George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a very important point, and I hope our colleagues are listening, because this is, in theory, as the gentleman from Utah says, this is based upon a study that was done. But when we look at the study authorized by this Congress to discuss this issue, they come up with a list of high potential candidates for interpretation in association with the national parks. They come up with Farmington, CT, the First Church of Christ; they come up with Sumatra, FL, which was Fort Gadsden; they come up with St. Augustine, FL, which was the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, they come up with the Levi Coffin House, which is in Fountain City, IN; the Bishop Paul Quinn House in Richmond, IN; Harriet Tubman's birthplace, which is Bucktown, MD; Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged in Auburn, NY; the John Rankin House in Ripley, Union Township, OH; the John Parker House in Ripley, OH; the Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. PA; the Stono River Slave Rebellion site in Rantowles, SC; the Nat Turner Slave Revolt Historic District in Courtland, VA; the Rokeby House in Ferrisburg, VT. Nowwhere is Cincinnati, OH, suggested by this report, that this would be the proper place to deal with the interpretation aspects of commemorating the underground railroad or in association with the National Park Service. I think we have got to take that into consideration, and that is why we would have preferred that we had a hearing in the committee. We could discuss this. We could list this. If the gentleman wanted to, he could suggest Cincinnati, OH, and we could bounce that off of the Park Service. But the fact of the matter is, as one goes through this report, there is more evidence that Canton may had more to do with this or Oberlin, if you will but not Cincinnati at this point, or at least not in this report. I would hope that the gentleman will withdraw bill before we head off in this direction and commit the National Park Service to this effort. Again, I would say to my colleagues, there were some 380 sites that were suggested, and then that was distilled down to 42 different sites. With all due respect, they are not in Cincinnati, OH. If we are going to keep the historical integrity and respect to the fact that we went out and funded a very large and detailed study, and now we are going to decide on the day before we adjourn that we are just going to put this in Cincinnati, OH, without any hearings, it may become in Cincinnati. Maybe there is a case that can be made, maybe the missed something. But the fact of the matter is, it should not be done on suspension and should not be done without hearings. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for his opposition to this.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in good faith, this is the problem: We once had a little tiny authorization for Steamtown and now we could not stop it with a gun. It is costing us millions and millions of dollars. It is a little bit of an operation. Once this project is authorized, unfortunately, the history we have is that the best intentioned groups eventually want some Federal participation, subsidy, however you want to call it. This authorizes operating agreements. That is how we got the Kennedy Center. Pretty soon we were running the whole Kennedy Center, and it was supposed to be done by private individuals. The gentleman from Utah knows this is the history. We start out with a couple of sentences and we end up spending millions.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Again in the discussion of the historical sites, even in Ohio there is Toledo and Sandusky and Oberlin and Seville and Cleveland and Plainfield and Ashtabula and Jefferson and Wooster and Homeworth, Millersburg, Loudonville, McKay, Hayesville, Ashland, Savannah, Mt. Vernon, Utica, and Zanesville.

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just mentioned a point. My understanding in this legislation is that this legislation was introduced just 2 weeks ago, and obviously we have not had hearings nor markups on this bill. Yet what we are doing is we are committing the resources of the National Park System to assist and to help operate what is an interpretive center in Cincinnati, and yet the center has not been built. We do not know the extent of those obligations, and we are creating something now called an affiliated area. The gentleman on the other side of the aisle has very often spoken in the committee and on the floor about the continued spreading of the resources of the National Park Service, given their budgetary problems and the backlogs and all of the other issues they are confronted with, and here we are being asked to commit to something that for the moment does not exist, may never exist, but if it does exist, we do not know the extent of the commitment to which we are asking. Mr. Speaker, I just think that the gentleman is correct in opposing this legislation, since we do not even quite yet understand what the center is going to do. We appreciate they want to be affiliated with the historical events of the underground railroad, which is a proud moment to a sad situation in this country, but to just take this shot in the dark and commit us and commit the National Park Service without any discussion of what this truly means I think would be a mistake, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly oppose the passage of S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Like many other Members of the House, I had hoped to be able to give this bill my unqualified support, or to amend it in the same bipartisan spirit with which we initially passed our bill in the House, and send it back to the other body. The process by which this product arrives on the floor today, however, has not allowed the Members of the House, who passed a different--and stronger--bill to play any significant role in the formulation of the bill now before us. As most Members are aware, the chairman of the Resources Committee and I rarely see eye to eye on natural resource management issues. The reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, however, proved to be a departure from the norm. Last year, we worked together to pass a strong, bipartisan bill that had broad support from the fishing industry, the environmental community, and the administration. We passed that bill by a 10-to-1 margin, and then waited for the other body to act so that we could work out our differences in conference. As everyone knows, it has been a long wait. In fact, it took a year for the bill to finally be returned to us last week. To no one's surprise, it was returned in a much altered state. Even worse, the legislation has been presented to us, in the closing days of the Congress, as a take it or leave it proposition. Members in the other body flatly stated that ``Any unilateral changes to the legislation by the House would be the death knell to the bill.'' So, we are given a choice between this bill, which ignores many of the provisions overwhelmingly supported by the Members of this body, or no bill, which would allow the overfishing that now plagues many of our fisheries to continue. There are provisions in this bill that improve on the status quo of fisheries management, including measures to address overfishing, habitat protection, and Fishery Management Council reform. There are, however, also many provisions that are bad for the fish and bad for the fishing communities. The result is a bill that comes with qualified support: This is the best we are going to get. In fact, it is difficult to find strong support for the bill. Many in the industry have concerns about the bill. Fishermen and fish processors from California, who were strong supporters of the House- passed bill, have told me they would prefer no bill to the enactment of S. 39. The environmental community's support is generally qualified and hardly overwhelming, and many Members in this body retain concerns about provisions that were added without debate or the knowledge of those most affected in the industry. Let me mention several provisions of concern to me that were never debated in the House at all, or where the House position was essentially ignored in S. 39. buying back a public resource at the taxpayers' expense S. 39 authorizes the Secretary to buy back fishing permits in biologically depressed fisheries as a means of reducing fishing effort. Those permits are issued for free or for a nominal administrative cost. As a result of this Senate provision, the taxpayer could be paying to reclaim a permit--issued for free--when the industry itself was responsible for the decline of the stocks. Given that there are already administrative and regulatory methods for reclaiming permits, this provision establishes an unnecessary precedent whereby Government would compensate industry for conservation measures necessary to restore a public natural resource. protection for fishing communities has been ignored The House bill contained important measures to protect small family fishermen. S. 39 turns these protections on their head, defining fishing communities far too broadly. Some have gone as far as to suggest that the provisions in the Senate bill are actually worse than the status quo for the small fishermen, and would prefer to see the provisions stricken altogether. the give away of a public resource will continue The House bill contained clear provisions to prevent the sale for private profit of individual fishing quotas issued for free. While S. 39 includes a moratorium on new quota programs, it does nothing to address the continued give away that will occur when the moratorium is over. This is bad for the taxpayer and bad for the small fishermen who will be unable to compete with large, corporate interests. The result will be a rip-off of the taxpayers, and the continued concentration of the fishing industry into the hands of those who can pay the most. whaling Under long established domestic law, foreign nations wishing to fish in U.S. waters are prohibited from doing so, or are penalized, if they are out of compliance with the International Whaling Commission [IWC]. This bill would allow countries that wish to fish in the waters of U.S. Pacific Insular Areas to do so regardless of whether they comply with the IWC. Let us be clear about what this means: Japan, which consistently flaunts IWC policies for protecting whales, will now be permitted to fish for tuna and other valuable fisheries in the waters off United States territories. Once again, we are told that those who ignore not only our environmental protection policies, but those subscribed to by dozens of other nations as well, will be granted special privileges in trade and economic relations. bycatch At the beginning of this debate, bycatch reduction was identified as a top priority for environmentalists, industry, and the chairman, Mr. Young. To that end, the House passed a bill mandating strong bycatch reduction measures. S. 39 weakened those provisions. Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to the other body that we have concerns about these and other provisions in the bill. House staff from both parties made every effort to convey these concerns to their Senate counterparts, but the majority of our concerns were dismissed as being outside the brokered Senate deal, or simply were not addressed. It is unlikely that the Senate is going to comprehend the message that the House must be granted a coequal role in preparing legislation that affects our constituents if we simply roll over and play dead when presented with an ultimatum. This bill is just not good enough. We were consulted little in its drafting, and our concerns were ignored. There are legitimate problems in the way it affects coastal communities, the environment, marine mammal protection, and the taxpayers. At some point, when we are told--with our backs to the legislative wall--``This is a take-it-or-leave-it offer''--the House will have to find the courage to leave it, and hope that by standing up for our institution and for our constituents, we improve the likelihood for better legislation. Unfortunately, that was not done in this case, and so I cannot support either this legislation or the process that produced it. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Massachusetts have worked hard on this legislation, and I have enjoyed working with them on this matter along with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. Finally, let me just say that this is probably the last bill I will work on with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. His service in this Congress has become synonymous with concern about our oceans, about our fisheries, about the fishermen and their families. His efforts over the years have provided many improvements not only to the environment, to the habitat, to the fisheries but to those families. He has tried his darnedest to see whether or not we could sustain those families in this endeavor, to sustain an American fishing industry, to sustain what it means to the culture of many of these people, to our communities and to regions of this country. I thank him for that, because this was a shambles before he got involved and the devastation would have continued without his involvement. I thank him for that effort. I also thank him for his service in this Congress. As many have said already on this floor, he is clearly one of our brightest, most articulate and committed Members to ever serve in this House. It has been a pleasure that I have been able to serve so many years with him and I thank him for his public service.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we join in the support of this legislation on the Walhalla National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act. The committee did report out the legislation, and we think it does make sense to allow for the transfer of this hatchery. We have no objections to the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, as was just demonstrated in the previous testimony, is why this bill should be rejected. The gentlewoman from Idaho talked about the outer zones and the inner zones in these Heritage areas. What she did not talk about was the twilight zone, where the support for this legislation comes from. It comes from those individuals who believe that there is some worldwide conspiracy of the U.N. to take over U.S. lands. The gentlewoman kept saying that the U.N. controlled 55 million acres, would take control of these lands. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues do not get a right to just stand up here and misrepresent the laws of the United States and what legislation does or does not do. The fact of the matter is, long before there was ever the U.N., there was the United States Congress that designates these lands as national parks or other assets of the public lands of the United States. Then, sometimes, we ask for the honor of being designated as part of the international heritage provisions. What does that do? Very often, in the gentlewoman's State she represents, that drives up tourist receipts. People travel from all over the world to see these, whether it is the Everglades or whether it is Yellowstone, or the other assets within the United States. We really have got to separate fantasy, absolute fantasy, by a group of people that are trying to find a way to beat up on the U.N. and what the laws of this Nation are. That is, we control the management of the parks, we control the management of the public lands, we design the reviews, we design the management plans. That is how those parks, that is how those assets are run, not by some group of people from the U.N. in black helicopters who hide in these areas and then spring forth on our community. Absolute fantasy, absolutely from the twilight zone. The gentlewoman is representing them well when she characterizes this legislation as somehow stopping some kind of mythical group of people from taking over the national parks and the lands of the United States. This ought to be laughed off the floor, but, unfortunately, we will have to vote it off the floor.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, just as a Member of the Watergate reform class, I would like to remind the gentleman from New York that this was supported by that well-known Watergate figure, Richard M. Nixon.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, with all the attention recently about increased drug abuse, particularly among young people, I am happy to take this opportunity to report on a successful effort being undertaken by the Fighting Back Partnership in Vallejo, CA, which is in my congressional district. The Fighting Back Partnership grew from the disgust of Vallejo community leaders about the effects of drug and alcohol abuse on their city. Representatives of the police, neighborhood groups, city hall, the school district, and the Greater Vallejo Recreational District joined forces in a multicultural coalition to fight back in a comprehensive communitywide substance abuse reduction strategy. This strategy involves a comprehensive program through public education, prevention, intervention, treatment, and aftercare. The following article describes the tremendous difference the Fighting Back Partnership has made after 5 years. This community has very much to be proud of, and its efforts should provide a model for other cities hurt by the tragedy of substance abuse. [From the Vallejo Times Herald, Sept. 15, 1996] Making a Difference--Statistics Indicate Fighting Back Is Winning the War on Drugs in Vallejo (By David Jackson) Fighting Back Partnership has produced a report that appears to offer some hard evidence that its five-year, multi-million dollar experiment aimed at reducing substance abuse in Vallejo is working. Citing student surveys on substance abuse, crime statistics and other data, the report suggests that Vallejo is making modest gains in combating the use of illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Among the more encouraging findings is a survey suggesting that teen-age marijuana use may not be growing in Vallejo at the rapid pace seen elsewhere. Between 1991 and 1994, the percentage of Vallejo juniors who said they had used marijuana within the last 12 months rose from 35 to 36. In Solano County as a whole, the percentage rose from 31 to 50. The same survey also suggests that fewer Vallejo students are using tobacco and alcohol, despite steady or increased usage by students throughout Solano County. ``There appears to be something going on in Vallejo that is not reflected in the trends of the rest of the county,'' said Jane Callahan, project manager for Fighting Back. ``Our kids are reporting less drug, alcohol and tobacco use than their peers in the rest of the county.'' The survey information was taken from The American Drug and Alcohol Survey, which is not affiliated with Fighting Back. Among the survey's other findings: The percentage of Vallejo seventh-graders who reported smoking cigarettes dropped from 48 percent in 1991 to 28 percent in 1994. Throughout the county, however, the percentage rose from 39 to 41. During the same period, smoking rose 1 percent among Vallejo ninth-graders and dropped 14 percent among Vallejo 11th-graders. The percentage of Vallejo students who reported using alcohol within the last 30 days dropped 11 percent among seventh-graders, rose 6 percent among ninth-graders and dropped 5 percent among 11th-graders between 1991 and 1994. For the county as a whole, the percentages rose for each grade level. the percentage of 11th-grade students who reported using marijuana in the last 30 days dropped 3 percent in Vallejo between 1991 and 1994, but rose 12 percent across the county. Essie Henderson, substance abuse administrator for Solano County, agreed with Callahan's assessment that the Fighting Back program is working. ``Early prevention has been the key,'' Henderson said. The Fighting Back program includes several programs designed to keep students from trying alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs or to help them stop. The report also includes crime statistics from the Vallejo Police Department which indicate that Fighting Back's training program for liquor store owners, managers and employees has worked as intended. Among stores that participated in the training program, incidents reported to the police dropped 6.5 percent between fiscal year 1993-94 and fiscal year 1995-96. Among stores that didn't receive training, the number of incidents rose 27 percent. The difference in the number of hours police spent responding to problems at the two groups of liquor stores was even more profound; down 20 percent for stores that had the training and up 26 percent for those that didn't. More than half of the liquor store personnel in the city have participated in Fighting Back's program. Since the late 1980s, when planning efforts for the Fighting Back program began, it has received wide community support. However, the majority of the funding has come from the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation in the form of a five- year, $3 million grant. Cash and in-kind contributions from a variety of other sources, including free office space from the city of Vallejo, have bumped Fighting Back's annual budget up to about $1 million per year. The foundation, which is sponsoring 14 Fighting Back programs across the nation, has hired an independent research organization to conduct detailed studies to determine how effective the programs were. The results of that study won't be fully available until 1999. Unfortuately, Vallejo's Fighting Back program can't wait that long. Its Robert Woods Johnson grant will expire March 1. If the organization hopes to continue to exist, it must find some new revenue sources.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, President Bill Clinton awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to our former colleague, and my good friend, Morris Udall. I can not think of a more deserving recipient of our nation's highest civilian award. Mo represented the 2nd District of Arizona in Congress for 30 years, coming in as a young upstart bent on dismantling the old seniority system and leaving as one of our most revered senior Members. Mo served as Chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for fourteen years. He was instrumental in leading the way for the enactment of landmark legislation protecting the environment as well as the rights of American Indians and those living in the U.S. Territories. Some of the laws which now stand as a testament to Chairman Udall are: the Alaska Lands Act, the 1984 Wilderness Act, the 1982 Nuclear Waste Management Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1989, the National Trails System Improvements Act of 1988, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and the Compact of Free Association with the Trust Territories of the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, Mo Udall was so successful in getting legislation passed because he was a master at building coalitions out of diverse interests. I am inspired each time I sit in the Morris K. Udall hearing room of the Longworth House Office Building where Mo served and presided for three decades. Mo's portrait looking down at us from its perch over the fireplace reminds me of the fairness, humor, and dignity with which he ran the committee. The issues before the Interior (now Resources) Committee have always been contentious. But Mo Udall was able to bring us all together to make the important decisions on how best to protect our precious natural resources for future generations. In 1976 Mo ran for President of the United States. Many say his incredible wit and unabashed kindness got in his way. He simply would not attack his opponents. After coming in a close second in numerous primary battles, Mo stepped back and refocused on the environment. He also put his carefully collected notes together and authored Too Funny to Be President, a compilation of some of his favorite campaign stories and political humor. I think he wrote this book so he could just hand it out each time one of us came up to him and ask him to tell a story just one more time so we could get it straight and then use it ourselves. Mo is a World War II veteran and played professional basketball for the Denver Nuggets; he is also an attorney and private pilot. Mo lost one of his eyes in a childhood accident. His basketball prowess was so unaffected by this disability that one sport reporter claimed the false eye to be a myth. Mo's stories are legendary. He made us laugh, he made us think, and he made this Nation a better place for our children and our children's children. As we get caught up in this contentiousness and tumult of this Congress, we should ponder one of Mo Udall's most oft repeated lines: ``Oh Lord, may you help me today to utter words which are soft and tender--for tomorrow I may have to eat them.'' Mr. Speaker, today our friend Mo Udall remains in a nursing home not far from here. Parkinson's Disease has rendered this excellent communicator unable to regale us with his wisdom and his wit. Yet his good deeds here will be long remembered, just as they so appropriately earned him the Medal of Freedom. Congratulations, Mo, on receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act, which we consider today. This legislation embodies a reasonable approach to addressing economic and environmental concerns while maintaining sensitivity to the maritime industry. It will establish a national voluntary ballast management program for vessels visiting U.S. ports. In addition to ballast management, this legislation will provide for research, education, and new technology to investigate and prevent species introduction in coastal and inland waters. In short, it is a major step toward protecting our natural resources. Prevention of further species introductions can occur to a great extent by ballast exchange as provided in this legislation. I only caution that the ballast exchange provisions in this bill are based on a large part on a good faith agreement with industry to take appropriate responsibility for the consequences of ballast transport. Based on industry's support of this bill, I believe that agreement is sound. However, I would encourage the Coast Guard to be diligent in monitoring compliance and assessing the effectiveness of those voluntary guidelines, and, where necessary, make mandatory regulations to ensure protection for regions that are critically impacted by nonindigenous species. Some regions of our country such as the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary are especially susceptible to species introduction from ballast water. There are greater than 200 nonindegenous species identified so far in the bay-delta with one new species established every 12 weeks. In fact, the bay-delta is recognized as the most invaded aquatic ecosystem in North America. These nonindigenous species are having serious consequences on California's aquatic ecosystem, water supplies, fisheries, and agricultural industry. This legislation will address those consequences through prevention as well as research efforts in the bay-delta. Understanding the patterns of species introductions and reducing the occurrence of those introductions is imperative in promoting the economic and ecological health of the bay-delta as well as the rest of our coastal regions. I thank Mr. LaTourette for his leadership on this bill. I would also thank my colleague from California, Mr. Filner, as well as Chairman Shuster and Mr. Oberstar, for working with me to include provisions which address critical concerns in California.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce today new legislation to aid consumers wanting to avoid products made with abusive and exploitative child labor. The measure, called the Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act of 1996, encourages apparel and sporting good companies to voluntarily adopt a ``child labor free'' label on their products or packaging. Over 60 Members of the House have joined me in introducing this important piece of legislation that I wrote with my good friend Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who has been a relentless fighter for children and for human rights. Our bill would create the broadest anti-child labor label in today's market. It builds on successful efforts to use labels to inform consumers of socially responsible actions by manufacturers and retailers. The Rugmark label, for example, guarantees that certain hand-knotted Asian rugs were not made by exploited children. And the Green Seal and other environmental labels, such as the Dolphin Safe logo on cans of tuna fish and the European ``E'' label, provide important information to consumers concerned about environmental protection. On most products today there is a world of information. You can know if a shirt was made in the United States or abroad, made with union labor, made of cotton or synthetics, and how to care for it. Nowhere, however, will you see reference to any labor protections adhered to in the manufacture. And yet, this is an important piece of information to consumers that could influence their purchasing decisions. It is important to workers, and it is important to the children that are being exploited and abused in the workplace because of insufficient pressure on countries and businesses to put these children in school rather than to work. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that consumers want to avoid products made in sweatshops or by child labor, but they have no way of knowing which products to avoid. Our legislation asks companies to ``put your money where your mouth is''--if your product is free of child labor, tell the consumer right on the label. Numerous polls and surveys show consumers want information about socially responsible business practices. One study, by Marymount University in Virginia, found that three out of four Americans would boycott a store if they knew it sold goods made in sweatshops. Regrettably, products made with abusive and exploitative child labor and in sweatshops are prevalent. The International Labor Organization estimates there are several hundred million children making goods, many of which are sold in U.S. markets. Attention to this issue was heightened this year after it was disclosed at a hearing that I chaired by the Democratic Policy Committee that celebrity product lines, such as the Kathie Lee Gifford clothes sold at Wal-Mart stores, were made in part by underage youth and at sweatshops. Life magazine added to the attention by later reporting that most soccer balls in the world are made by poor children, some as young as 5 years old. Last year, the United States imported almost 50 percent of the wearing apparel sold here and the garment industry netted $34 billion. And according to the Department of Commerce, last year the United States imported 494.1 million pairs of athletic footwear--enough shoes to encircle the Earth five and a half times--and produced only 65.3 million pairs domestically. Many companies say their manufacturing contracts specifically prohibit the use of child labor and other labor violations and that they will terminate contracts with companies that violate those terms. Regrettably, these codes of conduct are rarely independently verified. In-fact, the Gifford line and Wal-Mart both have codes of conduct against child labor and sweatshops. Gifford, who has become an outspoken opponent of these labor violations, told Good Housekeeping magazine this month that codes of conduct are inadequate: Other celebrities say, ``Oh, I've got something in my contract that says this kind of labor can never be exploited.'' I've had the same clause in my contract since Day One. It's always been a concern of ours. But how much good does it do? The Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act would establish a commission of government, business, union and non-profit members working together to create guidelines for the use of a ``Child Labor Free'' or ``Not made With Child Labor'' label. The label could be attached to or printed on the product or the product packaging. The Commission would also be charged with investigating complaints brought to it that a company may be fraudulently using the label. Even though use of the label would be voluntary, companies would face increased penalties under Federal Trade Commission law for fraudulently using it. Companies that adopt this label will find that they will be rewarded in the marketplace by consumers that repeatedly state they don't want to support labor exploitation, particularly of small children. This is a socially responsible and economically attractive step for companies to take. We know we cannot rid child labor from the world, but we hope that consumers will be able to make an informed choice about whether they want to support products made with child labor or not. I recognize that it is late in the legislative session to be introducing new legislation. And I expect to reintroduce this legislation again next year. But I believe it is important to remind the public and my colleagues that this issue will not simply fade away. And this legislation also contains an idea that businesses could act on today, without its passage, if they were so inclined. I hope they will consider a label seriously as a means to prove to consumers their commitment to stopping child labor violations. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to attach to this statement a report that I have prepared based on the information gathered at the April hearing and on subsequent investigations by my staff. The report makes a compelling argument for the use of voluntary product labels to achieve socially--and economically--desirable goals. The Need For Better Product Labeling introduction Although the rapidly expanding global marketplace has brought to U.S. consumers an ever-broadening array of goods from around the world, the market has not brought additional information to consumers on the potential impacts of their purchasing decisions. A highly competitive, unregulated global market is enticing some corporations to flee strong environmental protection or labor laws in the U.S. and other developed countries for nations where such protections are less stringent, or even non-existent. As nations compete to attract global capital, and developing nations strive to industrialize, lack of environmental regulations, unsafe working conditions and low-wage labor--including forced labor and child labor--may provide the competitive edge for many countries. This situation is legitimized by the virtual silence of trade agreements on these issues. A growing number of investors, consumers, and companies believe that the power to force positive change lies in consumer education. These companies and consumer advocacy organizations are articulating a message that consumers, by choosing products manufactured in a way that does not harm the environment or undermine the rights of workers, will force corporations to produce their goods in a responsible fashion. In response to concerns raised by the environmental, labor, and human rights communities, in April 1996 the House Democratic Policy Committee convened a hearing that I chaired in an effort to better inform the public and Members of Congress on this complex debate. It was at that hearing that the now infamous allegation about Kathie Lee Gifford's clothing line sold at Wal-Mart Stores was first made. This discussion paper is based on the issues raised at that hearing. consumers want to be informed Polls consistently show that consumers want to be informed about the impacts of their purchases. In 1993, Cone Communications collaborated in a poll with Roper Starch Worldwide Inc. To survey, 2,000 consumers on the extent to which socially responsible business practices entered into their purchasing decisions. Thirty-one percent of those surveyed responded that, after price and quality, a company's socially responsible business practices are one of the most important factors in deciding whether or not to buy a brand. (source: Council on Economic Priorities) A 1992 Ad Age poll conducted by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman of 1,004 consumers found that 70% of respondents said environmental messages in labeling or advertising ``sometimes'' or ``very often'' influence their purchasing decisions. (source: Council on Economic Priorities) And a 1995 survey of 1,008 consumers by Marymount University's Center for Ethical Concerns found more than 75% of those surveyed would boycott a store if they knew it sold goods made in sweatshops. Nearly 85% would pay an extra $1 on a $20 garment if it were guaranteed to be made in a legal shop. (source: Maryland University, Department of Fashion Design and Merchandising and Center for Ethical Concerns) At issue is: how do consumers become informed about the ``good'' or ``bad'' product? Those supporting better consumer information programs are considering how to implement most effectively a program to alert American consumers to the conditions under which products are made. Following the long tradition of environmental labeling, these organizations are also beginning to call for labor-related labels. lessons from ecolabeling programs For several years, some governments and a growing number of non-governmental organizations have promoted consumer information and product labeling as tools that can aid in improving the global environment. Currently, about two dozen regional or national ecolabeling programs exist around the world. Generally popular with consumers, they are increasingly coming under attack by manufacturers and developing nations who claim that ecolabels are a disguised barrier to trade. (source: National Journal; ``Sticker Shock''; March 9, 1996) Critics also claim that ecolabels must be negotiated internationally, and raise the question of how--and whether--different nations' environmental rules can be reconciled. According to a recent article in Business Ethics, Europeans tend to hold higher standards for their businesses than do most Americans. As a result, socially responsible businesses are better able to compete in Europe. (source: Business Ethics, ``Growing Pains'', January/February 1996) In recent years the European Union has undertaken a massive government- controlled ecolabeling program, with mixed results. The E.U. scheme covers washing machines, dishwashers, soil improvers, toilet tissue, kitchen paper rolls, laundry detergents, light bulbs, and indoor paints and varnishes. Some U.S. producers of these goods have protested that the E.U. system discriminates against U.S. manufacturers, although the seven types of washing machines that have been awarded the E.U. label to date are all made by U.S.-owned Hoover Ltd. Others criticize the bureaucratic procedures and the cost of attaining certification for an E.U. label. Some of the ecolabeling debate has focused on the use of so-called ``ecoseals'', or symbols that are the equivalent of an environmental seal of approval. These seals are generally simple, and may be awarded following a third-party (non- government) approval process (U.S. ``Green Seal'') or may be the result of a government-approved and defined label (U.S. ``Dolphin Safe'', or the European Union's ``E'' label). Supporters of ecoseals believe that, because the seals are simple and easy for consumers to understand, consumers are more likely to base their purchases on responsible choices. Opponents of ecoseals argue that seals stifle innovation and train customers to look for symbols rather than to learn factual information about environmental effects. They support information-based labeling, such as that used on nutrition labels. ``Dolphin Safe'' label. One of the most well-known environmental labels in the United States is the ``Dolphin Safe'' label found on cans of tuna. Some supporters of ecolabeling have suggested using this statutorily defined label as a model for other ecolabeling efforts, and a brief history of the label's creation is worth noting here. As a result of continued public outcry against the dolphin kills in the tuna fishery during the 1980's, Starkist Seafood Company announced in 1990 that it would no longer purchase any tuna caught by harming dolphins, and that it would begin labeling cans of Starkist tuna sold in the United States with ``Dolphin Safe'' symbols. Almost immediately, the rest of the U.S. tuna canners announced that they would no longer purchase tuna considered ``dolphin unsafe''. The voluntary announcement of the tuna processing industry raised a new labeling issue for the federal government: the definition and enforcement of a voluntary dolphin-safe label. In response, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) was enacted by the Congress in 1990. The purpose of the DPCIA was to establish criteria for labeling tuna and tuna products ``dolphin safe'', certification procedures, and enforcement standards for violations of the label. Although the U.S. lags behind Europe in terms of both government-sponsored and third-party ecolabels, the issue is not likely to disappear anytime soon. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been considering international standards for ecolabeling in its negotiations on the connection between trade and the environment. The issue will also be discussed at the Singapore meeting of the World Trade Organization in December, 1996. child labor and other human rights issues Can we apply our experience from ecolabeling to labor concerns? One of the most emotional issues regarding goods-- particularly textiles--manufactured in developing nations is the use of child labor. In a 1994 Department of Labor (DOL) report mandated by the Congressional Committees on Appropriations, DOL reported that between 100 million and 200 million children are in the workplace more than 95% of them in developing countries. The industries which employ children range from garments and carpets to small-scale mining and gem polishing. (source: Department of Labor, ``By The Sweat And Toil Of Children: The Use of Child Labor in American Imports'', July 15, 1994) A recent survey by the International Labor Organization (ILO) found a positive correlation between child labor and factors such as poverty, illiteracy, rural under-development, urban slum conditions, and school non-attendance. About four- fifths of those children who worked did so seven days a week and, in many instances, girls worked longer hours than boys. (source: Child Labor Surveys: Results of methodological experiments in four countries, 1992-1993, International Labor Office. 1996. ISBN 92-2-110106-1) The ILO estimates that at least half of all child workers are found in South and Southeast Asia. Asia probably boasts the highest percentage of children working in industries which export to the United States. Working conditions range from ``crowded garment factories, where the doors are locked and the children work for 14 hours, to small dusty earthen huts which can seat four children to a loom, knotting carpets in a pit for hours on end.'' (source: Department of Labor report, previously cited) A recent article in Life magazine on the manufacture of Nike soccer balls in Pakistan told of ``children as young as six bought from their parents for as little as $15, sold and resold like furniture, branded, beaten, blinded as punishment for wanting to go home, rendered speechless by the trauma of their enslavement . . . Children are sought after, and bonded, and sometimes taken in outright slavery, because they do not cost as much.'' (source: Life, ``Six Cents An Hour'', June, 1996) Nike, as well as Reebok, have since announced that their soccer balls from Pakistan will soon be made in stitching centers where the labor can be closely monitored, as opposed to the current system that relies on children in small villages scattered throughout the country. Nike and Reebok hope that these stitching centers will eliminate child labor from their portion of the soccer ball industry. Nike and Reebok, however, are currently very small players in the manufacture of soccer balls, when compared with Addidas, Mikasa and other companies that have made no announcement on child labor. Of equal concern are documented stories of so-called ``sweatshop'' labor, in which workers, frequently women, are locked into unsafe workplaces, and forced to work long hours for minimal wages. Last summer, U.S. papers carried front- page stories of a raid on an El Monte, California, sweatshop where most of the workers at the shop were recent female immigrants from Thailand who had been virtually enslaved by the manufacturer. Workers were forced to live in a compound encircled by razor wire, threatened with rape, and required to work 20-hour days for as little as $1 an hour. (source: People, ``Labor Pains'', June 10, 1996) Early experience with labor-related labeling indicates that it can work. One label gaining in popularity and market share in Europe and recently introduced in the U.S. is the ``Rugmark'' label awarded to some hand-knotted rugs made in Nepal and India without the use of child labor. Nearly 900,000 children under the age of 14--including children as young as 4--are working in the carpet industry in Pakistan; 200,000 in Nepal; and 300,000 in India. Children are frequently bonded to a looming operation to pay off the debts of their parents. The U.S. is the world's second-largest market for hand-knotted Oriental carpets, with imports of over $150 million annually form India alone, and has the potential to have a major impact on the manner in which these carpets are made. conclusion Consumers and advertisers alike are obsessed with determining and declaring that a particular product is safe for children. But our economy fails to tell consumers whether products are safe for the children who made them. Parents have a right to know that the clothes and toys they buy for their children were not made by other exploited and abused children. Unfortunately, they have no way of knowing that in today's marketplace. Voluntary labeling programs may continue to hold the key. These programs have not been easy to establish or to enforce. Nor will a ``one size fits all'' approach be practical--it is likely that different modes of labeling regimes will work best in different economic sectors. But our experiences with ecolabeling programs and the Rugmark label prove that voluntary labels are effective, and popular with consumers. If voluntary, they are consistent with our international trade obligations. Corporations who maintain that they have a reliable, enforceable code of conduct should be willing to translate that code into a reliable, enforceable label that informs consumers of the impacts of their purchases. We must take responsibility for our purchasing and marketing decisions. The price of a product and the rate of profit cannot be allowed to overwhelm the moral obligation to protect children and to respect the rights of other workers. We have the means to inject this level of respect into the marketplace if we exert our will to do so. Through responsible consumer education our values of protection for the environment, for children and for workers can be reflected in the way we make our goods.