George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation to correct these erroneous private surveys and to straighten out the actual property ownership problems and to provide for the conveyance of these lands for fair market value to the adjacent owners or to others. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2135 deals with about 30 acres of land in Las Vegas that because of erroneous private surveys, has created problems for the adjacent private landowners who thought the land was theirs and who found that after accurate surveys were done that the land actually belongs to the Federal Government. We have no objection to consideration of the measure. The bill has been amended by the Resources Committee to provide for the sales of these parcels to the adjacent private landowners, based on the fair market value of the property at the time these survey errors were brought to the attention of the Bureau of Land Management. With that change the administration has no problems with the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

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, I assume the gentleman is getting the response that I do in the district that I represent. City officials for the first time feel like the EPA and Superfund is there to help them. They have spent 10 years languishing, trying to get through this morass of complications, and all of a sudden here is this administration, Carol Browner and our regional person, Felicia Marcus, who are going out meeting with cities, the city dump, dealing with providing efforts to bring in new economic activity, cleaning up the Superfund sites, committing resources, committing personnel to doing this. For the first time, the mayors and city council people in my area that have had these problems from many years ago are talking about this as a positive agency. For 10 years they looked at them like all they were doing is hindering the city that was trying to get going. For the first time we see this. So we do not need a grandiose plan, what we need is someone who is committed to carrying out the intent and purposes of the Superfund law, and getting our communities cleaned up so we can get on with the kind of economic activity that is possible in those areas. This is the first time I have ever heard this from local city officials about that program.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as I was listening earlier, we are all kind of struck I think, after being away from here for a month, to see how at the Republican convention there was this desire to reinvent, if you will, the Republican record. The most striking one is to come back at the end of that and to have Bob Dole come out and support this $600 billion tax cut, and then to suggest that somehow it is paid for; and then to see the Speaker say maybe they would look at defense, and to meanwhile have Bob Dole going around the country saying that the administration is not spending enough on defense, that they have to spend more. So the presidential candidate is saying they are going to spend more on defense than we are already spending today, and so we get back to the entitlements. Of course, when we get back to the entitlements we get back to Medicare and to Medicaid, and we have struggled now for almost 2 years to try to take their $270 billion tax cut that was earmarked to come out of the Medicare funds and get that pared down to, now they are talking about 245 or 268 or some other number. The question, in the middle of this, Bob Dole dumps in $600 billion in tax cuts and says you can afford this. We cannot get the budget passed, we shut down the Government because we could not get the budget passed, we could not afford $270 billion in tax cuts. When we compare that to the President who has put forth a program that is in fact affordable and is targeted at populations that need it, of course, what we are seeing is this huge skepticism, because we went through the 1980's, and people saw this dramatic runup. We see now Dick Darman has published his book which says today that simply the deficits in the 1980's were caused by the fact that they spent too much money, that the Reagan administration spent too much money. As he says, it was primarily defense. They fought, they fought this Congress all the time on that. The question is, Do we want to have a replay? I think what we are starting to see the American public say is we do not want to go backward, we do not want to go to the 1980's, we want to go to the year 2000. We want to go with a budget that is balanced. We want to go with kids that are competitive, kids that have skills, with kids who are educated, and with families who can keep their standard of living, that is what the future is about, and a targeted set of tax credits, some help for businesses, some help for education, some help for families, for older people that are going to sell their homes. That starts to make a lot of sense, and it is affordable. It is affordable. But to watch this other thing happen, this $600 billion, and to try to pretend that it is not related to cutting Medicare, that it is not related to squeezing health care out of either Medicare or Medicaid, because when we are looking for $600 billion, that is where we are going, because so far we have not found the $245 billion without savaging those programs. So far, what we have come to is we have kept their hands off of Medicaid for the time being; but if we are looking to pay for the Dole tax break, we are going to go to Medicaid and we are going to go right past that to Medicare. So, effectively, he has put it all back on the table, because it is so big and it is so sloppy and it is so untargeted that all it does is add to the deficit and drive cuts in programs that are absolutely vital to families in this country if they are going to have their parents and grandparents and themselves taken care of in future years. I want to thank the gentleman for taking this time to point out this incredible inconsistency. It was one thing, there was sort of this one Congressional Record when the whole world was watching, but for 18 months when people were rather confused about what was going on, these guys were hacking and hewing and slashing every program that moved, every benefit working families needed, that college students needed, that children needed, and nutrition programs and school lunch and Head Start Programs. They were in here slashing away. Then one day they found out the public was watching, the public found out about it, changed its mind, and now they are trying to change their clothes. They are trying to put some other patina on what it is they were doing. The fact of the matter is we want to judge people by what they are doing when we are not paying attention. What they were doing was destroying the basic fabric that is helping to hold many American families together in very difficult economic times with respect to wage increases and standards of living. I thank the gentleman for taking this time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When this bill was originally introduced, there were some concerns, but the committee has amended the legislation to address those, to address those concerns, and we have no objection to this measure. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3547 would authorize the conveyance of certain national forest lands in the State of Arizona to the Alpine Elementary School District 7 for use as a school and for school-related recreational facilities. Although there were initially several concerns with the bill, H.R. 3547 was amended by the Resources Committee to address these issues. The changes made to the bill by the committee bring the bill in line with similar measures previously considered by the House. As a result we have no objection to this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 3660 amends title 16 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize a number of new projects for wastewater reclamation and reuse, and two new desalting projects. I generally support the provisions of this legislation. I note, however, that H.R. 3660 is the largest Western water project authorization bill reported by the Committee on Resources in the 104th Congress, with a potential Federal cost of more than $150 million. Several of the projects authorized in this bill have not been subject to hearings by the Resources Committee. The bill sets some important new requirements for Federal participation in these wastewater reclamation projects: Project sponsors must prepare appraisal studies and feasibility-level studies before seeking Federal appropriations; my understanding of this bill is that NEPA compliance is not waived. Local sponsors must be able to demonstrate that they can meet cost- sharing requirements. Meaningful cost-sharing agreements must be executed. In this bill, the Federal share for wastewater reclamation and reuse projects is limited to 25 percent of the total project cost, and the Federal share of each wastewater reclamation project is capped at $20 million. The $20 million per project cap on Federal funding and the strict requirements for receiving Federal assistance are appropriate and welcome additions to this bill. The two desalination projects provide for Federal contributions up to 50 percent of the total project costs, and Federal contributions for these projects are also capped at $20 million. Wastewater reclamation and reuse projects are a valuable tool for water management in the Western United States; these projects can be used as an alternative to more expensive and environmentally destructive traditional water projects. This legislation will undoubtedly encourage many communities in our heavily populated Western States to proceed with water recycling projects that will reduce the demand on scarce freshwater supplies. As we consider appropriations requests for these projects in years to come, Members will have to decide whether the relatively high costs of these projects make them worthwhile. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3660.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2711 would implement a settlement agreement reached between Eel River Sawmills, Inc., and the Department of the Interior regarding the Elkhorn Ridge Timber sale. We have no objection to this measure. Enactment of the bill will replace an environmentally destructive timber sale with one that is consistent with the President's forest plan. In addition, H.R. 2711 will negate the need to go to court to deal with the damage claim resulting in the canceling of the Elkhorn timber sale. The administration testified that they support the bill and believe it is in the best interests of the Government and the taxpayers to reach this agreement. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objections to this measure. It was amended by the Committee on Natural Resources to address several issues related to the transfer. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2709 would convey 4.2 acres of land in the Six Rivers National Forest to the Del Norte County School District for no consideration, subject to certain terms and conditions. We have no objection to the measure. H.R. 2709 was amended by the Resources Committee to address several issues related to the transfer. As the bill stands now, it will provide necessary lands for a local school, while retaining for the Federal Government terms and conditions that protect the public interest.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize all the participants and supporters of Teens Who Care, a wonderful program which brings together high school students from throughout Contra Costa County, CA, who volunteer their time and energy to refurbish the homes of seniors and the disabled. While providing a tremendous community service to people whose homes would otherwise fall into disrepair, Teens Who Care also goes a long way toward debunking the myths about today's youth. The students are giving free to those in their community less fortunate than themselves, and they are exhibiting the characteristics of citizenship and compassion which I would hope we all want to see as our generation gives way to the next. I want to pay special tribute to Mary Perez who is the founder and inspiration behind Teens Who Care. Teens Who Care is a very special project, and I know my colleagues join me in saluting the following student participants and supporters who make it possible. Students of ``Teens Who Care'' 1996 Erin Abney, Leonor Aguilar, Lindsay Carlson, Serena Chew, Ames Cruz, Mike Dias, Andy Dussel, Monica Garrotto, Sonya Harrison, Jason Heltsley, Melisa Henderson, Lacey Hyat, Samantha Kim, Kathy Kreuger, Steve Lamb, Dennis Lenart, and Michael Light. Also, Bill Lindenmuth, Kathy Malloy, Jamal Marr, Andrea Martini, Olivia Martini, Lee Menken, Melanie Michaud, Sarah Mowdy, Alis Perez, Poncho Perez, Mathew Perona, Marcia Raines, Jocasta Ruano, Ken Stoll, Bill Walsh, Phil Woods, and Micah Zuorski. volunteers of ``teens who care'' Mr. and Mrs. Matt Arena, Barbara Bacon, Doug Boyd, Ruth Derose, Jeff Haydon, Pete Jurichko, Margaret Lesher, Bonnie MacBride, Mike Menesini, Stella Moore, Tom Norton, Vivian Norton, Marcia Raines, Tom Stewart, Mr. and Mrs. Gary Stockdale, Brian Weiman, and Joann Zehrung. contributors of ``teens who care'' Alwaste of No. California, Ameron Protective Coating System, Bechtel, B.F.I., Business Promotion Center, Citibank, City of Martinez, Clementina Refinery Svc., Creative Croisant, Eagle Awards, Far West Sanitation, Raymond Forrest Tree & Landscaping, Industrial Lumber, Kiwanis Club of Martinez, Longs Drugs, Martinez Community Foundation, Martinez Deli, Martin Painting, Pacific Pizza, P.D.Q. Printing, G.L. Rangel Construction, Redwood Painting Co., Inc., Rhone-Poulene, Robinson-Prezisso, Inc., S&S Tool & Supply, Inc., Shell Oil Refinery Co., Sheraton Concord Hotel, U.S. Postal Service Letter Carriers, Paddock Bowl, and Martinez News Gazette.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It has been a long time coming, Mr. Speaker, to give the people of this country a minimum wage increase, to give those who work so very hard, sometimes at the lowest wages, with long hours and in difficult jobs, to finally give them a pay raise. Let us remember, though, that this minimum wage increase has been fought tooth and nail by the Republican leadership. We had to have over a dozen procedural votes before we could finally get the attention of the Republican leadership on this legislation. In the Senate they did everything they could to stifle the consideration of this legislation. It was only because of the tenacious nature of Senator Kennedy and Senator Daschle to bring the Senate to a stall, to a stop, to a complete ending of business, before they could get consideration. Only after the Senate did that did we see the Republican leadership here concede that America was entitled to a minimum wage increase. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, these Americans have been entitled to this minimum wage increase for many years. I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Dave Bonior], who came to this floor on one vote after another and tried to force this issue. I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from New York [Jack Quinn], who finally showed courage and separated from that leadership, and recognized the need of people to have this increase in the minimum wage. I also want to remember the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader, who said he would fight this with every fiber of his body, he would fight this and never allow this to happen. The American people are about to win, and because of the persistence of the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, an increase is going to happen for the minimum wage. This is going to be an improvement for people's lives. This is going to allow people to leave welfare. This is going to reduce our food stamp contributions, our housing contributions, our other welfare payments, because now employers will have to start paying people a liveable wage and no longer have to subsidize unemployment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of Mr. Cunningham's amendment to H.R. 123 that would exempt Native American languages from the provisions of this bill. The Native American exemption, which applies to languages spoken by the more than 557 American Indian and Alaska Native tribes in this Nation, is important for several reasons. First, we have a fiduciary duty, a binding trust responsibility, to protect and preserve Indian cultures. An integral part of their culture is the ability to speak their own languages, many of which are disappearing or have even been lost. The tribes are making a concerted effort to revitalize their languages, and I believe that without this exemption, passage of this bill would frustrate those efforts. Second, although the bill contains an exemption for teaching on languages, this does not cover cases where courses or classes other than language, such as history or math, are taught in Native American languages. Third, the bill as presently drafted appears to leave out cases where elderly Indians, many of whom speak solely in their own tongue, need an interpreter or a Federal employee who speaks a native language in order to get medicine or health care from the reservation clinic, to get food stamp assistance, to get Medicare assistance, or help from the local BIA officers. These are important services and we need to be sure that they remain as readily available to the Indian elderly in the future as they are today. Finally, we must take all reasonable steps to ensure that Indians are not denied or limited by this bill in their ability to exercise the right to vote. This amendment would ensure that ballots and voting instructions in Native languages and interpreters are available to assist Indians who do not speak English proficiently.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3103 as a reasonable first step in helping families get the health insurance coverage they deserve, but I think this legislation only marks a very modest starting point. The provisions of the bill ensuring portability of health insurance and protections against discriminatory coverage for a preexisting condition will provide some important new benefits for America's working families. But they will only be benefits to those who already are fortunate enough to have access to affordable health insurance. A recent report by the Department of Labor on health benefits shows the real challenge we face as employers are backing off a commitment to providing health benefits. The share of full-time workers covered by health insurance dropped from 96 percent in 1983 to 82 percent in 1993. Hopefully, the recent drop in health insurance costs to all-time lows will turn this trend around, but I don't think we can count on it. We must rekindle our commitment to real health care reform that will extend health care coverage to the 37 million people who are left behind. Those of us who have supported the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill from the beginning are pleased that the objectionable provisions added in the House bill were eliminated in conference, including the medical malpractice and MEWA provisions. The Medical Savings Account has no place in a bill that seeks to expand access and affordability of health insurance, but I think that Senator Kennedy did a very admirable job in striking a compromise on this issue so that even this modest progress towards health reform was not derailed. I will support the motion to recommit that addresses two remaining problems with this conference report. One was the dropping of the Domenici-Wellstone amendment. We have missed a critical chance to achieve parity in health insurance coverage for mental illness in this conference report. I worked on this issue extensively when we considered health care reform in the 103d Congress. Prejudice and stigma against the mentally ill has no place in the development of sound health care policy in this Nation. Studies have shown that in contrast to being an added cost, mental health parity would save the national economy and the Nation's small businesses more that $2 billion annually. It is terribly shortsighted to fail to recognize that mental health disorders cost the American economy as much as $162 billion per year in lost productivity, absenteeism, disability and death, and that such disorders are so treatable when treatment is available. I will continue to work with the many other Members of Congress who recognize that our Government cannot stop short from including parity for mental illness as part of any health care reform effort. I am also sad to see that greedy special interests have once again gotten their way in this Congress by last night's sleight of hand providing a patent extension for Lodine. This inexcusable assault on consumer interests should be stopped, just as similar relief for Lodine was stopped several other times in this Congress.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just to say that the AFL-CIO does not support this legislation. We just spoke to them. We have member unions of the AFL-CIO that support this legislation and we in fact have members of the AFL-CIO that support our version, the Studds amendment, of that same legislation. We just got off the phone to their representative. We both have constituents, just as you have environmental organizations on both sides. The point is that these same nations that are now making this threat in fact today are not going out and killing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dolphins, but they are threatening to. They are threatening to go out and act in a completely irresponsible fashion unless the U.S. Congress goes along with this attempt to get us to dupe the American consumers about the nature of the dolphin-safe label and the tuna which they buy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we have begun debating here today, H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, I believe, is a declaration of surrender by this Congress to those who insist that American environmental and labor standards must be destroyed on the altar of free trade. H.R. 2823 is a complete capitulation to those who believe that U.S. consumers have no rights and our trade competitors must have all the rights when it comes to product disclosure. This is a bad bill: bad environmental policy, bad trade policy, and bad foreign policy. It does precisely what we were told NAFTA and GATT would not do. It demands that our own laws governing the environment, worker safety, species protection, and a consumer's right to know be sacrificed. Less than a decade ago, millions of American consumers, led by schoolchildren of this Nation, demanded the creation of dolphin protection programs because of the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of marine mammals by tuna fishermen. We passed the Dolphin Protection Act. We required that tuna sold in the United States be dolphin safe. The U.S. tuna industry, at enormous expense, complied with those requirements, relocated their ships and processing plants, and produced dolphin safe tuna. Those efforts have had a dramatic success. Dolphin deaths last year were a little less than 3,600, compared to 100,000 or more a few years ago. The dolphin protection law has worked, but the bill before us today would renounce the very program that has achieved the goals we sought when the dolphin protection law was enacted. 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, not on behalf of those interests, but rather on behalf of Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and other nations who are trying a little environmental blackmail, and to date it seems to be working. Those very countries that have continued to fish in violation of the dolphin safe law now demand of this Nation that we weaken our laws so they can sell dolphin unsafe tuna in U.S. supermarkets under a label that the consumer has come to understand as meaning dolphin safe, a label that was enacted by this Congress. This Congress should not now become a party to this deception of that label, and a deception that this act would bring about with respect to the American consumer. H.R. 2823 implements an international agreement, the Panama Agreement, which was negotiated behind closed doors by five Washington- based environmental organizations and the government of Mexico. This agreement makes major changes to longstanding laws protecting dolphins and informing our consumers. But let us remember it was negotiated without the knowledge of any elected Member of Congress or other interested parties with a decades- long history on this issue. It was negotiated without consideration of the American tuna canning companies who in 1990 responded to the demands from our schoolchildren, their parents, and consumers nationwide, and some of the same environmental groups who secretly negotiated this deal. They did it by voluntarily announcing that they would no longer purchase and sell tuna caught by harming dolphins. It was negotiated without the participation and approval of dozens of environmental organizations with millions of members nationwide who vigorously disagree that this is the best way to protect dolphins, and who strongly support the Studds amendment that will be offered later to retain the current dolphin safe label. The legislation was drafted with the help of lobbyists hired by the Mexican Government, and presented to the Committee on Resources with the caveat that no amendments could be accepted if they were unacceptable to Mexico. Since when did we start negotiating in this fashion? Since when did we start negotiating in a fashion where privately negotiated agreements are now brought to the Congress and we are told that somehow they are the same as a treaty or an agreement between this Nation and other nations, but this Congress cannot be engaged in the process of amendment? There are some very serious problems with this legislation. The most important is that it would do exactly what proponents of the trade agreement pledged these pacts would not do: drive down American environmental standards through pressure from countries that do not want to meet those same standards. That is the goal, pure and simple. Let us be clear. The driving force behind this legislation is Mexico, which does not want to meet the standards of the dolphin safe label that is on every can of tuna sold in this country. Mexico wants to open the floodgates to nonsafe tuna and to desecrate the integrity of the label that has led through consumer preferences. If we do not accede to this undermining effort, Mexico and other nations tell us that they will abandon their commitment to this agreement, to fishing dolphin safe, and deliberately resume the slaughter of dolphins. These nations, and many other trading partners, are waiting to see how the U.S. Congress responds to this threat. This legislation responds by capitulation. We are going to hear a lot of assertions about this legislation, how sensitive it is to dolphins, how it would not allow damage to be done to dolphins. Before Members vote I urge them to consider the following: This legislation, as currently written, the supporters will tell us that this bill does not allow more dolphins to be killed; that it reduces the number of dolphin deaths. But the fact is, H.R. 2823 allows the number of dolphin deaths to rise by almost 30 percent. There is nothing in this bill about keeping dolphin deaths at today's historic low level. This bill is about allowing more dolphin deaths. They say that their bill does not allow dolphins to be hurt. Under H.R. 2823, dolphins may be regularly encircled, harassed, and injured. The bill imposes no limit on the amount of injury that could be imposed on dolphins, as long as the dolphins do not actually die in the nets. We will hear the proponents say that the environmentalists support this legislation. The fact of the matter is that over 80 grassroots environmental organizations vigorously oppose this bill and support the Studds amendment. By contrast, what we have are five Washington-based environmental groups that secretly negotiated this agreement with Mexico who are now supporting it. Since when is this Congress obligated to accept, unamended, the products of negotiation by environmental organizations and foreign governments? Lastly, the supporters of this legislation argue that we cannot change the bill because to do so would be to renounce international agreements and damage American credibility. The fact is, there is no international agreement. There is no treaty. This is about going to the negotiations on a possible treaty. This bill requires that we change U.S. law as a condition of going to those negotiations. It is worth noting that the United States is the only country that is required to make these kinds of changes, to change domestic consumer protection laws to conform with this agreement. I would hope that the Members of this Congress would see through this effort by Mexico to essentially abolish the dolphin safe protection that we currently have on the books, and would support the Studds amendment that will allow for the protection of the label, the protection of consumer knowledge, and provide for the protection of the dolphins.

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a couple of things that have been said here. The suggestion is that somehow, if we engage the legislation as it is currently written, that somehow that will lead to a reduction in the dolphin death rate from what we have today. The fact of the matter is the legislation allows for almost a 30 percent increase in dolphin deaths under this bill. It also does not address and in fact would allow for the first time, under the guise of being dolphin-safe, the harassment, the hunting, capture, and killing, the attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, marine mammals. We would not allow this, and this is not allowed for any other mammal, any other kind of fisheries under the law. But the fact of the matter is that is what happens. What we do know, and one of the reasons that we have this legislation, is because the encirclement, the harassing, and the stress on the dolphins has taken a toll on them. Yet somehow we condone that, and we suggest that that is in fact dolphin-safe, when in fact all the scientists agreed when we wrote this law that that was not dolphin- safe. In fact, Greenpeace, which is supporting the Gilchrest approach here, I believe has never changed their position, that there should be an end to the encirclement of dolphins. But in fact, that is sanctioned under this legislation. My colleagues keep referring to their friends who are supporting this legislation. I would like to point out that the Sierra Club, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Earth Island Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, Friends of the Earth, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the American Humane Association, those organizations that have dedicated their entire existence to the humane treatment of animals, to ending the slaughter of animals, mammals and wildlife, oppose this legislation. Again, by denigrating the label, by suggesting that these activities will be allowed, that the increased killing of dolphins will be allowed, and somehow trying to present to the same American consumer that has now been making a decision for many, many years that when they buy a can of tuna that is sold in the United States, that in fact the label of dolphin-safe means dolphin-safe, now we are going to pull a trick on them. We are going to pull a trick. We are going to tell them that dolphin-safe means dolphin-safe, but it does not. It means we can encircle, and we can harass, and we can maim, and we can injure, and we can in fact increase the number of dolphins that are killed. The current system, with all of these bandits out there fishing the way they want, the current system has dramatically reduced the measured kill in dolphins some 95, 97 percent. Yet we are told now under the new regime what we have to do is allow these people to kill more dolphins. Then we are going to kid the schoolchildren that led the crusade in this country for dolphin-safe tuna, for the consumers, for the packaging companies that complied with this and made a decision, made an investment, we are going to con all of them that now somehow this legislation is really dolphin-safe and better for the dolphins, in spite of the language in the legislation that allows the dolphins to be put under much more stress, to be injured, and to be maimed, in direct contradiction of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These are exactly the acts that are prohibited and for which these mammals are protected, but in the case of the dolphin, they will no longer have that protection. I am sure my colleagues on the other side, the colleagues supporting this legislation, would not suggest that we do away with that protection for marine mammals. But somehow, because of the insistence of Mexico that they need to do this, and I do not see Mexico volunteering not to take juvenile tuna in their coastal waters. They did not put that in this agreement. The only thing we put in this agreement is changing how American consumers are going to be able to depend upon a label and what this label means. My colleagues say we have to change the method in which we fish for dolphins because it has an impact on juvenile tuna. But most of the juvenile tuna is taken within the coastal waters of Mexico, and it is exempt from this agreement. Our trade negotiators, our State Department, constantly continue to sell the American market cheap. In one agreement after another, we constantly give away the integrity of the market, and, in this case, the integrity of our consumer protection, the integrity of our environmental laws, the integrity of our workplace, the integrity of the jobs for our workers. Somehow we do not appreciate the real value of this market. The reason they are banging on the door for this agreement, and this is not a treaty, as people on the other side have suggested. This is about an agreement to go forward to negotiations for an agreement. But what we have is America unilaterally agreeing to change its basic consumer protection laws. Mexico, however, is free to continue to take all the juvenile tuna they want, probably far in excess of anything that will be dealt with by the current system. So I would just hope that our colleagues would understand that there are a lot of suggestions about what this bill will do, but the language of the bill itself simply is contradictory to those representations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the chart is terribly graphic and makes the point. We will have observers on the boat. What observers can observe is dolphins being, for example, encircled, harassed, hunted down, maimed, and injured. Under that bill that is what is allowed. Under current law, that is not allowed, that is not allowed. And to be sold on supermarket shelves, the tuna that results cannot be sold as dolphin-safe. What we are saying is, you can have your ocean management techniques, you can try your bycatch, you can do all of those things. But when it results in a dolphin being maimed, being harassed and being chased and being stressed and being exhausted, do not try to tell the American consumer that that is dolphin-safe. What the Studds amendment says is let the consumer choose. Let the consumer choose. They can choose the existing can of tuna with the existing label under the Studds amendment that they know is dolphin- safe. Or they can choose some pale imitation that lets you kill an increased number of dolphins, lets you harass, lets you encircle, lets you stress, lets you harm, lets you maim, all with observers. The American people do not want observers to this activity. They want an end to this activity. That is what the Studds amendment allows to happen.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if you are involved in a hit- and-run accident today, the police can trace the paint on your car to the exact day it was painted, to where it was painted, to the gallon of paint used and where that car was sold and who owns it. Today if you use your phone in the commission of a crime, they can trace your calls back to that. But if you blow up the World Trade Center or you blow up the TWA airline or you blow up the park in Atlanta, the NRA will not let them trace the powder in those explosives back to the point of purchase and manufacture to expedite the investigation of who those people were that engaged in this terrorism against American cities and against American citizens. That is an outrage. A few months ago, 200 Members in this Congress voted to deny the alcohol, tobacco bureau the efforts to make that investigation, the FBI to make those investigations. We should now understand that these tools should be available to the FBI. They should be available to the alcohol, tobacco bureau. They should be available for the investigation to protect American lives.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today is a serious and sad day. Not only are we presented with a welfare bill by the Republicans that for the first time in history does a great deal of harm to children in this country, but we have learned in the last few minutes that the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, now says that he will sign that bill. This is a President who, along with the First Lady, have spent much of their public life trying to help children. Now he says he will sign a bill that, for the first time, knowingly, he knowingly, he has been presented the evidence by his own Cabinet, he has been presented the evidence by the Urban Institute and others, that will knowingly put somewhere around 1 million children who are currently not into poverty, into poverty. Almost half of those children are in families that are working, where people get up and they go to work every day. But at the end of the year, they are poor. This bill puts those children into poverty. That cannot be a proper purpose of the U.S. Congress, and that cannot be a proper endorsement for the President of the United States. It is against the interest of our children. Yes, this program was started many years ago to try and save the children. For many, many years we have lifted those children out of poverty, not as well as we have done for the seniors, but it was a national goal. This bill now for the first time, again knowingly, the evidence is in front of us, and yet we are being asked to make a decision to reverse that trend and to once again put children into poverty. They can lose their benefits under this with nobody having offered their parents a chance to work or requiring them to do so, because in the 11th hour those same Governors who boasted about their desire to put people to work came in and got loopholes put into this bill so they do not have to meet the very standards that they said they were prepared to change this program from welfare to work. So how did they achieve the budget savings, then? They achieved the budget savings by going after children, by going after women. I grew up, and I think most people in this country believe that when you said women and children first, what you were saying is you wanted to care for those individuals. This legislation suggests that they will be the first to be harmed and that is what this legislation allows. I appreciate all of the theory in the legislation, but the fact of the matter is every time that the pedal meets the road here, what we see is that in fact they are sacrificed. These children now pay to provide the $60 billion in savings that the majority says that they want. We cannot allow that to happen. this President should be demanding that this bill simply do no harm to those children. You can get all of the welfare reform you want and still do no harm to the children. But unfortunately this President has joined the Republicans now in making the children the very victims of the system he said he wanted to reform. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. (Mr. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] to explain the purpose of the bill. (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3006 will facilitate the disposal of certain public lands for the benefit of the Manzanar National Historic Site by revoking some outdated public land withdrawals. It is our understanding that these lands, which the BLM has identified for disposal, will then be used in an exchange for lands owned by the city of Los Angeles which are inside the boundary of the Manzanar National Historic Site. In addition, the bill expands the Boundaries of the Manzanar National Historic Site to include an additional 300 acres of land that has been found to have important archaeological elements. This is a good initiative that is supported by the administration, and on a bipartisan basis by Members of the California delegation. We support the bill and have no objection to its consideration today. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I yield to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)