George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Republicans do everything they can to divert the public's attention for what their plan would do to Medicare. In order to save Medicare, the Republicans tell us they have to take away senior citizens' choice of doctors; they have to force them into managed care, where they do not want to go, where they lose control of their health care for themselves and for their spouse. They want them to pay the overcharges for doctors who charge them too much for medical procedures. They want to take away their right to have a Medigap insurance policy so they will not have to pay out-of-pocket charges to those same doctors and hospitals, maybe now forcing them to pay as much as 40 percent in out-of-pocket charges. And they want to do all that for simply one reason, and that is to gather up the resources of Medicare and give a tax break to the wealthy, not gathering up the resources of Medicare to shore up the system, to bolster the system, to make it solvent, but to take away these resources, to take away the money of the senior citizens, to charge them more, to simply transfer that to a tax cut. There is another way. The other way is the way President Clinton proposed, which is to shore this system up for 10 years.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on rare occasions there are individuals who so distinguish themselves over their lifetime that it is appropriate and fitting to take a few moments to recognize them and the contributions they have made and continue to make to the great American experience. David Anthony Beronio of Vallejo, CA, is just such a distinguished American. Let me share a few insights and thoughts on this man who recently celebrated his 75th birthday, a man who has led a life filled with the fascinating spirit of adventure and contributions to his community and country. As many of my colleagues know, Dave Beronio is a renowned sports reporter, illustrator, and motivational speaker. Over the past 57 years he has honed his combination of crafts into an art form without peer or rival. He is a teller of stories about sports and life which has enriched the lives of countless others. Picture, if you will, that very special area of the famed Candlestick Park where a few giant white stars are painted. This is alumni corner, but for the die hard fans of the San Francisco Forty-Niners it may as well be the hall of fame. It is the place where the greats of the game are remembered, the hall of famers, all pros and other outstanding players who have made a major impact on the team and the fans. There is only one name on that great wall, Mr. Speaker, one name that was never sewn on the back of a jersey. One name that was not assigned a number in the program. Yet there it is on a giant white star--Dave Beronio. The early indications of a great reporter showed in Dave Beronio during his high school years in Vallejo where he excelled in academics and sports--especially football, track, and his real passion, boxing. It was during this time that he began working part time for the Vallejo Times Herald, a job that would become full time after graduation and a lifetime vocation for the next 57 years. World War II interrupted Dave's budding career and in 1942 he joined his fellow Americans in service to his country. As might be expected in a life such as Dave's one of his early assignments in the military was to the famed Hollywood Canteen with young starlets of the day such as Veronica Lake and Ava Gardner. It wasn't long, however, before Dave was assigned as a gunner on a newly formed B-17 crew and shipped to England to become part of the 94th Bombardment Group, 8th Air Force. After completing an extraordinary 35 missions, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. His crew was returned to the States and Dave was assigned to an Army Air Crops base located near Phoenix, AZ. It was here that he met Katherine Rentinelli of Akron, OH. They were married in 1945, when Dave was discharged. Later that year, he and Kay returned to Vallejo, CA and his job at the Vallejo Times Herald. Together they began a loving family that would eventually include sons David, Ronald, and Barry. Dave was soon promoted to the position of sports editor and began his now trademarked style of not only reporting on the event but also drawing a sports portrait of not only reporting on the event but also drawing a sports portrait of the week's outstanding athlete. He retained his athletic talent over the years and became a speed partner in sparing drills with such boxing legends as Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Joey Maxim, and Ezzard Charles. A good reporter as well as a good boxer, Dave would have these champions sit after the workout for interviews and to be sketched. That kind of hands-on reporting, Mr. Speaker, is what separated Dave Beronio from his peers. He not only observed, he did. And in doing so, he gained the respect and appreciation of both athlete and reader. He has a unique insight into the mind and emotions of the sports champion, and it has shown in his writing, illustrating, and story telling for over half a century. Dave Beronio has taken this talent around the glode to Olympic Games, Super Bowls, World Series, and Rose Bowls, and he has always brought the spectacle and feeling home to the reader and listener. He is, after all, a teller of stories. Dave Beronio illustrations of the sports legends of this century each tell a story. They appeared in numerous national publications and have been lithographed into prized limited editions. Always the lover of community, Dave frequently donates these limited editions to charities for auction where they have raised thousands of dollars. To this day Dave Beronio remains in demand as a motivational speaker, energizing his audience with the excitement and spirit of his life. He should know, for he has lived life to the fullest. Mr. Speaker, I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in wishing the very best to Dave Beronio on his 75th birthday, a man who has given his very best for so many years, enriched the lives of so many, and contributed so much to our American culture.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion of the gentleman who was just in the well, who now tells us what we should do is target the earned income tax credit, when a year ago he was leading the fight to slash the earned income tax credit. I appreciate the passion of the gentleman in the well for the family in Eureka example. It is the Congressman from Eureka that is carrying the minimum wage increase so their representative apparently believes that the minimum wage should be increased, the Republican gentleman from Eureka, CA [Mr. Riggs]. I appreciate the passion of the gentleman suggesting that what the taxpayer ought to do is pay out more money in food stamps, more money in housing, more money in EITC, more money in AFDC to subsidize low wage jobs. He does not want the employer to pay for people to have a livable wage because now he is concerned if the employer pays more money, the taxpayer will pay less. The gentleman is all over the field on these issues. You wanted to slash food stamps. You want to slash AFDC. You wanted to slash the earned income tax credit. But today you want to talk about how it would be better if we paid those moneys instead of the employer paying a livable wage.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would say, the last time California raised its minimum wage, there was no job loss by teenagers or others that you are so concerned about. And second, the fact is when you were going to take away the EITC, you were going to take it away from single working people who were trying to find a livable wage. So you just decided that single people should live in poverty. So you were going to take it away from 14 million people, wonderful.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the markup tomorrow on IDEA, will that be postponed because of the consideration of H.R. 1227?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what should be made very clear is that after years of expanding the coverage of the minimum wage to hard working Americans in agriculture and sweatshops and other employment, what in fact we are now doing is rolling back and repealing the benefits of the minimum wage. So the gentleman is the first author of a minimum wage bill that is rolling back the benefits to people who are currently covered. All they have to do now is change their job and they lose the benefits of the minimum wage under his chairmanship. So the hallmark of this Republican Congress is they are uncovering hard working Americans who currently earn the minimum wage from the coverage of the minimum wage protection.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is because Americans working at the minimum wage need a raise. This is where they would be if the minimum wage were indexed for inflation; and, unfortunately, because it has not been raised, this is where American workers are today. They are back at a point where the minimum wage was many, many years ago in terms of its purchasing power. Finally, after months of struggle, we have persuaded the Republican leadership to bring the minimum wage to the floor of the House and they have finally agreed to do that. But only last night did we discover, as they seek to bring the minimum wage to the House for a vote, that they also will make in order amendments that will take away the benefits of the minimum wage and repeal the benefits of the minimum wage for up to 10 million working Americans in this country who today work in some of the toughest occupations. These are the people who work in the fields that bring the food to our table. These are the people who wait on us when we go to dinner, when we go out to breakfast and when we go to lunch, who work long hours. These are the people who work in sweatshops making our garments. These are the people who will find, because of the nature of their employment, that they must move from job to job all of the time as the tasks change. They do not lack skills, they do not lack the ability or the desire to work, what they lack is the protection of the minimum wage if the Goodling amendment passes. So while we see the Republicans trying to pretend they are offering the minimum wage, what we see, in fact, is they have structured the debate, they have structured the rule, and they have structured the amendments to this bill so that, in fact, they will try to uncover tens of millions of Americans from the opportunity to earn a minimum wage. These are Americans who have chosen to go to work, who go to work every day, who end up at the end of the year poor, who end up at the end of the year eligible for food stamps, who end up at the end of the year eligible for housing, who end up at the end of the year eligible for the earned income tax credit. Why? Because through their labor they cannot earn a living wage. And now the Republicans seek to take that benefit away from up to 10 million Americans. These are women who are working hard to support their families, these are single parents who are working hard to support their families, these are students working while they are in school, while they are in high school and while in college, working 20, 30 hours a week. And the Republicans would deny them the benefits of the minimum wage. They would do it cleverly. They would do it cleverly by rolling back the benefits and the guaranties they have today that when they go to work they would get the minimum wage. The Goodling amendment must be rejected. We must have a clean up-or- down vote on the minimum wage. It must be increased. These hard-working Americans who have chosen work over welfare are entitled to the benefits of their labor. We should no longer continue to subsidize those employers who simply choose not to pay the minimum wage. We just voted on an amendment that was to take care of the increased cost, if there are any, to paying the minimum wage for small businesses. Those were the tax breaks that this House just overwhelmingly passed. But now what are they doing? Now they are trying to provide low-income labor to those very same employers. We should reject the Goodling amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, today we have been discussing the minimum wage, and the reason that we have been discussing the minimum wage is that since the last time the minimum wage was increased in 1989, it has fallen 45 cents of real value. Employers that were paying the minimum wage in 1989 are now paying 45 cents less in real value than they were paying back then. The fact of the matter is that the minimum wage is 27 percent lower than it was in 1979. That means that those families, those individuals that go to work every day at the minimum wage, are poorer now than they were in 1989 and in 1979. Those families, those individuals, need a raise. To argue that putting these people back to where they were in 1979, in 1989, is going to somehow put people out of work or destroy jobs is ludicrous. In fact, what has happened is that employers have been benefiting now for more than a decade of the decline in the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have to increase that minimum wage is because we are trying to continue to encourage people to choose work over welfare, but work should pay, work should pay a livable wage, and we have an obligation to see to it. The minimum wage is a basic tenet of this country of recognition of the dignity of work, of recognition of the dignity of those individuals who go to work every day and try to earn a living for themselves and for their families. I would hope that we would raise that minimum wage for those individuals. But we must also understand that when we raise the minimum wage, we reduce the burden on the American taxpayer who is having to subsidize those very same low-wage jobs where employers refuse to pay the minimum wage or above the minimum wage. Because when in fact we keep the minimum wage as it is today, we increase the subsidies to these same workers because they are eligible for food stamps; because if you work full time at the minimum wage, you are not above the poverty level, and if you have children or a spouse, you are clearly not above the poverty level, so the Federal Government digs into its pocket, into the taxpayers' pocket, and puts money on the table for AFDC, puts money on the table for food stamps, puts more money on the table for housing allowances, more money on the table for the earned income tax credit. Why? Because many employers choose not to pay the minimum wage, even when they can afford to do so. But the Republicans now will offer an amendment tomorrow that is even more insidious. It will take those employers who are paying the minimum wage today and exempt them from paying it in the future. It will have the potential of uncovering up to 10 million Americans who are currently eligible for the minimum wage today from not receiving it in the future: Women who work in sweatshops making garments for American citizens, the clothes on your back; the people who work in the fields of this country to put food on your table; the people who wait on you when you sit down to a table in a restaurant, who spend the whole day working on their feet and tending to our needs and our demands and our desires. They would be uncovered. They would have the benefits of the minimum wage reduced or repealed to them. It is argued very often that this is going to destroy employment in those industries like the retail industry; that somehow retailers who do not want to pay the minimum wage, saying they cannot afford paying the minimum wage, would lay many workers off. It is rather interesting that those people who make their living by making investments in various segments of our economy, Salomon Brothers, one of the largest investment banking companies in this country, says that they believe that many retailers, especially discounters, would benefit from an increased minimum wage due to the enhanced purchasing power that it would create for many low-income consumers. Then they go on to recommend that if you are going to make an investment in stocks right now, they would recommend the Fred Myer Corp., the Food Lion Corp., the Home Depot Corp., Sears, Roebuck, & Co., and Wal-Mart. They would recommend some of the very same companies that are now fighting the minimum wage, because they say that these companies in fact receive an economic benefit, because Salomon Brothers recognize, as Henry Ford did, if you did not pay a decent wage to the workers of America, they could not buy the products they are making. That is why he paid them $5 a day. Other manufactures and industrialists criticized him roundly, but be recognized that if you expect people to buy your products at Wal-Mart, if you expect people to buy your products at Sears, if you expect them to dine out at Denny's if you expect them to participate in the American economy, they have to earn a livable wage. These people are entitled to it. They are entitled to it. But what we see is after months, after months of beseeching the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, and the Republicans to bring the minimum-wage bill to the floor, they have finally agreed to do it, because 80 percent of the people in this country support the minimum wage. Then they want to put an amendment in order to take it away from up to 10 million Americans. It is not fair and it is not right. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 has an ironic name since, contrary to the recommendation of a Federal commission, one provision of it would give a special exemption from Federal unemployment tax to agricultural employers who give jobs to temporary foreign workers. If the U.S. Congress intends to protect American jobs for American workers, then it should not approve the proposed exemption for employers of H-2A Program guestworkers. The Federal Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation in 1994 made a specific recommendation on this issue after hearing all the evidence and from all the parties. The Advisory Council said, ``* * * the wages of alien agricultural workers (H2-A workers) should be subject to FUTA taxes.'' The chairperson of that Council was Janet Norwood, the highly respected former Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the Bush and Reagan administrations. We in Congress gave the H-2A growers a temporary exemption from the Federal Unemployment Tax Act [FUTA] and that exemption was extended repeatedly. Finally, on December 31, 1994, we let this tax exemption expire, after receiving the recommendation and report of the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation. Now the growers who hire temporary foreign workers want another exemption from the unemployment tax. We should not grant it to them. This tax exemption would create an incentive to hire temporary foreign agricultural workers by making it cheaper to hire them than to hire U.S. workers. Such an incentive against hiring U.S. farmworkers is especially inappropriate at this time. Numerous studies have found that U.S. farmworkers are suffering from high unemployment and underemployment, stagnant or declining real wages, poor living and working conditions, and below poverty earnings. Partly for these reasons, the House of Representatives in late March overwhelmingly defeated an effort by agribusiness to gain permission to bring in several hundred thousand farmworkers from abroad under poor wages and working conditions. Without a shortage of domestic farmworkers, we should not encourage the hiring of foreign guestworkers. In addition, the Advisory Council said that the ``vast majority, 97 percent, of the cost of the H-2A certification process is funded through the FUTA tax,'' since the fees paid by growers do not cover anything close to the Government's cost of operating the temporary foreign worker program. This tax exemption will put the burden on the American taxpayer to pick up more of the cost of employers hiring foreign workers. The unemployment insurance program is designed to spread the costs of minimizing the negative effects on society of unemployment, and employers of foreign farmworkers should not be exempt from sharing in that cost.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to get a vote on the minimum wage, but unfortunately under the amendments offered by Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans, they will repeal and take away the benefits of the minimum wage for up to 10 million American workers. For the students who work while going to school, for people who work all day in the sun to put food on our table, for the people who work in sweatshops, for people who wait on us in restaurants and for the disabled who are trying to earn a living and support themselves with their disabling condition, 10 million American workers will find that they will no longer have the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wage. Newt Gingrich is once again going to bring back the ability of employers to exploit children in the workplace, to exploit women in sweatshops, to exploit the disabled in sheltered workshops. This is not what the American people want. The American people want an increase in the minimum wage so those individuals who have chosen work over welfare will have the ability to support their families, not to exploit those people.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this bill that is before us to cut the gas tax is not about putting more gasoline in the tanks of the American consumers' automobiles, this is about putting fuel in Bob Dole's campaign for the Presidency that was stalled and out of gas on the side of the road. Mr. Dole decided he would give up efforts at deficit reduction and he would try to curry favor with the American public by reducing the gas tax for 7 months or 6 months by maybe 4.3 cents, and we do not even know whether or not that will be passed on. This is about Presidential politics and a failed campaign to try to use the gas tax to jump-start that campaign. In California, the State I come from, the wholesale price of gasoline has dropped 15 cents since May 6, but at the pump it has only dropped 2 cents. If we take this tax and cut it again, it does not mean that the consumer is going to get the benefit. The refiners now have the ability to hold the price up because there is 4 cents give. So the refiners, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, can benefit from this because they force it on to the service station owner. They have every ability to do that, or the service station owner simply will not pass it on, as they are not doing currently, as they are not doing currently under the rather dramatic drop in the wholesale price of gasoline in the California market. What has happened here was this tax was put on because the country said they were tried of the red ink of the deficit. This was part of President Clinton's plan to reduce the deficit, the most successful deficit reduction plan in the last 25 or 30 years. He did not do what the Republicans were doing through the 1980's, talking about balanced budgets, talking about reducing the deficit. He, in fact, reduced the deficit. In fact, he has cut it by more than half, and it has continued to go down and people have continued to receive the benefits of low- interest rates as they have been able to refinance their houses and other things. So the Presidential meant it for real. Now the Republicans want to give up on deficit reduction with this ploy.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks Senator Bob Dole has looked at the failed record of this Republican Congress that he and Speaker Gingrich have led for the last 18 months, and Bob Dole is now following the American people, because the American people have looked at the record of this Congress and the intent of the Republicans in their efforts to slash Medicare, to slash Medicaid, hurting working families, refusing to raise the minimum wage, taking school lunches away from children, and savaging the environment, and the American public is running away from the Republican congress in overwhelming numbers. Bob Dole has now decided he is going to run away from the Republican Congress, that he is going to get away from this Congress that has represented the worst that the American people have come to expect from their Government, not the best, the Congress that seeks to continue to divide America, not bring America together. Bob Dole has looked at the Congress and is running away. The American people should continue to do the same.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 2066 and want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for moving this important bill through committee and to the floor. This bill is good for the School Lunch Program and for the children it serves. H.R. 2066 confirms that reason will be applied in the implementation of the requirement we enacted in the School Lunch Act last Congress that school breakfasts and lunches meet the dietary guidelines for Americans. We must enable schools to meet this requirement both with efficiency and in as cost effect manner as possible and this legislation will see that this happens. I firmly believe that such flexibility also will result in more children actually eating the nutritious meals that schools provide. This legislation in no way retreats from our commitment to ensuring that school meals meet the dietary guidelines for Americans, nor does it compromise the timelines established for schools to provide balanced nutritious meals beginning this fall under these guidelines. I am grateful to the American School Food Service Association for its assistance and support on this measure. I think the comfort level of the school food service community is important, since they are the ones throughout this Nation who are committed to seeing that the guidelines are reached in school menus. But I also think it is important to recognize the other major education groups that are behind this effort--the National School Board Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the Association of School Business Officials--all sharing the common goal of having well-fed children ready to learn. I am most pleased that the administration supports the enactment of this bill, and worked with us in crafting substitute language to ensure that a reasonable accountability mechanism is in place for schools. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would mind engaging in a colloquy at this point. The amendment to the committee-reported bill is a welcome addition to this legislation. It would have the Secretary of Agriculture establish general guidelines for school food authorities to turn to for help when crafting the approach they will use to meet the dietary guidelines. I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, am I correct that it is the intent of this amendment that the Secretary exercise this authority sparingly, so that schools will have maximum control over how they meet the dietary guidelines and not be limited only to federally prescribed approaches.

Mr. MILLER of California. If I might ask the gentleman one other question, and that is, would the Secretary's guidelines limit schools that already use or want to use a food-based menu system to the options in current regulations and the 1994-95 school year meal pattern as added by the bill?

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for those clarifications. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and a number of my colleagues to recognize Doreen ``Pam'' Steneberg of El Cerrito, CA, on the occasion of her naturalization as a U.S. citizen on Tuesday, May 14, and in celebration of her 60th birthday on Wednesday, May 15, 1996. Pam is an incredible woman and humanitarian. She is foremost a loving mother and wife, whose unswerving commitment to her family is only rivaled by her infinite dedication to our Nation's children with disabilities. Learning of her own daughter's developmental disabilities in the early 1970's, Pam was thrust into a movement which now credits her as one of its driving forces. Ever acquiring expertise in the morass of our special education and related services systems, Pam quickly found herself guiding other families through the bureaucracies which she herself had been forced to traverse on behalf of her daughter. This intimate understanding and insight uniquely positioned her to be an effective agent for change, and through this realization was born an advocate. Pam is as driven by the disability movement as the movement is driven by her. Whether in her professional capacity as the parent advocate with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., or in her numerous volunteer roles--president of the National Parent Network on Disabilities, chair of the California Developmental Disabilities Area Board V, to name just two--Pam's enthusiasm is ever present. I know that I am not the lone Member of this Chamber to have been overwhelmed and captivated by the fiery person passion which lies just beneath her diminutive stature and refined British accent. Pam is a truly remarkable woman, and I am deeply honored and proud to call her my friend, and now the newest voter in my congressional district. Mr. Speaker, I invite all my colleagues to join me in saluting Pam Steneberg, welcoming her a citizen of the United States, and wishing her a very happy birthday.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James R. Nunes, who is retiring after 33 distinguished years as a police officer and 17 years as Chief of Police in Pleasant Hill, California. Chief Nunes' distinguished career began in 1959 when he served as a military police officer in the United States Army. He then progressed through the ranks in both the Hayward and Sausalito police departments. In 1979, he arrived in Pleasant Hill to serve as Chief of Police. He has maintained that esteemed rank to the present, and retires with pride after a long and meritorious career serving the Bay Area. Chief Nunes has proven himself as a leader among leaders in the field of law enforcement officers and he embodies the very best in community spirit. Beyond his professional duties, he has volunteered his time and energies to a variety of organizations and activities. His caring and dedication are hallmarks of both his professional and personal life. I know that the other members of the House will join me in thanks to Chief James Nunes for his years of dedicated service to society and wish him the very best in the future.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last year the American public witnessed the Republicans shutting down the U.S. Federal Government so they could try and force the President of the United States to cut Medicare, to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Apparently the Republicans have learned nothing from their repudiation by the American people of that budget because they are back again this year. They are back again today cutting over $168 billion out of Medicare, reducing the spending below the rate of inflation for senior citizens, which means that senior citizens will have less money to purchase the health care that they have today in the future. What will they do with that money? Not repair the Medicare account. They are going to give that money in capital gains tax to some of the wealthiest people in this Nation. That is what the country repudiated last year when they shut down the Government. That is what the country is going to repudiate this year, and senior citizen ought to understand that the Republicans are back, same old budget, same old ploy, and the same old cuts in Medicare to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, that is the gentleman's prerogative.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I am sure that the threshold will not be whether I am happy or not but we will try to determine another one. As many Members of the Congress are aware of the gentleman's past employment record as a river boat captain, I am sure he will understand that there is some point at which we cannot take on additional baggage without running aground here.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I commend the authors of this legislation for bringing it to the floor. I have spent almost my entire public life trying to make it easier for children to be adopted and to try to find permanent placements for children in foster care. The tax provisions of this bill, the tax credit here will obviously be very helpful in helping those families defray the cost of adoption, which for all too many families is in fact a very real barrier to adoption. Madam Speaker, I am also happy with the changes that have been made. Unfortunately, they continue to be necessary on the interethnic adoption. I joined Senator Metzenbaum and others a couple of years ago to try to reduce these barriers and get rid of these barriers so that race would not become a barrier to adoption for those children. As was stated here, we have some 450,000 children in adoption, most of whom are looking for permanent placement. We know the impacts of permanent placement on these children. They do much better in permanent placement, in a loving situation, than bouncing from foster home to foster home where their interests very often are just simply not taken care of in spite of the hundreds of thousands of wonderful foster parents that take children in, sometimes in the middle of the night with little or no notice. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to take issue with title III of this legislation that would take from Indian tribes of this Nation and of those Indian nations jurisdiction over the adoption of those Indian children. It would do so in the most egregious fashion under this legislation. While we have spent the last 14 months talking about devolving authority back to the State Governments and to local governments, in one fell swoop in this legislation what we would do is we would federally describe what is membership in a tribe. We would do that even in the case of where half of the largest tribe in this Nation probably could not meet that membership test. But that is not a membership qualification for us to set. It is very difficult for people to understand that the Indian tribes in this country are sovereign nations. What the Indian Child Welfare Act sought to remedy, and that is not to suggest that it did it perfectly and that it cannot be improved, but what it sought to remedy was the invasion of those sovereign nations and their children being drained away from their nations, those children being adopted outside, out of sight of the tribe, far in excess of their numbers. But it does that now to suggest that somehow, if the parent does not meet a two-part test, that the tribe has no interest in that child and maybe even the grandparents have no interest in that child, no matter how loving those grandparents might be of that child, because perhaps their child left the reservation, went to live in the city, maybe for whatever reasons got married, did not get married but had a child. We are now going to test the interest of that child and that tribe and those grandparents against the actions of the parent of that child. We are now determining who is and who is not a member of a tribe for the purposes of the enforcement of tribal laws, customs and heritage. We do not do that with adoptions in the State of California, the State of Ohio, the State of Indiana, State of Florida. We do not do that. But the suggestion here is that somehow the tribes have mismanaged this or somehow the tribes are not doing a decent job or somehow the tribes are coming and yanking children out of adoptions when they are finalized. That is not the case. Madam Speaker, the case that has been cited very often in pursuing this amendment is one where one of the adoptive parents simply engaged in fraud during the adoptive process. We all have copies of the documents. He chose not to notify the tribes and chose to conceal his Indian background, however limited. That was the intentional effort to engage in fraud. So now in reaction to that, what we are suggesting is we are going to wipe out the qualifications for memberships that tribes may set for their own members and may have set for decades or for hundreds of years. We are going to impose some notion of our sense of percentage of blood to satisfy us as opposed to what the tribe makes a determination of what an enrolled member is or is not. I am deeply concerned about that. I am deeply concerned because it is an invasion of that sovereignty. This is not to suggest that somehow there are not loving parents, there are not loving grandparents, there is not extended family on the reservations who want those children, who adopt those children and in fact do it all of the time. But their rights are completely destroyed by our interpretation of the parents' actions with respect to the birth of that child, whether they chose to enroll that child immediately or did not. We now negate the interests of all of the other family members around that tribe. Madam Speaker, we would not do this to grandparents anywhere else. We would not do this to grandparents. We would not destroy their standing, their ability to compete, to have the tribe represent them, to try to see whether or not they could take that child, perhaps as opposed to another placement. Yet that is what it is. The gentlewoman and others have raised legitimate concerns about the administration of this act. In fact, the tribes of this Nation that were not consulted with this amendment are meeting in June to discuss how to better administer this act. We have been holding off legislation to let the tribes come together in June and make those determinations. But what we in fact now have is a rush to judgment here about the future of these children, about the interests of the tribes, about the membership in those tribes that far exceeds, far exceeds the problems that have been raised with this act. I would hope that the chairman of the committee tomorrow, in the debate on this amendment and elsewhere, will commit to reporting out a bill. But it ought to have the airing, and it ought to be run by the tribes that are affected. This has not been. This has not been. So I raise these concerns because this is most serious. It is most serious. It ought not to be rushed to. The rest of this legislation is important and good and valuable, and we ought to get on with it because there are parents who are waiting for the opportunity and families who are waiting for the opportunity that the rest of this bill provides. With respect to the custody of Indian children and the adoption of Indian children, we ought to just pause for a minute, because we are speaking in much broader terms here, much broader terms than can be justified under the most difficult cases. I just want to say, in closing, let us not pretend that somehow the State courts do adoptions right, that people do not show up late in the process, that parents do not change their mind. So we are not going from an imperfect system to a perfect system. We are going to a process that we all know pains us all. It is a most difficult process.