate that in this case we would allow procedure to obstruct the substance of legislation that is important to many members of the California delegation whose districts were affected by the flooding. It is my hope that the conferees will reject the levees without laws language contained in H.R. 478 and instead adopt the compromise approach which is clearly supported by a majority in the House. In my view, including legislative language clarifying the application of ESA to the flood-related projects is appropriate to include in a flood supplemental. By contrast, however, the other body has included a legislative rider concerning road right of ways across public land which has absolutely no business being in this bill. It is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity to debate the issue of legislating on so-called RS 2477 roads at greater length in the House. Unlike ESA, the House Resources Committee has not reported any legislation on RS 2477, an anachronistic 19th century statute that--as interpreted by a slim majority of the other body--would allow States to build roads through national parks, and public lands in Alaska, Utah, and other western States. This is the mining law of 1872 give-away for roads. Mr. Chairman, holding important legislation hostage to unrelated antienvironmental riders is deja vu all over again. Didn't we learn anything from the misguided and failed attempts from last Congress. Whether it is in California or North Dakota or Kentucky, flood affected citizens understandably have no tolerance for Congress haggling over a 19th century statute which has nothing to do with floods and everything to do with a narrow antienvironmental agenda which would go nowhere under the normal legislative process. There are too many vital and urgently needed provisions in this bill to get bogged down on a special interest rider that has not been adopted by the House and is likely to contribute additional delay in the form of a Presidential veto.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the authors of this amendment. I cannot tell my colleagues how distressed I was to learn that the Committee on Appropriations did not put in the request by the administration for the full funding of WIC. I have been involved in this program my entire life in the Congress of the United States. I have probably visited more WIC clinics, more site visits, conducted more investigations, asked for more studies and investigations by universities and others of this program, and the result is always the same: This program works. This program saves healthy pregnancies. This program helps make healthy babies. These pregnancies do not know fiscal years. They do not know carryover budgets. They do not know any of that. What the WIC directors have done historically year in and year out is provide us credible information to run this program. They have done it again this year. Mr. Chairman, we cannot interrupt this funding, because if we take away this program in a late-term pregnancy, if we take away the program for a newborn, we change the manner and the ability of that child's brain to develop. We change the manner and the ability of that fetus to develop during that pregnancy, and we ought to listen to the WIC directors and provide for full support of this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am pleased to join my colleagues in both parties today in support of this remarkable achievement on behalf of children with disabilities and their families. I have always believed that it is an honor and a privilege to serve in Congress. I believed that 23 years ago when I was one of the original coauthors of this legislation, and I believe that today as we seek to revise this legislation to make it meet the needs of both our children and the school districts which educate them. We had some very serious disagreements when we started this process two years ago and at that time we had several critical points that prevented us from coming together. I believed then and still believe that all children regardless of the nature or severity of their disability must be guaranteed a free and appropriate education and that no child should be denied an education. I believed then and still believe that the treatment of children with disabilities should be guided by what we know about the nature of the child's disability and its effect on his or her behavior. I believed then and still believe that parents are entitled to pursue all legal avenues available for them to ensure that the child is treated fairly. Unfortunately, some have argued for provisions which would have curtailed or severely diminished these rights. I am pleased that the bill before us maintains the fundamental rights we established in that groundbreaking law 23 years ago. This progress was not easy. We had to overcome some real and difficult disagreements. Those of us who believed the rights of the children and parents were going to suffer were able to work with our colleagues in Congress who saw the issue differently and were able to agree that the rights should be protected. What we strove to achieve and what I believe we accomplished is a bill that protects the rights of children with disabilities and at the same time fosters cooperation between parents, teachers, school boards, administrators, and State and local agencies to help ensure that each recognizes their responsibilities and that each must make a commitment to work collaboratively to serve the best interests of all children. Mr. Speaker, during our deliberations on this act, I received in the mail a letter from an old friend of mine, retired Superior Court Judge Robert J. Cooney, enclosing a book written by his son Peter describing what life was like for a child with Down's syndrome and for that child as he becomes an adult and seeks his place in American society. Over the years I have had the opportunity to watch Peter grow as he progressed through school, participated in the Special Olympics and achieved greater and greater independence. Peter makes it clear in his book the importance of family and available resources. He says it is the love of parents and others that make a person special. We need help sometimes. Parents and teachers and counselors should help us when we need their help, but do not do too much for us. Some counselors need to think of us as special. Part of their job is helping us become independent. Peter is now 32 years old, lives in a residential facility, and works in the food service business at Cosumnes River College in Sacramento when he is not attending his book signings. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about empowering parents and students to be able to get the best education they can so that, like Peter, they will have a chance to participate fully in American society. Before this law, Mr. Speaker, was on the books more than a million children with disabilities were not allowed to be educated. This rewrite makes sure that they continue to have those rights.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the major newspapers of the Pacific region has added its highly influential support to efforts to end the well-documented pattern of systematic human rights and labor abuses in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI]. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues this editorial from the April 25, 1997, Pacific Daily News, a newspaper based in Guam with widespread circulation both in the Pacific and the United States. The article, ``Plans to Strip CNMI of its Labor, Immigration Authority Not Surprising,'' supports legislation I recently introduced with nearly 40 of our colleagues to bring immigration and minimum wage policies in the CNMI under Federal jurisdiction. H.R. 1450 also would require that goods made in the CNMI be labeled ``Made in USA'' only if all U.S. labor laws were adhered to in the manufacture of the goods. Contrary to promises by the CNMI government to crack down on continuing labor and human rights abuses, the government has actually rolled back worker protections. Just last week, the CNMI governor announced that he will seek to repeal current law that would have provided a 15-cent increase in the existing subminimum wage for the garment and construction industry--an increase that would at least have brought the wages of these workers into conformity with other industries. The lowest paid workers in America, these foreign laborers--and especially the women--work long hours, are often denied overtime wages, live and work in unsanitary and unhealthy conditions, and face physical and mental abuse from employers. The editorial strongly states ``If even a fraction of the numerous allegations of tolerance for illegal and immoral recruiting practices, human rights abuses and uncontrolled immigration are true, the CNMI deserves to be censured.'' Based on information contained in a report recently released by the Resources Committee, Economic Miracle or Economic Mirage, this threshold is easily met. The Pacific Daily News editorial articulates the concerns of many Members of Congress, religious and human rights organizations, labor unions, and U.S. citizens, when it notes that if the CNMI government and local businesses ``want to benefit from America's reputation, then they need to subscribe to the principles that founded this nation.'' The article follows: [From the Pacific Daily News, Apr. 25, 1997] Plans To Strip CNMI of its Labor, Immigration Authority Not Surprising If U.S. Congressman George Miller has his way, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas will be stripped of its power to control immigration, set its own labor standards or sell goods with the label ``Made in the USA.'' That announcement should not come as a surprise, because U.S. lawmakers and federal officials who have oversight of the common-wealth's affairs have threatened to do that for several years because of continued reports of abuse of these powers. Besides curtailing CNMI immigration and labor powers, Miller has written legislation that will force the Saipan government to increase its minimum wage--something that Northern Marianas leaders have been reluctant to enact. For years the commonwealth has been the subject of numerous investigations and scathing criticism about indiscriminately importing thousands of alien workers to fill low-paying jobs--frequently described as sweat shops. Even with repeated promises from CNMI leaders to comply with federal demands to clamp down on admitted abuses, Miller isn't buying that anymore. Along with his bill, Miller will release a 21-page report that details ``systematic labor, human rights and immigration abuses in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas and attempts to shield these abuses from public scrutiny.'' If Miller, who is the senior-ranking Democrat on the House Resources Committee, gets the support he needs, this may be the end of the line for unchecked control of immigration and labor in the Northern Marianas. If even a fraction of the numerous allegations of tolerance for illegal and immoral recruiting practices, human rights abuses and uncontrolled immigration are true, the CNMI deserves to be censured. There must be competitive balance for states and territories that comply with federal rules. And it's not right that foreign workers are treated so shabbily while someone else profits. If the CNMI government and businesses that indulge in this practice want to benefit from America's reputation, then they need to subscribe to the principles that founded this nation. Otherwise, sew a label on every garment that says: ``Made in the CNMI by Low Paid Alien Workers.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Federation of Asian People of Guam in support of H.R. 1450, the Insular Fair Wage and Human Rights Act. This legislation is urgently needed to stop the inexcusable pattern of labor and human rights abuses in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI]. Over 35 Members of the House, as well as prominent human rights and religious groups, and national labor organizations are unified in their support of this legislation. This bill would mandate needed reforms in the CNMI's minimum wage and immigration policies that have allowed the recruitment of a disenfranchised, low paid foreign workforce that now outnumbers the local, indigenous population. These workers are treated as commodities, with little individual value, and are regularly denied the labor, health and safety protections guaranteed by U.S. law. We must send a strong message to the CNMI government that these continued abuses will not be tolerated on U.S. soil. The resolution that follows was adopted by the Federation of Asian People on Guam, an umbrella organization of several Asian-American interest groups on Guam. The resolution states, in part, the CNMI can no longer conceal the evidence of ongoing labor and immigration abuses and these same problems were pointed out to Gov. Froilan Tenorio and local and Federal officials in the FADG Resolution 94-1 3 years ago. The resolution further states that H.R. 1450 will hopefully stem the corruption which consumes everyone including the innocent in the CNMI. I thank the Federation of Asian People for their strong support on this most important issue and ask that the Resolution 97-1 be printed here in full. Federation of Asian People on Guam (FAPG) Resolution No. 97-1 Relative to commending and supporting Representative George Miller on his legislation to strip CNMI of many of its immigration and labor powers. Be It Resolved By The Board of Directors of the Federation of Asian People of Guam: Whereas, the Honorable George Miller, a Senior U.S. Congressman, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources who has the jurisdiction over Territorial Issues, aims to introduce a legislation to remove the power of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands on Immigration and Labor Control; and Whereas, according to continuing reports, the CNMI can no longer conceal the evidence of ongoing labor and immigration abuses; that the CNMI is accused of using that local control to import and abuse thousands of low-paid Asian workers; that these same problems were pointed out to Governor Froilan Tenorio and to local and federal officials in the FAPG Resolution 94.1 three years ago; and Whereas the CNMI were branded ``Hell Holes'' for foreign workers during the announcement of new legislation aimed at the Commonwealth, according to a statement read on behalf of John Sweeney, President of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; and Whereas, ``this continued pattern of abuse and indifference to human exploitation demands a rapid and bipartisan response from the Congress and the Clinton Administration'', to quote Representative George Miller while announcing the new initiative which declares to one and all that these sordid conditions not be tolerated on U.S. soil, and Whereas, we pray that the first Twenty Five stout-hearted Congressmen sponsors of the bill to remove CNMI's local authority to set minimum wage rates, enforce U.S. immigration law and limit use of ``Made in the USA'' labels to garment factories that abide by U.S. labor standards be joined by others to restore the integrity of the CNMI Government; and Whereas, this legislation will hopefully stem the malignant growth of CNMI's social cancer which consumers everyone including the innocent, brought about by illegal drugs, public corruption, victimization of guest workers through violations of their human rights, abuse, neglect and discrimination, forced prostitution, exploitation of minors, and other depravities crying for vengeance in heaven; and therefore be it Resolved, the Federation of Asian People on Guam commends, expresses gratitude to the sponsors of the bill entitled Insular Fair Wage and Human Rights Act of 1997, and extends strong support and full endorsement of Congressman George Miller's endeavors to preserve Universal Human Rights and the U.S. brand of Justice; and be it further Resolved, that the FAPG President certify to and the Federation's Secretary attest the adoption hereof, and that copies of the same be thereafter transmitted to Honorable George Miller; to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich; to Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archdiocese of manila, Philippines; to Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, of Agana Basilica; to Bishop Thomas Camacho of Chalan Kanoa, Saipan; to the supporters of this bill representing groups and agencies in California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Guam, CNMI, all of U.S.A., the Philippines & other Pacific Basin/Rim jurisdictions; to members of the electronic and printed media; to the U.S. Departments of Interior, Labor, Justice and Commerce and to his Excellency, Bill Clinton, President of the United States of America. Robert Kao, President FAPG, Former President, United Chinese Association; Irene Cheng, Secretary, FAPG; Roger Ruelos, President, Filipino, Community of Guam; John Vega, Public Relations Officer, FAPG, Former President, FAPG & FCG; Charles Lee, Vice President, FAPG, President, Korean Association of Guam; Calvin Lai, Treasurer, FAPG, President, Vietnamese-Chinese Association; Pete Hemlani, President, Indian, Community of Guam; Resty Albeza, Board Member, FAPG; Eddie del Rosario, Chartered Member, FAPG, Former President, Filipino Community of Guam.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of this debate. Let me just suggest that the experience in Congress is not very good when we try to write wholesale exceptions to an individual law without considering the impact elsewhere. We did this 1\1/2\ years ago with logging without laws. Not only did we devastate a lot of the forests in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, but we found out we had horrible impacts in terms of landslides this year that killed people because of lack of restrictions on where cuts were made. We also see that we are having an impact on the commercial fisheries and on jobs. Now we come to it is essentially levees without laws. This Government, the taxpayers, have spent billions and billions of dollars taking the great rivers of this country that ran across thousands of miles, that have filled hundreds of miles of flood plains, and we have forced them into very narrow rivers with very high levees. Should we be surprised when every now and then the rivers jump out of those levees? That is what happened this year. But there is no indication at all that that happened because of the Endangered Species Act, and yet we are on the floor today talking about blowing a huge hole in the Endangered Species Act because we are angry about the floods. But the demonstration is simply this, we had too much water for the existing design of the levees and the water blew those levees out. It had nothing to do with the Endangered Species Act. We had river flows that most of us in our lifetime have never seen in the State of California, they had never seen in North Dakota, they had never seen in the Midwest. It had nothing to do with the Endangered Species Act. It had to do with the fact that so much water was coming through that there was no capacity of the levees to hold. We ought to be very careful before we accept a wholesale retreat on the Endangered Species Act with respect to huge publicly subsidized Federal water projects in the West and elsewhere. I say that because of this: If you get these exceptions, then the burdens of meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act fall on the commercial fishermen, they fall on the logger, they fall on the miner, they fall on the municipalities, because that burden has to be met somewhere else. And if the levee districts can escape their obligation under the Endangered Species Act, we will be looking to the people in the forests, we will be looking to the people in the commercial fishing industry to try to pick up that burden. I hope that we would vote for the Boehlert-Fazio amendment and reject Pombo.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)