George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the quality of care received by children under the supervision and protective custody of the state is an important aspect of the foster care system. Unfortunately, there is widespread disagreement between states and the federal government on how quality of care standards should be defined, assessed, and enforced. In the following article, the Sacramento Bee reports that California's Department of Social Services and the U.S. Administration for Children and Families are immersed in a heated battle over foster care licensing standards. At issue, is a 2-year-old federal mandate that directs states to equalize foster home licensing standards between relative and non-relative foster care providers. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contends that the long-standing regulation that allowed states to exempt relative caregivers from meeting some of the licensing standards that applied to professional non-relative foster parents created a separate and unequal standard that could not be upheld. HHS maintains that it repeatedly told states like California in writing that it could not bill the federal government for relative foster homes that failed to meet federal regulations. Consequently, the U.S. Administration for Children and Families withheld $18 million in grants from California for failure to bring relative foster homes up to non-relative foster home standards. In response, California asserts that the federal government's insistence on rigid compliance with non-relative foster care standards eliminates room for flexibility in overlooking minimal licensing violations. Additionally, California argues it threatens their ability to place children in the homes of loving and caring relatives that are unable to fully meet licensing requirements because of issues of poverty. According to the California Deputy Director of Social Services ``it [lsqb]relative foster home;[rsqb] could be a very loving, giving family, but the question is can the child go there if, for example, the siblings will sleep [lsqb]together[rsqb] in a double bed.'' The battle unfolding in California may be just the tip of the iceberg. In many states across the nation, kinship care standards vary and are more relaxed than non-relative foster care standards. If we truly believe the safety and well-being of children should come first, then we must begin to carefully assess and examine child welfare issues such as kinship care practice and foster care licensing standards. While it is the government with the power of the purse that may ultimately win the war, we must be careful to ensure that the best interests of foster children are not forgotten in the heat of battle. The article follows: [lsqb]From the Sacramento Bee, Sept. 3, 2002[rsqb] Lawsuit To Target Rules for Foster Care by Relatives (By Mareva Brown) More than $100 million designated for relatives who care for California's foster children is in danger of being withheld over the next year while California's Department of Social Services and a federal regulatory agency wage a fierce battle over standards. At issue is a 2-year-old federal requirement that relatives caring for foster children be screened and approved using the same criteria as is used to license non-relative foster homes. Federal officials say California has refused to enforce the new standard, and they have begun withholding the first of $112 million in foster care payments that could be held back if tens of thousands of relatives' homes aren't quickly approved using the new standards. California officials maintain they have followed the intent of the law, eliminating relatives who have criminal pasts or who can't be trusted to keep children safe. But they say following it to the letter would require them to remove children from nurturing relatives who are capable of providing good care but whose homes do not meet federal foster care guidelines, often because of poverty. Of particular concern, state officials say, are federal mandates specifying no more than two children to a bedroom, no shared beds and no mixing of genders in bedrooms--space requirements many impoverished families can't afford to meet. ``It could be a very loving, giving family, but the question is can the child go there if, for example, the siblings will sleep in a double bed,'' said DSS Deputy Director Sylvia Pizzini. ``It's the intersection with poverty that has the roughest edges here.'' As state officials tried to hammer out a compromise late last week, a public interest law firm in San Francisco prepared to file a civil lawsuit that would compel the state to comply with the federal standard. The Youth Law Center's executive director, Carole Schauffer, said that while the state bickers over language, it risks robbing foster families of desperately needed funds. ``Even tough this is not a role we logically should take, we're trying to see if there is any peace here,'' said Schauffer, a staunch advocate for foster children. ``Because without peace, it's very harmful to California kids.'' The federal government pays for about 40 percent of the cost to care for the nation's half-million foster children. In California, home to nearly 100,000 foster children, the federal share amounts to nearly $300 million per quarter. About half the state's foster children are placed with relatives. Last spring, the U.S. Administration for Children and Families began deferring $18.7 million per quarter as a penalty for the state's failure to document that all relatives' homes had been cleared. The deferral, which cannot be appealed, comes after two years of debate between federal and state officials over how to interpret and apply the new statute. While the state has absorbed the first deferral, officials say they eventually will have to reduce foster payments to the counties. The counties, in turn, will have to choose between removing children from the homes of relatives or reducing payment to those relatives. And for many relatives living close to the edge, providing foster care without the payment simply would be too expensive. Albert Cabrera and his wife, caring for their 9-month-old granddaughter in a three-bedroom home off Power Inn Road, offer a typical example. The baby was placed there two months ago by social workers who ensured the couple had no criminal record and that the temperature in their hot water heater was safe, and who left the couple with a letter saying they would be reimbursed $425 per month for the child's care. The Cabreras are among many foster grandparents who are retired or don't earn enough to easily absorb the costs of raising grandchildren. Last week, as the couple waited for their reimbursement check, Cabrera's wife delayed buying medicine for her high blood pressure so she could buy formula for the baby. Cabrera worries about how he'll pay for the additional gas money they'll need each month to take the baby to visits with her parents and to doctor's appointments. ``In the beginning, we thought we would put away the money they were going to send us for the baby,'' Cabrera said. ``But we need it.'' Sacramento County actually is among the few counties in California that have inspected relatives' homes using the new standards. Ninety percent of the 1,490 relatives' homes used for foster care in Sacramento County have been approved. The rest are awaiting upgrades and are expected to be certified soon. But Sacramento County is the exception. Most counties in January began using the standards to approve new foster placements with relatives but have not inspected the homes of relatives where children placed before January. Until state officials can provide the federal government with proof that all relatives' homes in California have been certified, the penalties will continue--and will affect all counties alike. The biggest backlog is in Los Angeles. In March, prompted by the new statute, Los Angeles County conducted a sample survey of the foster homes of children placed with relatives. The county is home to more than half the state's foster children, and nearly 6,500 of them live with relatives. Of the 200 homes surveyed, only two met federal standards. Among the deficiencies were 16 families who did not have adequate smoke detectors in their homes and 50 cases in which children shared a bed or slept in a non-bedroom area. ``Most cases can be remedied with adequate financial resources,'' the report concluded. Pizzini said state officials have been working diligently on the issue for more than a year and criticized the federal government for its heavy penalty, saying there were lesser sanctions available. But federal regulators and Schauffer, of the Youth Law Center said the state has not made any significant effort to meet federal guidelines, even though some remedies are fairly simple. The Department of Social Services has yet to create and disperse a statewide standardized checklist for evaluating relatives' homes, as officials agreed to do in April, according to a federal letter. The state has not provided any proof that homes have been approved using the new guidelines. And, despite a deadline of June to reassess the homes of all relatives providing foster care, thousands of homes have been checked. ``It was deliberately not done,'' said Schauffer, who says she plans to file the lawsuit this week. ``It was either a financial or a philosophical position they were taking: Either we don't think relatives should be licensed, (that) they should be able to take care of their kids in any way they want. Or, if you look at it in a different way, neither the counties or the states way to pay the cost of having relatives assessed.'' It is expensive. In Sacramento County, officials created a kinship evaluation unit five months ago and staffed it with six social workers who were removed from units in which they were overseeing the care of children. Child Protective Services Director Leland Tom said he is proud that the county has evaluated every relative's home but that the cost has been high. ``It's having a major impact on our workload,'' Tom said. ``And the sticking point for counties has been, here is this additional workload that is being pushed on us, but we're not being given additional funding to do it.'' Pizzini said the state also has concerns about the potential harm to children, given that the new process takes longer to complete, in some cases forcing children into the foster homes of strangers before relatives can be cleared. She said allowances need to be made. ``Grandmother and Uncle don't come into our office three months ahead of time and say, `In the future, you're going to remove one of my nieces (from her home),' '' she said. ``That doesn't happen. On the other hand, we recruit strangers to come into care, and we have the luxury of some time.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, most of us favor federal spending to promote the safety, well-being, and stability of children in the child welfare system. Yet in too many states, federal funds are being used to finance dysfunctional child welfare systems, often operating in violation of federal laws. We cannot continue to perpetuate a system that fails to protect children or their families or provide necessary services and safeguards. In the following article, The Miami Herald reports that 183 employees of Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF) had committed felonies, including child molestation, child abuse, sex crimes and drug dealing. In the report, a DCF official acknowledges that ``the most vulnerable people in our community are trusted to people in circumstances where there is a potential for these kinds of background.'' In Florida and across the nation, state, county and local agencies are facing difficulties in recruiting, retaining, training and supervising child welfare workers. Having poorly trained, overworked, underpaid, caseworkers leads to massive turnovers, which, in turn, exacerbates the challenge of accountability in a system responsible for safety and well being of children. The child welfare system must be reformed to improve the delivery of mandated services, the efficient operation of accountability systems, and successful permanent placements for children. In addition, there must be immediate and sustained oversight of the child welfare programs by the Department of Health and Human Services, and by state governments. The article follows: [From the Miami Herald, Sept. 8, 2002] State Child-Welfare Payroll Includes Employees Who Have Criminal Pasts (By David Kidwell, Jason Grotto and Tere Figueras) Florida's embattled child-welfare agency--the Department of Children & Families--employs at least 183 people who have been arrested and punished for an array of felonies including child molestation, child abuse, sex crimes, drug dealing, even welfare fraud against the agency itself, a Herald investigation has found. For instance, the head of the agency's data-security team in Tallahassee is listed on the state's list of sexual predators for molesting a 5-year-old boy. In other cases, the crimes committed by DCF employees are directly relevant to the positions of trust they now hold. In Miami, the director of rehabilitative services for a mental hospital has twice been arrested for cocaine buys. In Chattahoochee, a man who supervises mental patients was charged with attempted first-degree murder in 1986 for firing a shot at his wife and racking a shotgun at her as she cowered with their son in a closet. He pleaded no contest to lesser charges. In Kissimmee, the DCF hired a child-abuse investigator who two years earlier was convicted of violating a restraining order issued after she threw a brick through her ex- boyfriend's living room window and smashed his car windshield with a tire iron. In Gainesville, a night Supervisor at a home for the developmentally disabled was convicted in 1994 in a string of six burglaries at an apartment complex where her job as a maid gave her access to a pass key. In Tampa, a family services counselor was allowed to keep her job despite charges that she beat up her 68-year-old mother in the front yard during an argument. Administrators of the DCF--already beleaguered by criticism over the agency's handling of cases involving missing children that led to the resignation of department Secretary Kathleen Kearney--say they have worked hard to screen employees. In most cases, they say, the agency was aware of the charges and thoroughly reviewed the backgrounds of the employees to make sure their lives were back on track and that DCF clients would not be imperiled. ``In a perfect world, none of our employees would have any kind of criminal past,'' said Tim Bottcher, a DCF spokesman in Tallahassee. ``But we just know that is unrealistic. In reality, we are no different that any other large organization.'' He said the 183 employees found by The Herald should be considered in the context of an enormous agency with 24,000 employees statewide. ``When it comes to our attitude on employees who have broken the law, we have considered the offenses and acted accordingly.'' The DCF, however, had not complied with Herald requests to provide personnel files to verify many of the agency's actions in these cases. DCF administrators acknowledged that in some cases the agency did not know about the criminal pasts of its employees. This week, three submitted their resignations after Herald inquiries. They include the Miami rehabilitative services director, a human-services worker at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee who pleaded no contest to selling cocaine in 1994, and a human-services analyst in Miami caught in an insurance-fraud scheme in 1997.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in 1980 Congress made a commitment to improve the lives of abused and neglected children. However, lack of federal oversight and accountability has undercut that commitment. In fact, in far too many instances we have had devastating results. Of the estimated 2000 children annually who die of abuse and neglect, more than 40 percent were already known to child welfare agencies. In Milwaukee, 48 percent of families investigated for abuse had prior involvement with the child welfare system; in Washington, DC, 32 percent of such families had been previously reported to protected services; and in New York City, in 43 percent of families that had been the subject of an abuse/maltreatment complaint, children were abused or maltreated again while under city supervision. These sobering statistics are made worse when you consider that this state-sanctioned abuse and neglect occurs despite federally mandated procedural safeguards, including individualized case planning, case management and case reviews. Federal law requires that children have a safe environment consistent with their special needs. Yet year after year, many states have consistently failed to meet even the basic needs of foster care children. This continued failure raises serious questions about the adequacy of federal oversight of state child welfare programs, which the federal government largely funds. In yet another tragic example of our failure to provide for and protect foster children, a 9-year-old boy died of an asthma attack six weeks after being placed in foster care. According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles county officials admit that social workers failed to inform medical workers of the child's severe asthma. [lsqb]From The Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2002[rsqb] Tearful Apology in Boy's Death; County: A $1-million Payout is OKd. Molina, Moved by a Mother's Plea, Vows Answers in Foster Care Case. (By Garrett Therolf) A mother's plea for a criminal investigation into the death of her son--whose life ended while he was in the Los Angeles County foster care system--Tuesday elicited a trembling and tearful apology from county Supervisor Gloria Molina, who pledged to demand answers from county officials about what happened. Hours later, Molina and her colleagues approved a $1- million settlement in the lawsuit brought over the boy's death. Molina's remarks and the board action followed an emotional appeal by the boy's mother. Debra Reid, 44, entered the hearing room grim-faced, flanked by eight family members dressed in black. At her side was her son Debvin, who was placed in foster care for 15 months in 1997. His older brother, Jonathan, was taken away at the same time. The children were taken from their mother after social workers concluded that she was unstable and not tending properly to their medical needs. But Jonathan died six weeks after being placed in foster care, where social workers, by the county's admission, failed to inform medical workers of his severe asthma. Reid has been fighting the county in the courts ever since. ``This is five years in coming,'' Reid began. Racked with sobs, Reid recalled how she begged social workers to treat Jonathan's asthma. Social workers had dismissed Reid's account of the severity of the child's asthma, county officials acknowledged. ``They said my child was healthy,'' Reid told the board. ``Well, that child now lies in an Inglewood cemetery.'' None of the social workers has been disciplined in the case, county officials said. Reid begged supervisors to launch a criminal investigation, alleging that social workers had falsified reports to take the boy from her. ``We have sought true justice and we have not received it until someone sends this case for criminal investigation,'' Reid said. ``All we have received is a payoff, and we're not satisfied with a payoff. '' ``Not one person from the county,'' Reid said, ``has bothered to apologize.'' Reid's appeal to the board is one of many that the supervisors have heard involving the foster care system. Virtually every week, a parade of parents come before the supervisors, pleading for help in getting their children out of that system. Most weeks, they leave empty-handed, as supervisors insist that they cannot involve themselves in matters that are before the courts. The pleas often meet with indifference from county officials, who typically talk among themselves as parents address the supervisors. Tuesday was different. As Reid spoke, the hearing room went silent. Aides and department heads dabbed at tears. In an adjacent chamber where county administrators eat snacks and drink coffee, all movement ceased. Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke asked Reid whether she was satisfied with the settlement. After conferring with her attorney, Reid said she was, but reiterated her call for justice. Then Molina spoke, her voice trembling, her eyes watering. She recalled how supervisors routinely rebuff requests for help in foster care cases, and how she had told a congresswoman pleading on Reid's behalf that she had to trust the courts to do the right thing. ``I don't know that my apology to you will help you at all,'' Molina said. ``I can only say I apologize for not being more attentive.'' Promising to personally pursue the issue, Molina said, ``We've got to really take the gloves off on this thing, because this is a real battle. If that department [the Department of Children and Family Services] could not protect those children, then we should not be empowering that department to carry out this work.'' Supervisor Mike Antonovich quickly added his apology. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavskcy said the whole board apologized for what happened to Jonathan. After the meeting, Reid said Molina's apology ``meant a lot. She was sincere. That is the first sign of remorse I have seen in the county.'' Reid said Tuesday's hearing and the conclusion of two civil cases filed over Jonathan's death and Debvin's placement in foster care were gratifying milestones in her family's quest for justice. The determination to press for further action on Jonathan's death has occupied Reid and her family for years, she said Tuesday. At each step of the way, nine family members have gathered to vote on strategic decisions about how to pursue the case, she said. Along the way, the family has turned to one lawyer after another--seven in all. ``Every time a lawyer didn't believe in me or in this case we got rid of them,'' Reid said. ``Jonathan is still very much a part of this family.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis affecting the 500,000 children in foster care in this country. Day after day, there are reported cases of sexual abuse, neglect, and even death of foster children, all while under the care of the state child welfare agencies. Social workers remove children from their homes because of abuse and/or neglect. Yet neither safety nor stability is ensured by child protective services interventions. In the following article, The Washington Post reports that a 7-year- old boy, a ward of the District's Child and Family Services Agency, was warehoused in a group home for older foster children, where 12-year-old boys later admitted to sodomizing him. Additionally, officials confirmed that other boys were sexually abused at that facility and at a separate group home for mentally retarded foster children. But severe problems in the foster care system exist in many states and jurisdictions beyond Washington D.C. Articles and reports that I will provide in subsequent extensions document how children in foster homes, children's shelters, and group homes are sometimes subject to even greater abuse as a result of those placements. A strong federal law passed in 1980 establishes tough accountability standards to protect children in foster care. It is evident that there has not been sufficient oversight at the state or federal level, and that billions of dollars are being spent, often in violation of federal law, to perpetuate a system that falls to provide children and their families with necessary services and safeguards. The circumstances described in these reports underscore the need for lawmakers, practitioners, and advocates to work together without delay to reform the child welfare system and to review the enforcement and implementation of our foster care laws without further delay. The article follows: [lsqb]From the Washington Post, Aug. 1, 2002[rsqb] D.C. Speeds Group Home Change; Move Follows New Report of Assaults on Boys The director of the District's child welfare agency yesterday ordered her staff to speed up the removal of children under 12 from foster group homes, as officials learned of another unreported case of alleged sexual abuse involving youths at one of the privately run facilities. The agency acknowledged yesterday that it did not remove an 11-year-old mentally retarded boy from one of the homes until nearly three months after he reported being sexually abused by a 15-year-old resident. A city social worker learned of the April 9 incident shortly after it occurred but did not report it until July 2, city officials said. Police then interviewed the I 1-year-old and his 12-year-old roommate, who also reported being sexually assaulted, and removed them from the home. The alleged perpetrator is still at the facility. The case is the latest in a string of such incidents that were not promptly reported to authorities. Last week, city officials said that a 7-year-old boy was sodomized by two 12- year-olds at another group home in April and that the home's staff did not report the abuse until two days later. This week, officials said that home also failed to tell government monitors about a 1999 abuse incident. The D.C. Child and Family Services Agency announced yesterday that it has strengthened its procedures on the reporting of abuse and that it will refer for prosecution any caregiver or employee who fails to make such a report. More than 400 District foster children are in congregate care, as group homes and other institutions are called, and the agency's policy is to limit the facilities' use to older children and those with special medical needs. Yesterday, Olivia A. Golden, the agency's director, ordered an inventory to determine how many group home residents are younger than 12. She ordered her staff to review those cases and prioritize the children for placement with foster families or relatives or for reunification with birth parents. A key hurdle to that effort, however, is a shortage of foster families, especially families who are trained to offer therapeutic services for children with intensive needs. Golden's order comes one year after the agency emerged from six years of federal court control, the legacy of a 1989 lawsuit filed over poor conditions in the child welfare system. The agency is trying to improve its regulation of private foster care institutions, which have never been licensed because the city failed for 15 years to implement a 1986 licensure law. ``We knew we were coming into a situation where congregate care was substantially overused, and we knew that group home providers did not have enough resources and staff,'' said Golden, who took over the agency in June 2001. Golden said she was ``surprised and saddened'' by the severity of unreported abuse. ``The fact that we're still having tragedies is what we have to change,'' she said. Marcia Robinson Lowry, the New York-based lead counsel in the class-action suit against the District, said yesterday that she has asked the agency's court-appointed monitor to investigate the recent incidents. ``We had been focusing on children 6 and under, but it is clear that the problem is well beyond that and that children under 12 should not be in group home facilities,'' Lowry said. In the latest abuse case, a police report obtained by The Washington Post indicates that during an April 9 bed check at the group home, in the 800 block of Floral Place NW, staff members observed the 15-year-old running out of the two younger boys' bedroom with his pajama pants open. The 11-year-old told the staff that the older boy had touched him on the buttocks, according to the police report, The report states that when a detective went to investigate on July 2, the boy said he had been forced to perform oral sex on the 15-year-old. The boy's roommate corroborated the account and said his penis was grabbed by the teenager on the same night. The 11-year-old ``stated that this has occurred several times and each time he has reported it to the staff of the group home,'' the police report said, Moderate mental retardation has been diagnosed in all three boys. The 11- year-old is living temporarily with his family while awaiting an alternative placement, and the 12-year-old has been placed with a foster family. The group home is run by a nonprofit contractor, Community Multi Services Inc. It operates five homes that serve up to 18 mentally retarded foster children, as well as seven care facilities and 15 apartments for adults with developmental disabilities. It is paid nearly $3,500 a month for each foster child. Constance A. Reese, the contractor's program director, said her staff interviewed the three boys and had them seen by a doctor but determined that ``nothing took place with these children.'' She said the staff notified the three boys' social workers and sent an incident report to a government monitor. Mindy L. Good, a spokeswoman for the child welfare agency, said that the 15-year-old boy's social worker learned of the incident April 10 but ``completely failed to report this until July.'' The social worker, Emmanuel K. Baah, called the agency's abuse and neglect hotline in July after his super- visor ordered him to do so, Good said. The hotline staff then contacted the police. Good said Baah violated agency policy on the reporting of abuse by not immediately calling the hotline or informing his super-visor. She said that the actions of the group home, the monitor and the social workers for the two younger boys also are being reviewed. Baah, who has worked for the city since 1992, said he received a dismissal letter from the agency yesterday. He said the group home told him about the incident April 18, right before he went on a six week vacation. He said he did not call the hotline because group home employees were reviewing the alleged abuse and ``because they were not sure whether it was substantiated or not.'' For years, city law has required health care providers, law enforcement officers, educators and social service and day- care workers to immediately report suspected child abuse or neglect to the police or the child welfare agency. Group home regulations that took effect in September require any staff member who knows of possible abuse or neglect to call the hotline immediately and submit a written report within 24 hours to the child's social worker and the child welfare agency. But in February, the agency sent a letter to foster care institutions indicating that staff should make oral reports to social workers during business hours and to the hotline during evenings and weekends. Yesterday, the agency said that the 24-hour hotline, 202-671--SAFE, should always be used. In addition, the agency said it will refer violations of the reporting requirements for prosecution and push for an increase in the penalties for violators. Currently, failure to report abuse or neglect is punishable by a fine of up to $100 or imprisonment for up to 30 days. Staff researchers Bobbye Pratt and Karl Evanzz contributed to this report.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago Los Angeles County's foster care system was sued by advocates for children alleging that negligence, mismanagement, and abuse and neglect of children are routinely committed by that agency. More specifically, the suit charged that many thousands of foster care children with behavioral, emotional, and psychiatric impairments desperately need, but are not being provided, medically necessary mental health, behavioral support, and case management services, as required by federal law. When that lawsuit was filed on July 18th, I pointed out to Members of Congress that the allegations described in the lawsuit were not unique to California. States across the country are failing children in foster care. Since that time, officials in the District of Columbia have confirmed that several foster care boys were sexually abused at various group home facilities, including one for mentally retarded foster children. Florida's Department of Children and Families acknowledged that in addition to its inability to account for some 532 foster care children, children have been placed in motels due to shortage of foster homes. In the following article in the August 22nd Washington Post, an audit of Maryland's child welfare system reveals that the state has lost track of some foster care children for months and failed to ensure proper health care. In one case, a child spent 10 months in the care of a foster parent whose criminal record included two sex offenses and an assault charge. Just as in Los Angeles, the Maryland audit also revealed that foster care children were routinely denied basic health care, including doctor's visits, dental checkups, and psychiatric treatment. We cannot continue to spend billions of dollars on a system that does not provide what children need to thrive, or in some cases, even to survive. The government must require greater accountability to ensure the health and safety of every child in its custody. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, August 22, 2002] Audit Finds Lapses in Maryland Child Care--;Contact Lost With Children; One Placed With Offender (By Matthew Mosk) The Maryland state agency responsible for 12,000 orphaned, abused and neglected children has lost track of some children for months, failed to ensure proper health care and, in at least one case, entrusted a foster child to a sexual offender, a comprehensive review by the state's Office of Legislative Audits has concluded. The review reported ``significant concerns'' about Maryland's Social Services Administration and found numerous instances of neglect on the part of the state's social workers. In nearly half of 163 cases randomly chosen for inspection, caseworker's files showed that they had lost contact with the children and their caregivers for anywhere from two to 16 months. Child advocates said that particular finding was an unsettling reminder of the case of a 5-year-old Miami girl who was missing for 15 months before caseworkers discovered that she was gone. ``The degree to which we are at risk of repeating [the Florida tragedy] is unconscionable,'' said James P. McComb, executive director of the Maryland Association of Resources for Families and Youth, which made up of agencies that serve children. Maryland's troubles are also a reminder of similar woes in the District, where the child protection system has long been considered one of the most dysfunctional in the nation. The Maryland audit included other, equally disturbing findings pertaining to the agency's ability to keep tabs on the people entrusted with children's safety and well-being. At one point, in the midst of conducting the review, the audit team discovered that a child had spent 10 months in the care of a foster parent whose criminal record includes two sex offenses and an assault charge. After being notified by auditors, social workers moved the child. The case was later revealed to be part of a broader problem: Files contained no evidence of mandated criminal background checks for caregivers in 45 percent of the cases the audit team reviewed. Lapses on the part of social workers also extended to the medical care that was supposed to be provided to children. Basic health care, including doctors' visits and psychiatric treatment, appeared to have been neglected in one-third of the cases the auditors reviewed, and there was no evidence of dental checkups in the files of 68 percent of the children. Moreover, there was no sign that 35 percent of the children in state custody were attending school. In a written response to the audit, Maryland Secretary of Human Resources Emelda P. Johnson pledged improvement and said local social services departments have been informed of the findings. Asked yesterday about the findings in a telephone interview, state social services officials blamed paper-work problems for many of the shortcomings. ``The issue here is documentation, not whether something actually happened but whether it was in the folder,'' said Linda E. Mouzon, executive director of the Social Services Administration. The audit, however, concludes that the problem not only involves documentation but also ``raises significant questions about the actual monitoring and delivery of critical services.'' Several of the attorneys charged with representing the children's interests in court agreed that the shortcomings are not merely bureaucratic snags. ``There's no excuse for children in the state's care to be living in the same condition that prompted them to be removed from their homes in the first place, but that's what we're seeing,'' said Joan Little, who heads the child advocacy unit of the Legal Aid Bureau in Baltimore, which handles more than 5,000 of the children's legal cases each year. Little said she has personally witnessed cases involving children whom the state agency mistakenly placed in the homes of criminal sex offenders and who then became victims of sexual abuse. Though she refused to discuss the specifics of those cases, she said they were heartbreakingly real. ``This is a significant and very real problem, and it's outrageous,'' she said. Child welfare attorney Jessica Rae had several examples of her own. She recalled checking up on a 4-year-old in state custody recently and being asked a chilling question by his foster mother. ``The woman said to me, `How would anyone know that I don't have him locked in the basement?` '' ``It was a very disturbing thing to hear,'' Rae said, because she knew the answer: No one would know. The state social worker assigned to check monthly on the boy had not been in touch for nearly six months. Advocates said that even routine responsibilities, such as ensuring that children see dentists, have clearly been neglected. ``Kids come in here and their teeth are totally brown,'' Little said. ``You don't need an expert to tell you they're not getting care.'' Mitchell Mirviss, a Baltimore lawyer who argued a landmark case on child welfare in Maryland 13 years ago, said deficiencies such as the ones described in the audit have not been as profoundly documented in more than a decade. ``You're seeing results that are very alarming,'' he said. ``It's a strong confirmation of what the attorneys who represent these kids in juvenile court have been saying. The problems are serious and endemic.'' Mouzon said advocates are exaggerating the problem. ``Everybody knows of one or two cases where something went wrong. I'm not going to say that's not true,'' she said. ``But I would believe that the majority of our children are safe and are getting the best service possible.'' Though there are plans in place to improve the system-- ;such as an initiative to give social workers hand-held computers that allow them to better document their visits with children--;Mouzon said no action has come as a direct result of the auditors` findings. That response surprised many of the advocates, who began circulating copies of the audit in July; it was released in May. Sharon Rubenstein, communications director at Advocates for Children and Youth, said that when she began reading it, her jaw dropped. ``It made me wonder, how can we rest assured that the kids in our system are safe?'' she said. ``I don't think that the audit should leave us sleeping well at night.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for weeks we have heard of the apparently boundless greed of the leaders of some of America's largest corporations--greed that has led them to ignore the retirement needs of their own employees and devastate their pension funds, slash their retiree health benefits, mislead their own investors and stockholders, lie to public regulators, and cheat taxpayers. That greed has taken the form of unconscionable salaries and benefits, grotesque retirement benefits (even as employee retirees were being deprived of their life savings), cashing out weakening stocks (even as they encouraged employees to invest more in the same depreciating stocks), preposterous insider loans, and other types of executive compensation that financed a lifestyle of multi-million dollar homes and other lavish displays of wealth. As Arianna Huffington has recently pointed out, we might read the numbers that describe the greed of these corporate criminals, but the numbers are simply beyond comprehension. Ms. Huffington has thoughtfully calculated some comparisons to help us appreciate the extent of the greed. Take, for example, the practice of corporations making astronomical-- and usually unsecured--loans of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to their executives: loans there is no realistic expectation they will repay, and loans which certainly are not being offered to other employees of the corporations. I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 5048, prohibiting such loans in excess of $50,000, a version of which was incorporated into the recently enacted accounting reform legislation thanks to the initiative of Senator Charles S. Schumer of New York. We now know that the insider loans extended to John Rigas of Adelphia, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom, Stephen Hilbert of Conseco, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco and Ken Lay of Enron totaled $3.9 billion. As Ms. Huffington calculates, that $3.9 billion could: --Fund Habitat for Humanity to build 83,691 homes at a cost of $46,600 each for America's homeless. --Send 35,583 poor but deserving students to Harvard Business School. --Loan United Airlines the $1.8 billion it says it needs to avoid bankruptcy--twice. --Buy every WorldCom shareholder a Xerox copier, some aspirin from Rite Aid, a year of long-distance service from Qwest, and a share of Enron stock (suitable for framing). --Fund the SEC's now, greatly increased, annual budget for five years. Other efforts to achieve real reform have been less successful than our insider loan restriction. For example, when the House considered pension legislation last spring, Republicans voted to deny Democrats the opportunity to offer any amendments, including one we had unsuccessfully offered in the Committee on Education and the Workforce to assure that executives did not enjoy special treatment in the sale of corporate stock while their employees were locked in through a pension fund completely controlled by executives. Because the Republican cared more about protecting the greed of the executives than about equity for employees, that provision is not in the House pension bill. According to Fortune magazine, corporate executives made $66 billion by selling their company stock even while their employees were prohibited from doing so, or continued to buy stock based on the ``buy'' and ``hold'' recommendations of those same executives. As a result, employees and investors lost hundreds of billions of dollars. Republicans also defeated our efforts to assure that employees be included on the pension boards that manage their own money, so that this kind of deceit could not reoccur. What could we do with that $66 billion, grabbed by greedy executives while their employees and stockholders were left destitute? Here are some examples provided by Ms. Huffington: --Fund the annual budget of the FBI, corporate crime-fighting included, for 16 years. --Increase by 74 times the U.S. foreign aid to all of sub-Saharan Africa. --Cover the entire $25 billion America has spent fighting the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. And still have enough left over to give every Afghan more than two times their average yearly income. --Pay the $1.08 million sales tax on Dennis Kozlowski's artwork and still have $66 billion left to buy every masterpiece in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Impressionist collection at its assessed value. As the executives took their money and ran, investors lost $427 billion in the market value of WorldCom, Tyco, Qwest, Enron and Global Crossing. With that $427 billion, you could: --Fund the United Nations for the next 300 years. --Pay off Argentina's external debt three times over. --Give $356 to every man, woman and child on the planet living in poverty. --Transplant the lungs of 1.7 million patients--at $250,000 each-- suffering from irreversible emphysema. --Pay the salaries of every Major League baseball player for the next 237 years. Now, perhaps these wouldn't be the priorities you'd spend your billions on if you had them, instead of the selfish executives who have devastated the lives of millions of American families. But the scope of the greed highlights the extent of the corruption that has been tolerated by some in the business community, inadequately regulated by those charged with policing corporate behavior, and ignored by Republicans in developing thoroughly inadequate legislative responses to protect the economic security of America's working families, employees and investors.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Members of this House and many others throughout the world in congratulating Father Angelo D'Agostino, SJ., MD and his dedicated team who are marking the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Nyumbani Orphanage in Nairobi, Kenya. Father D'Ag, as he is universally known, created and has tirelessly built this unique facility for HIV-positive children in the midst of AID-ravaged sub-Saharan Africa. I had the honor to visit Nyumbani several years ago, as have several other Members of the House and Senate, and I know we all salute Father D'Ag, his staff, and the children for the great work they are doing. Before Nyumbani, HIV-positive children were being abandoned, excluded from schools, orphanages and hospitals, left to die without medical care or a home. Father D'Ag, a physician and priest, has built this refuge for the children, including a modem medical laboratory and school, and increasingly is beating the odds and providing the children a chance to survive and live productive lives. Nyumbani also operates the Lea Toto community-based outreach program which works in the desperate slums of Nairobi with adults and young people who are HIV-positive or at risk of AIDS, educating them and providing medical services. Today, the Nyumbani orphanage is caring for 85 children. As Father D'Ag recently wrote, ``When Nyumbani was first established, very few of us thought these children would grow to adulthood, but through all your love, prayers, care, attention and valued contributions and donations, we are keeping the kids alive, happy and educated. We expect them to become valued members of Kenyan society.'' The program is also making progress in changing public attitudes about HIV children, and recently was informed by the Nairobi City Council Education Office that they are requesting local schools to accept Nyumbani's school-age children. This was unthinkable just a short while ago in Kenya, and a genuine testament to the great work of the Nyumbani project. I am also very pleased to bear that the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, Johnnie Carson, whom I met during his earlier service in Ho Chi Minh City, is planning on honoring Nyumbani at an embassy reception later this year. It goes without saying that the financing of the Nyumbani program continues to be a daily struggle notwithstanding the many contributions from individuals and governments. There is a new ``Nyumbani Gift Shop'' that sells locally-made items and gives all profits to the Nyumbani project. While in Kenya, I urged our local AID offices to expand U.S. assistance to this worthy program, and I very much hope that we will continue to provide assistance without imposing burdensome regulations that handicap the ability of the project to utilize our funds efficiently. In addition, efforts to secure private contributions and donations to enable Nyumbani to continue and expand its efforts in Africa continue in the United States and worldwide. The Nyumbani program is offering medical services, education, family and hope to dozens of children and others in Kenya, and deserves the recognition and support of all Members of the House and all Americans. I salute Dr. D'Ag and his co-workers, and the children of Nyumbani on their 10th anniversary.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, sadly I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues the passing of Nolan Hancock. Many of us have known Mr. Hancock as the former Legislative Director of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union. Mr. Hancock died this week of a heart attack in West Valley City, Utah. He is survived by his wife, Barbara, four children, fourteen grandchildren, and five great grandchildren. Nolan Hancock was an electrician by trade and an OCAW member for 48 years. For twenty-one years he worked in various local and international positions for the union. He retired five years ago after serving as Legislative Director for the union for 18 years. Nolan Hancock worked with tremendous ability and integrity on behalf of the members of OCAW and all working Americans. Among the greatest privileges of being a Member of Congress is to work with people of the caliber of Mr. Hancock. I am proud to have known and worked with him.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that represents a firm commitment to protect the safety of the American public and to protect the welfare of wild animals that are increasingly being maintained as pets. This legislation identifies and provides a solution to a growing national problem that must be addressed. The bill, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, would amend the Lacey Act and bar the interstate and foreign commerce of dangerous exotics, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, cougars, and bears, for use as pets. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species; rather, it would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets. The legislation specifically exempts zoos, circuses, and others that are currently regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. Instead, the bill is specifically aimed at the unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild animals as exotic pets. According to best estimates, there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. There are perhaps more tigers in captivity than there are tigers in their native habitats throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are held in zoological institutions, most of the animals are pets, kept in cages behind someone's home in a state that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals. And it's not just tigers: there is widespread private ownership of other dangerous animals, including lions, cougars, and bears. At a time when almost anything can be bought on the Internet, it is unsurprising that the animals can all be purchased through the more than 1,000 web sites that promote private ownership of wild animals. Problems arise because most owners are ignorant of a wild animal's needs, and local veterinarians, sanctuaries, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing proper care. Wild animals, especially such large and uniquely powerful animals as lions and tigers, should be kept in captivity by professional zoological facilities. Only curators of these facilities have the knowledge and know-how to meet the animals behavioral, physical, and nutritional needs. People living near these animals are also in real danger. There is a laundry list of incidents of dangerous exotics seriously injuring and killing people. In Loxahatchee, Florida, in February, a 58-year-old woman was bitten in the head by a 750-pound pet Siberian-Bengal tiger mix. In Lexington, Texas, in October last year, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. Earlier that year in August, a pet lion bit a woman trying to feed peaches to some captive bears. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. A wide range of groups and institutions, for example, oppose the private ownership of carnivores. The U.S. Department of Agriculture states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars and leopards are dangerous animals.*** Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an animal that can be friendly and love can be very dangerous.'' The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.'' This bill is just one part of the solution to help protect people and exotic animals. States will continue to play a major role. I hope to see the grassroots effort directed at the state and local government level, to increase the number of states and counties that ban private ownership of dangerous exotic animals. Already, 12 states ban private possession of large exotic animals, while 7 states have partial bans. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, The Humane Society of the United States, The Fund for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I also want to thank the actress Tippi Hedron for raising awareness of this issue on Capitol Hill. Tippi operates an animal sanctuary, and often has the sad and expensive task of rescuing these animals after their owners realize the lion or tiger is a safety risk and cannot be properly cared for. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and I hope that the Resources Committee, on which I serve, will take up the legislation in an expeditious manner.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3763, the ``Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002.'' The fact that the U.S. Congress is responding so quickly and strongly to the corporate scandals that are unfolding each day demonstrates how serious the problem is and the danger to the entire U.S. economy. Much of the focus has been on the huge salaries, giant golden parachutes, and obscene loans, all for the executives who were mismanaging many of these corporations. But that relentless greed has led to financial ruin for tens of thousands of employees and shattered the retirement security of hundreds of thousands of others. Throughout the 1990's, Wall Street kept telling everyone that the stock market could be an ever expanding pie and everyone would be a winner. People who had never bought a stock in their lives were convinced to invest, and often, invest with inadequate information about how to do so and protect their economic security at the same time. But little by little, many companies had to lie and steal to keep the myth going. And now we are all paying the price. I hope the bill before us will stem the tide. I hope Wall Street and Main Street will wake up and learn to play by the rules once again. And let's be clear: this bill establishes much tougher rules. There is no magic way to make money. Companies have to earn it. They have to make products that people want to buy. They have to treat people fairly. You can't cook the books and pretend you have profits. Corporate America has to go back to the basics and earn the trust of the American people again. I particularly want to comment on the effect the still-unfolding corporate scandals have had on our pension system and the work still before Congress. Part of today's problem has also involved companies using their pension plans like company bank accounts. That behavior must stop, and Government regulators must do a better job to ensure it has stopped. Pension plans are the employees' money. Workers should have involvement and be provided full information on how their pension plan is operated. The bill before us requires pension plans to provide 30 days advance notice of any restrictions on the sale of employer stock or other plan investments. A proposal first included in the pension reform bill proposed by Democrats on the Committee on Education and the workforce. I am glad that the bill toughens current ERISA criminal penalties for ERISA violations. I am glad the bill cracks down on insider trading and loans to corporate officers, a provision first proposed in legislation I recently introduced. But, we need to go even further. It is time for the Congress to pass strong pension reform to protect the retirement security of all employees. We need to give workers a right to control their own pension funds. We need pension funds and mutual funds to demand better corporate governance. We need to look more aggressively at the adequacy of our retirement system. American workers will not be able to retire if their 401(K)s continue to be treated as piggy banks for Wall Street. We have a lot of work still ahead of us, but today is a great step forward. I urge the Congress to continue to be vigilant and ensure that corporations play by the rules and act fairly.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I appreciate the chants of my colleagues, but I think you do disservice to the families when we discuss this when you suggest that somehow we should vote without a discussion of the Roemer proposal. I cannot think of anything more important to the American people with the loss that they suffered, that all of us suffered on 9/11, than an effort to determine what happened, an effort to determine what happened by, as Ranking Member Pelosi said, fresh eyes. To simply have the same community looking at itself to make those determinations is insufficient. The Roemer proposal is not new, radical or mysterious because the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has commissioned many independent studies. The gentleman suggested if you have the Roemer proposal, then everything has to be public. No, we would have classified annexes just like you have a classified annex in the report that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and others put out the other day. The suggestion is that it is not perfect. Gee, it has been on the table for 4 months and I have not seen anybody reach across and say, this is what we could do, this would be better, we will help you, we could get a waiver because this would be an improvement. Maybe you do not see that as your burden. But those are all institutional arguments for not doing this and they are the arguments of great institutions in decline because great institutions in decline become more and more insular. They refuse to listen to the outside. They refuse to seek outside knowledge. The suggestion was that this would be one more report that Congress would ignore. Maybe this report would tell us that Congress failed in its duty to the American people by ignoring Hart-Rudman. Maybe there was negligence in this body by not addressing Hart-Rudman, because apparently it indicated a lot of things that we should have been paying attention to in the intelligence community but we were not. Think of when NASA lost the space shuttle and the argument was, in and out of NASA, how this was going to be done and what had to be done to correct it and get the fleet back up and get it flying and return to our missions; all laudable goals. But think of the moment when the member of the independent commission, Dr. Feynman, took the O-ring and put it into the ice water. Think of that moment and what that meant to the American people about what was wrong with the shuttle program and assumptions that were made about temperature and launches and weather conditions, all of which could be justified but turned out to be catastrophically wrong. When other great systems, complicated systems and sophisticated systems suffer catastrophic failures, in the business world they generally turn immediately to outside experts. When we suffered the catastrophic failure of the oil rigs in the North Sea, we immediately turned to outside experts. The Alaska pipeline. The catastrophic fire in the London subway. You say, well, that is not 9/11. But when they turned to outside experts, they found everyday practices that every day put people's lives at risk in the subway. I think it was a Georgia company that did the studies, experts in catastrophic failures. Why? Because over time they had built up practices that were at odds with the safe passage of people in the subway and it had to be redesigned. What is the other reason this is important? There are a number of them. One, an obligation to the families as has been mentioned by so many already. There is also another obligation to the American people. The American people have a lot at stake. They have a lot on the table with the outcome of this study. What do they have on the table? They have their freedoms, because there has been much suggestion that this is simply a failure of laws, new laws that need to be enacted or old laws, and that is simply the failure. That may be the case. But we do not know that yet. Yet people are being asked to given up their freedoms, people are being asked to let their neighbors spy on them, people are being asked to have their freedom of travel changed, all of which appears necessary to me. But we do not know that, because we do not know the threat assessment versus those freedoms and the failures of the system prior to that. But somehow we cannot do this. Somehow we are told that if we have an independent review, that would be catastrophic for this system, because all of the arguments are interesting, they just do not go to the point of whether or not we are going to participate.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the suggestion that somehow when we all know the list of Americans who could participate in this system and their credentials and their experiences and their expertise, to suggest that somehow those Americans would be less loyal, more subject to leaks, than the existing system, I mean, the best kept secret apparently was Hart-Rudman, the best kept secret in the Nation until 9/11. So I think we have to think about what this means. I think we have to think about what it means for the American people, what it means for the families and what it means for this institution. The day we start to suggest after a catastrophic failure like 9/11 that we cannot have an independent review of that event is the day that democracy is in decline. We all know the mechanisms are in place to provide for the secrecy and the classification and the right to know and all the rest of that, and we all respect the importance of what that means. But those cannot be excuses for failing to discharge our obligation to the American people. We need the Roemer amendment. We need the Roemer amendment to be perfected. That is within the purview of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I would not pretend that I could perfect it, but that is your expertise. But it is that expertise applied to the notion of a public independent review that is so important to the families of victims of 9/11, to the American people, and, ultimately, to this institution, to this institution, because it is about whether or not we will have the credibility to proceed with the very difficult choices that we have yet to make about our homeland security, about our national defense and about our intelligence capabilities. I urge support of the Roemer amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey to the Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Roemer

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding me this time, and I thank him for bringing this amendment. This amendment just addresses a very fundamental question: When will the corporations of America stop raiding the pensions of their workers? If one listens to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the suggestion is that corporations will only go to a defined benefit plan or they will only go to a cash balance plan if they think they can continue to raid the cash balance of the pension plan. What they promise their workers they will give them is different than what they will give them. And how do they do that? Because they are down working with the Department of Labor, with the Department of Treasury trying to concoct a means by which they can have unrealistic assumptions about the rates of return and then use that to gyp the workers out of their money. This is not just the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who says this; this is not just me who says this. This is what the Inspector General found as they have audited these plans. We find out that the workers are underpaid. Now, we have been through Enron, we have been through Dynergy, we have been through Merck, and we have been through one scandal after another. What is interesting is that these are many of the same companies that not only killed their workers' 401(k) plans, but now they are also in the process of looting the cash balance plans. So the question is: Is this Congress going to put a stop to it? Is it going to tell the Treasury Department that they should be able to do as they have been doing and making realistic assumptions about rates of return on these plans, or are they going to engage in some kind of fiction and cooking of the books with the very corporations that have destroyed families across this country? This is a moment of truth for the Congress. Because the Treasury and the IRS have been doing it one way, it has been upheld in court, it is determined to be fair to the workers, it is determined to return to them the value of the cash out of their pension plan; and now, in come the companies. In come the companies, who have destroyed the stock market, who have destroyed confidence in the American investment system, who have destroyed these people's lives, and now they want us to become their partner in depriving people of tens of millions of dollars that they are owed, that they worked for, and that they were promised. Now maybe promising somebody something and keeping the promise was old-fashioned in the 1990s, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it is coming back into vogue; that it is going to be a basic value. These companies promised these workers this pension for the work that they did; and when they changed plans, they promised them that they would have a balance; that it was the equivalent of the cash balance of that. Now they want to cook the books. The question for this Congress is: Are we going to be part of that? The Sanders amendment gives us an opportunity to say no; to say no to age discrimination and to say no to having this Congress and the Treasury Department and the Labor Department be partners in cooking the books. We must pass the Sanders amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the resolution. The United States and Vietnam have had a long and sometimes difficult history. Today, that relationship is one of increasing cooperation, best symbolized by the expanded trade, growing tourism, liberalized emigration policies and improvements in the standard of living of the Vietnamese people. As in the past, this record warrants waiving Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions, as requested by Democratic and Republican Presidents alike. The passage of the Bilateral Trade Agreement last year played a major role in building a new relationship between our people. The Vietnamese government has made continued efforts toward economic, legal and labor reforms in the 10 months since the BTA was approved. Trade between our countries is growing, there is continued full cooperation on the important POW-MIA issues, and the Vietnamese government has moved forward by enacting legal reforms in the areas of intellectual property, investment, transparency and labor. Reimposing trade restrictions at this point would represent an enormous and unnecessary step backwards in this flourishing relationship. Earlier this year, I visited Vietnam for the third time and had an opportunity to meet with representatives of local business and labor unions, the National Assembly, the International Labor Organization, and American business people who are investing in Vietnam. As a critic of many other trade agreements that are insensitive to the legitimate needs of working people, I reiterated my message of support for closer trade and economic relationships between our countries, with the expectation that working men and women would benefit from these policies. My support for the BTA and for Jackson-Vanik waivers has never been, and is not today, unconditional. Trade needs to work for more than corporations and shareholders: it must also uplift workers and their families through decent wages, fair working conditions, safe workplaces, and basic, internationally recognized labor rights. Trade can and must be an important tool for uplifting the conditions and rights of workers around the world to internationally recognized standards. The National Assembly of Vietnam has just completed rewriting a labor code which expands the rights of workers with respect to hiring and termination, severance, workers' compensation, and protections for women workers. These are significant reforms, and through the Labor Memorandum of Understanding we signed at the time of the BTA, I expect that the U.S. Government, together with international groups like the ILO, which has opened a new office in Hanoi, and Social Accountability International, will continue to work with the Vietnamese to expand labor protections and upgrade labor standards. By our own standards and those recognized by the signatories of the ILO, Vietnam still falls short on several core human rights conventions, especially the right of free association which is the core to a genuine independent trade union movement. During my visit to Vietnam, I continued to emphasize the need for truly independent trade unions and a legally protected collective bargaining policy. The United States should continue to carefully monitor progress on this crucial topic, as will international unions and the ILO itself, because free unions are the measure of true worker democracy, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in Mexico and, for that matter, in much of the United States where labor organizing is often inadequately protected by current law. Unquestionably, we would like to have these political reforms as well as liberalization of the economic system. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this joint resolution and ask others to do so as well.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this week we commemorate the 58th anniversary of the July 17, 1944 disaster that caused the largest Home Front loss of life during World War II: the massive explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine near Concord, California. Fifty eight years ago this week, 320 sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, Merchant Mariners, and workers were killed in the gigantic explosion of armaments being loaded aboard ships bound for the Pacific theater. Most of the men, who served as munitions loaders, were black. Commanded exclusively by white officers, they were given little training or equipment to assist them in the dangerous and ultimately fatal job of loading high explosives. For years, the exact nature of the explosives they loaded remained secret, concealing the fact that the dangers and the need for training--had been significantly underestimated. Several days after the explosion--after they had tended the wounded and picked up the shredded remains of their colleagues--the surviving black sailors were ordered back to load more ships without any further training, and before it was even established what had caused the cataclysmic loss of life. Several hundred refused, and ultimately, 50 were tried for mutiny and convicted. Over the past decade and a half, there has been a great movement to clear the names of these men, who were loyal, brave and dedicated sailors serving a nation that segregated them, exposed them to unreasonable dangers, and railroaded them into prison on trumped up mutiny charges. Over a half century later, the terrible mistreatment of these sailors calls out for justice. When we began the effort to inform the American people about Port Chicago, it was an almost forgotten chapter in American military and social history. Now, a decade and a half later, there are books, articles, documentaries that have ran repeatedly on cable television, and even a full length television movie. While we have not cleansed the convictions from the records of all the men, the conviction was removed from one record because of congressionally mandated review, and Freddie Meeks, one of the few sailors remaining alive, received a full presidential pardon. Today, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial at the site of the explosion commemorates the men who lost their lives on July 17, 1944, and all those who served at that base. That Memorial, which I was honored to sponsor, was dedicated on the 50th anniversary of the explosion. For those interested in learning more about this historic story, there are also numerous web pages, including: www.portchicagomunity.com; www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/pc/; www.historychannel.com/exhibits/portchicago/; www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ USN/fax/PC/; www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-1.htm; www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-4.htm; www.nps.gov/poch/index.htm. This year, a team of very talented young people from Bakersfield High School in Bakersfield, California produced an outstanding documentary that won the statewide History Day competition and was submitted to the national competition. I congratulate Dan Ketchell and his entire team, for their outstanding work on the Port Chicago film. And the Port Chicago story has changed lives. I have been to many of the annual services held at the Port Chicago chapel, and have spoken with the men and women who lost parents, brothers, and other relatives in the explosion: many who never knew the full story of how their loved one perished until reading the story of Port Chicago in a news story or seeing one of the films. And then they came to the site of the explosion, perhaps saw their relative's name engraved on the marble, and understood something about their family they never really knew before. One daughter of a victim from Texas, Raye Adkins, who was born after her father's death and was named for him, has dedicated herself to researching the families of the victims. One year ago, several dozen Members of the Congress joined me in sending a letter to President Bush, asking that he examine the Port Chicago case and the impressive record developed in conjunction with the Meeks pardon. We asked him to use his Executive powers to grant clemency to all the sailors prosecuted for protesting the racism under which they were forced to live and work, even as they served their nation during a war against racism and persecution. I am so pleased that the members of Alpha Kappa Alpha, a sorority with more than 140,000 members throughout the nation, has sent dozens upon dozens of names on a petition to the President urging him to accede to this request for his intervention. The Port Chicago story lives on as an increasingly fascinating piece of U.S. history and as a moving tribute to the men who served and died that terrible night 58 years ago. I know the Members of the House of Representatives join me in honoring all the men of Port Chicago for their selfless service, their courage and their sacrifice.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today the ACLU and several child advocacy groups brought a suit requesting the court to hold accountable those county and state officials responsible for oversight of California's foster care system. Plaintiffs charged that negligence, mismanagement, and abuse and neglect of children are routinely committed by the very state agency charged with protecting children and ensuring their safety and well-being. In the following article in today's Los Angeles Times, one of the plaintiffs reports that the suit will demand all appropriate mental health services; multidisciplinary assessments of the needs of each child; case plans; and providers to ensure that no child will be neglected. Judging from recent news reports, this same lawsuit could be brought against most state child welfare agencies. The federal child welfare law that I authored in 1980 requires States to comply with a number of core requirements intended to protect children placed in foster care as a condition of receiving Federal foster care funds. Yet twenty years after enactment of P.L. 96-272, many of the same shortcomings as prompted the passage of the law are affecting hundreds of thousands of children in foster care placements, raising serious questions about the diligence of the states and the federal government in enforcing the law and protecting the children. The situation described in the Times article is not unique to California, which has had a very troubled history in foster care for decades. In Florida, in the District of Columbia, in New York, and in many other jurisdictions, allegations about inappropriate services, improper placements, inadequate staff training and compensation coupled with massive caseloads and staff turnover are commonplace. And yet the Congress has not taken a broad look at how best to assist in the improvement of accountability and services in the nation's foster care system. The time has come for a broad review that brings together experts and practitioners and advocates to help shape a thoughtful critique of current practice and make recommendations for the federal, state and local governments. This is not only a family crisis and a children's crisis; it is a fiscal crisis, because we are spending billions of dollars a year on a system that, despite efforts at reform, continues to fail the children in its custody. The article follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, July 18, 2002] A Foster-Care Tragedy Worthy of Dickens (By Lew Hollman) Los Angeles has a foster-care system driven by what is available, not what is needed. Children receive too few services too late. Thousands are shuttled to ineffective and expensive institutional care. They are poorly monitored, with no consistent, individualized care. Not surprisingly, many deteriorate in county care, populating our jails, homeless shelters and mental wards after they ``age out'' of a failed system. Many never overcome the effects of the abuse or neglect they have suffered. At a time when funds for children's services are ever more scarce, we are paying more for less in terms of healthy outcomes. Millions of federal dollars are at risk because of our inability to meet reasonable guidelines for stable placements--through family reunification, adoption or long- term foster care. More important, the children whom the system is intended to protect are being irreparably harmed. This is not a problem that can be solved simply by changing the person at the top, as L.A. County has done twice in recent years. It requires a philosophical change at all levels--from a system based on what services are available to a system based on earlier intervention and individualized needs. A suit will be filed today on behalf of foster children put at risk by a failed system. It will demand a wider array of mental health services available under Medi-Cal; multidisciplinary assessments of the needs of each child based on all relevant information; continuity in services and plans for each child; and the development of services and providers to ensure that no child will be rejected. MacLaren Children's Center in El Monte, the county's emergency shelter for abused and neglected children, is an apt symbol of our failed system. Designated a short-term shelter, it has become instead the county's warehouse for the unwanted. Once a home for wayward girls, it retains its foreboding atmosphere. Such control as exists--in many instances, poor management has led to children being abused, often by other residents--is prison-like. Some MacLaren residents languish for months beyond the ostensible 30-day limit. Many more are constantly ``recycled'' as foster homes reject them, adding to the trauma that brought the children to the county's care. One plaintiff, removed from her home as a result of sexual and physical abuse by her stepfather, was moved by the county 28 times between the ages of 9 and 13. Another is in a locked facility because of the healthy impulse to find a better life elsewhere. In less than three years, she was moved 25 times. When Dickensian stories like these are related to the uninformed, they are greeted with incredulity. It is often assumed that lack of resources must be the problem. Of course, no one desires these rootless sojourns through impersonal care. And our society could, no doubt, better invest in the needs of its children. But lack of money is not at the root of these problems. Inertia and lack of accountability are the culprits. The county has become increasingly defensive about releasing cost estimates. According to a recently released Los Angeles Grand Jury report, however, costs during the 2001-2002 fiscal year at MacLaren approximated $757 per day for each child--more than $276,000 per year. Group-care facilities, recognized as contrary to the interests of most children, were estimated to cost about $33,000 annually per child five years ago. By contrast, children at risk who can be assisted without removal from the home costs less than $5,000 a year, and foster home and kinship placements less than $10,000 a year. Medi-Cal, through the early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment program and other federal programs, can pay for many of the intensive services that children need. True case management would ensure the effective use of such services to enable children to remain in--or quickly return to--their homes, be freed for adoption or settled in long-term foster care. The county recognizes the penny-wise, pound-foolish nature of the system. In addition to grand jury reports, state audits, independent evaluations and testimony before the Board of Supervisors, it brought its own expert in to evaluate and make recommendations in 1998. Dr. Robert F. Cole, an independent expert nationally recognized for his work with disturbed children, centered his recommendations on an ``integrated delivery system,'' such as ``wrap-around'' care, that would coordinate services and deliver them in a family-like environment, or the child's home, whenever possible. A successfully tested method, the wrap-around concept is used in other counties in California and in other states, where it has reduced costs and improved the outcomes of children in foster care. The goal is for caseworkers, therapists, health providers and schools to work together to ensure children prompt and stable placements and the early development of a long-term plan to see children reunited with their families, adopted or placed in long-term foster care. Two years after his initial report, Cole praised the county for being poised to implement coordinated services for foster children. But in that time, the county had contracted with only two providers for wrap-around care, serving two children each. Although additional foster care providers have been found since 2000, wrap-around care and other types of intensive care are virtually unavailable in a system providing services to more than 50,000 children year, with slightly less than 38,000 in county custody. Half of those in custody are estimated to have serious emotional problems. Those problems will become increasingly difficult and expensive to treat if effective care is not provided. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that due process under the Constitution requires the government to protect from harm any child it takes into its custody. The Constitution is violated when children deteriorated in county care or are subjected to policies--such as 25 different placements in less than three years--that no disinterested professional would countenance. Federal Medicaid laws are broken when needed medical services for children are not provided. The lawsuit to be filed today will ask the court to cut the knot of inertia and hold accountable the county and the state officials responsible for oversight.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for offering this amendment. To follow up on what he said, we have spent the last 15 years cleaning up after the reclamation projects that were started in the 1950s, the 1960s and even into the 1970s. We completely reorganized the Central Utah project, the Central Arizona project, the Garrison project, the Central Valley project in California. Why? Because in 1964 and 1960 and 1970, we made some very bad decisions about the use of those lands, and the damage from those decisions was now spilling over onto other farmers, onto the cities, onto water users, onto tribes, onto the environment. We have an opportunity here under this amendment to take a realistic look at a very oversubscribed basin on the use of water. And the particular use here is at the behest of Federal leases that are subsidized; at crops, in some cases, that are subsidized or the farmer was growing crops, one subsidized, one unsubsidized, and I am not clear whether or not yet the water is in fact subsidized. That is kind of what makes this basin go. But the spillover effect of this basin is all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and it spills over to the recreational industries, onto tourism industry, onto the farming industry, onto the Pacific Coast fisheries, onto the water qualities issues, and the environmental issues. At a minimum what the gentleman has raised is something we ought to take very seriously because we had a huge outbreak of concern in the Klamath about how we will allocate water between species and farmers and Indians and fish and all the rest of it. We have an opportunity with the renewal of these leases to put some of this in abeyance and see what the impact is on the other entities in what is an area that is clearly oversubscribed. If everybody exercises their water rights, the species, the farmers, the tribes, then we know that it is oversubscribed. That is why we are having this problem. Yes, this might have made sense 40 years ago and it might have made sense at the turn of the century when people came to the Klamath Basin. But the State of Utah made a decision, the State of Arizona made a decision, to some extent the State of California, it does not make sense to keep raising alfalfa in the desert. Because the usage of the water is just too high, especially if we are doing it on subsidized land, and those are the kinds of changes that have to be made. I do not know if this is the perfect amendment, but we ought not to turn down the serious consideration, what the gentleman is offering here, as we in the Committee on Resources sit and look at the struggle that is going on in this basin. This may be one of the easier options that we can have in trying to sort out an area that is so terribly over subscribed and short of water for all of the competing uses, all of which have very, very legitimate claims on that water. But as we try to sort it out, I think the gentleman has brought forth one of the tools that might be used that is under the control of the Secretary who has to make some very tough decisions and can try to balance out the competing interests of the parties. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and imposes new duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. Therefore, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) for securing funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Funding Program, known as UPAR, and for increasing the allocation for National Parks operation. Since its inception in 1979, UPAR has provided over 1,400 grants to 42 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia for the revitalization of our urban and suburban parks and sports facilities and recreational facilities for young people throughout this country. The President has zeroed out the UPAR program, and I am thankful to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for restoring this funding for this critically important urban and suburban program. This is a program that is sponsored by many, many parts of the private sector, from the sporting good manufacturers, pro sports and national league baseball, the NBA, the NFL, the Women's National Basketball Association and so many others who have participated with this in this effort to revitalize these recreational opportunities in our cities and in our suburbs. I also want to thank them, as I mentioned, for restoring and increasing of funds for the Park Service operations. Over 83 Members wrote to the committee asking for an increase in this, and they were able to secure an additional $118 million for Park Service operations, which are so vital to the operations of the Park Service and to continue to present the kind of experience that the American citizens and people from around the world expect when they visit these massive, world-famous national parks in our system. I also want to take a moment just to recognize the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), whom I have had the pleasure of serving with in Congress for these many years, and who I have found to be one of the really fun people in the Congress of the United States, who has been a gentleman whenever we have had our disagreements. I have had the chance to travel with him on the issues of trade and agriculture, between Mexico and the United States, and enjoyed listening to him and the information that he understood, given his long background of living on the border, if you will, and understanding the relationships between our two nations. This is the final bill of his career; and I just want to thank him for all of his kindness, for his generosity, for hearing me out; not always granting my wishes, but at least hearing me out and being very fair about it. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his chairmanship of this committee and for his time served in Congress. It has been a joy to serve with the gentleman. Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Just on that point, Mr. Chairman, it would be a travesty of justice if the Indian programs ended up getting punished because of the mismanagement by the Federal Government of Indian trust funds. I appreciate OMB may direct them to do that, but I cannot believe the Congress is going to go along with that directive.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think, with all due respect, it is very clear, I am sorry to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and others, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), when he came here with his special commission. Part of this was about getting the administration, the past administration and others to recognize that they had real liability for these funds. Let us not forget that we were being pushed back by the Department of the Interior for many, many years to somehow this problem did not really exist. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to his credit, is the one who really broke it open. Now they recognize that they cannot escape that liability. They had had preliminary discussions about settlement. We have got to encourage that to go forward, but we cannot make this decision about 1985 here and now without the consultation of the other parties.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the concern here is that some people are affected 1985 to 2000 and other people are affected 1785 to 1985. I think that we have got to make sure that we can assure both parties that their rights will be protected, but we also have to get them to understand that no matter what we do, no matter what the accounting is, even 1985 to 2000, it is going to be disputed. So we are going to end up at some point in settlement, and those settlements must go forward. I am afraid that the Department keeps asking for money to do the accounting. Part of that is trying to insulate themselves from liability, that they are working on the issue, but they are digging a hole.