George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1586 and urge my colleagues to support this legislation along the lines that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has explained it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution really should not be approved, and it should not be approved because it is not going to allow us to get the work of this country done in this Congress because it simply postpones the date at which we are going to be held responsible for getting that work done. I would hope the President does not grant this continuing resolution because a continuing resolution should only be granted so we can get our work done. This continuing resolution is being granted and then everybody is going to go home. Everybody is going to leave here tonight and come back Wednesday, and the continuing resolution runs until Wednesday. Now we have heard weekend after weekend how the Republicans are going to stay here and work, but nothing happens. No meetings take place. Nobody works. No progress is made, and I think it is time to say enough is enough. The President ought to give us a continuing resolution until Monday and we ought to stay here tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday and get the people's business done. There is a great deal at stake here. There is a great deal of concern in this country; and we have expressed it on both sides of the aisle, about our education system, about the resources that are necessary for our education system. We strongly believe certainly on this side of the aisle that we ought to increase the expenditures for special education. We ought to increase the expenditures for school construction, for modernization; and we ought to get on with it. We ought to get it done because this is what the people want for their children. We ought to make sure that clearly the funds are in place for teacher quality, to lower class size, and supposedly both sides of the aisle are for that, except it just is not being done. The President has asked us now, point blank, to get it done and yet we find out that the meetings are not taking place; that the Republican leadership in the Senate and in the House are not coming together to present that plan and that proposal. So what do we see? We drag on day after day, week after week, and the continuing resolution now, instead of forcing us to get things done, becomes an excuse for which we do not get things done, and meetings do not take place. So I think we would be much more honest to the people we represent and to the people who are concerned with these issues in the country if we would shorten this continuing resolution; if in fact we would require people to stay here and work. Maybe we ought to go back to open conference committees where people are held accountable for the work product of those committees. I know that this extends in other areas, but I have worked very hard on some of these education bills. We have talked about the help that we can give to many districts that need additional financial assistance for special education, and yet we see that that is bogged down. That cannot be that difficult to resolve, these education issues and to resolve them on behalf of America's families, on behalf of America's children and our local schools. They need these resources to do the job. They should be given these resources to do the job, and we should do it now. I would hope that later on when we are asked to vote on the continuing resolutions that people would reject this, and we would get on with a continuing resolution that puts some pressure on the Congress to get done with the people's business and to resolve these issues on health care. I do not know if we have run out of time, but I would also hope that we could address the problems of prescription drug benefits, that we could address the problems of a Patients' Bill of Rights, that we could address the problems of the minimum wage for millions of workers who need additional financial resources to hold their families together, to provide, hopefully, themselves with the wherewithal to buy some kind of health care policy. But these are people who are going to work every day, they are working hard, and, at the end of the year, they end up poor. They end up without health care, they end up without decent housing, they end up without decent educational opportunities for their children, and we ought to raise the minimum wage. But we ought to do it now, and we should not continue to provide excuses another 4 days, another 5 days, another 6 days, when everybody just goes home, they hold fund-raising events, they go campaign, they go to golf tournaments, they do all the rest of it. They just forget to do the people's business. And that ought to stop, and we ought to stop that now by defeating this continuing resolution, and maybe give us the continuing resolution to finish this weekend and get the people's work done and go home. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased that the House passed FY 2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill which included the President's request of $2.5 million to assist in public education on, and a public choice among, political status options for Puerto Rico. This request was first left out of the FY 2001 Treasury Appropriations bill but the Transportation Conferees saw fit to restore this funding request during their negotiations. Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States for more than a century. Over the course of this period, the Puerto Rican people have participated in our democracy. Their sons and daughters have fought our wars and their political leaders keep issues that affect Puerto Rico on the surface of our political discourse. Most importantly, the richness of their people and culture have become a part of what is good about America. After gaining U.S. citizenship in 1917 and eventually adopting their own constitution to increase self-government, the people of Puerto Rico have consistently sought to fully express their political desires through self-determination. In the past 30 years, Puerto Rico has held three plebiscites to gauge the people's preference on a future political status. Because of their current status, Congress is responsible for assisting Puerto Rico in their status efforts. In 1999, the House Resources Committee issued a bipartisan report that concluded Federal action is needed to establish a process for resolving Puerto Rico's status. Congress has a responsibility to remain objective and work with the people of Puerto Rico about the status choices. We should ensure that any option put before the voters of Puerto Rico is acceptable to Congress and we should also make certain that the Puerto Rican electorate is well-informed and educated on what each option can mean to their future. The funding made available to the President in the FY 2001 Department of Transportation bill is a good step toward assisting with any future plebiscite in Puerto Rico. Congress must now be truthful with the people of Puerto Rico on what their options are and in assuring that Congress will stand by those decisions. We must remain mindful that the United States claimed Puerto Rico. There is no ``us against them''-- they are part of ``us.'' Puerto Rico self-determination will happen and it is our responsibility that within that process we ensure that the residents of Puerto Rico are fully educated on each status option.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and thank her very much for taking this time and this special order to raise the concerns that she has. I have been watching the special order, and I want to tell her how much I appreciate it, because I think that the treatment and the prosecution of Wen Ho Lee and the manner in which it was handled raises serious concerns for every American. Once again we see that when the incredible power of the government comes down on a single individual, all too often that individual's rights are crushed under the full force. And in this case we saw almost a hysteria that ran through the government, through committees of Congress, within the Department of Energy and Justice and Defense, in a frenzy to try to prove something that they may, in fact, not have had the evidence to prove. And in doing so, they focused on this individual, Wen Ho Lee, and then proceeded over the next 9 months to treat him in a manner that no American would want to be treated or have a member of their family treated. The gentlewoman has recited the litany of harsh treatments to this elderly man during his time in solitary confinement, when in fact at the same time the evidence was starting to suggest that maybe he was not guilty of all that he was charged. This is not to suggest that perhaps that Wen Ho Lee did not violate rules of protocol and perhaps even security rules. But the jump from that to that he was one of the most dangerous men in the United States; that he had transferred the crown jewels, we now find that what this was was a lot of prosecutorial hyperbole. They were trying to make their case. They were trying to push the public to focus in on this individual because they felt it would solve a problem. We know that one of the major mistakes that law enforcement can make is to focus on a single individual too early in an investigation. So now we find out 9 months later that not only have they dropped all of the charges with respect to Wen Ho Lee, except for one out of 79 counts, but we are no further along in knowing what happened to this information and how it got into the hands of the person who walked into our embassy and dropped it on to a table. So in fact not only were his rights compromised, but in fact maybe the very investigation has been compromised because so much energy and effort was put on to the focus of Wen Ho Lee. I just want to again thank the gentlewoman for taking this time. People should not look at this case as a case against a Chinese American or an Asian or a person who is a threat to the United States. They ought to think of this in terms of every American. We understand that this Congress has taken action against prosecutors who have exceeded their authority way beyond what can be justified, or the Internal Revenue Service. And what we really ought to have, and what I have asked for and written the President and spoken out on this floor for, is somehow we need a truly independent investigation. I am afraid that investigation will have to come from outside of the government, because the government is so compromised in the manner in which the investigation was handled by the various agencies and by the committees of this Congress in their rush to judgment, in their frenzy and their hysteria over this issue. But I would hope that this administration would in fact appoint an outside panel of experts who can have that security clearance, who can determine what in fact happened here, because the damage runs to our civil liberties. The damage runs to Wen Ho Lee and his family, his reputation; and it also runs to the integrity of this body, to our agencies that participated in that. The American public needs to know what happened there. Unfortunately, I think the damage also runs to the labs and to our ability to recruit. The gentlewoman is aware, as I am aware, of what has happened in the Asian community with scientists and others who wonder now if they go to work for these labs whether they will be profiled; whether they will be treated differently; are they suspect because of their travels, because of their family, because of their heritage, because of their culture? And when you see the treatment of this individual, you would be asking the same question of yourself if you wanted to determine. And yet, because of this action, we may be denying this country some of the very best scientists, mathematicians, engineers and others that are available in the world today who would love to come to work for the United States and in fact are not any of those suspected things. So I think it has been a real cost to us, to the labs and to our resources available to work on the kinds of scientific endeavors that so many at the lab do on a day-to-day basis. So people ought to understand, this is not just about Wen Ho Lee. This is the ripples of this case, and how it has been handled go far beyond far beyond this individual and his treatment. But we ought to make sure that we do not forget nor can an agency simply not answer for their actions. That is what has to be done. But I do not think that they can investigate themselves because in fact they were part of the frenzy that took place around the arrest and prosecution and detainment of Wen Ho Lee. So we owe the gentlewoman a debt of gratitude for taking this time for putting these documents in the Record so that the broader public will have access to them. I want to thank the gentlewoman very much for doing so.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is the exact point. When you say to these companies, there is going to be voluntary compliance, if you can do it, do it, we would all appreciate it. You are also sending the same signal that says, ``And if by the way you continue to pollute, that's okay, too. If you choose to clean up, that would be nice, but if you choose not to clean up, it's the same.'' Before we had the Clean Air Act and I know the gentleman is very interested in the Clean Water Act, before we had the Clean Air and the Clean Water Act, I do not remember companies walking in and saying, ``I'm going to voluntarily clean up the arsenic in the water,'' or ``I'm going to voluntarily clean up the benzene in the air, the lead in the air or the pollution in the Hudson River.'' I do not remember that happening. It was only because of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act that these companies stepped forward. They did it because it was the law of the land. What we have seen for 6 years in this Congress under a Republican majority and what we have seen in the State of Texas is continued efforts by corporate entities to lean on the political system so it is not the law of the land. And if it is not the law of the land, you will not clean up the Hudson River, you will not clean up the Sacramento River, you will not clean up the Mississippi River, you will not clean up these areas that America holds as treasures. And so as the gentleman points out, when Governor Bush got all done with his volunteer stepping forward, this is like a bad film of the Army: I need these volunteers, now everybody take one step forward and everybody steps back and one guy is left there as the volunteer. This is like a bad movie. If we work at this rate on cleaning up pollution in America that they are in Texas, we will all be choking to death. It is not happening. The figures point it out. The Governor could sit there last night and say, ``We have a plan and it's working.'' Well, if this is his definition of ``working,'' there is a horror story in store for the American public, because that does not address the needs of the cities and others who have air pollution problems and toxic problems. That is just unacceptable. We have struggled in this Congress to try to get entities to step forward and be responsible for Superfund sites, for water pollution and air pollution. I think the gentleman makes a very important point about the so-called voluntary program in Texas. You voluntarily get not to obey the law is what you do. That is what you get to volunteer to do.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It is all there. It is there. But obviously when we suggest to them that they can do this voluntarily, just like when George Bush suggested to all those old polluters in Texas to just do it voluntarily, they chose to do it another way. They chose to do it to maximize profit and forget the public interest, forget the needs to clean up the environment, forget the air quality, forget the economy of people who are reaching into their pocket to pay $2 for gasoline in a car that is getting them 20 miles to the gallon when, in fact, they could be getting 35 with none of these trade-offs. It could be done here, it could be done with American labor. They are the best autoworkers in the world. That is not even a contest. But it is not being done because huge, huge cars now are cash cows for the automobile companies and that is more important to them than the public safety, the environment, household incomes, expenses or our dependency on foreign oil.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Those vehicles could be made here with no change. The difference is that all the advances that we have made on engine efficiency, the dramatic increases that we have made in efficiencies of the internal combustion engine have been loaded up with weight so that you can drive a bigger and a heavier car rather than returning the benefit to the economy, to the consumer and to the environment. We just decided we would take all the improvement and we would negate it by putting 9,000 pounds on top of it. So here we get what the industry said they could do, what many of us in the Congress wanted them to do, what the environment needs them to do, and then we just larded it up. So rather than driving an ordinary car, we took all those benefits and just put them in, if you will, to style. That is costing the American consumer a huge amount of money, a huge amount of money for no real benefit at all.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) that I could not agree with him more. It is rather tragic at a time now when we see the great peril that the Middle East is again embroiled in as the peace negotiations falter and the acts of violence are currently playing themselves out, and we think that if at the end of the Iraqi war if we had made a commitment that we would not ever again put ourselves in a position where we had to send American soldiers in the pursuit of oil or to protect the Kuwaiti fields or to protect the Saudi Arabia fields, or what have you, that we would have pursued this vast array of alternatives that the Vice President has been talking about almost his entire public life, that we could have, in fact, pursued alternatives in energy consumption, in conservation, in technologies that would have, in fact, really made us independent and insulated us in these kinds of situations. But, in fact, we chose to go another route. And that was massive increases in consumption, the failure to go for the efficiencies, the failure to recognize what was readily available on the market and use that here domestically or to sell it overseas. And yet, even now we continue to see the other side of the aisle and Governor Bush suggesting, if we just had one more drilling of oil. The fact is we have increased the production of oil in America over the last 10 years rather dramatically. The hottest oil play in the world is the Gulf of Mexico. Oil companies have spent tens of billions of dollars to be able to go in and to drill there, and it has obviously been worth their while. It is a fantastic find because of new technologies in that field. But it has not made us any more independent. It has not made us any more independent. It has continued the addiction that we have had to foreign oil. And so, rather than get our house in shape here and get our country in shape as the gentleman has suggested and as the Vice President has suggested over the last decade, we have done just the opposite, we have made ourselves more dependent. And like any other addiction, it is very difficult to break. But we ought to stop it at this point and recognize the peril it places us in internationally, the peril it places our economy in, and the unneeded expenditures by Americans for energy that is not necessarily simply because of the waste that is involved. That was clearly one of the choices that was presented in the debate last night about whether or not we embrace this in terms of the future and in terms of the knowledge that we now have about energy efficiencies, conservations and technologies or whether we just say, ``Let's go back to what we were doing in Pennsylvania at the turn of the century and just put another hole in the ground.'' It is wonderful to get the oil, but it does not relieve the dependence and there is no indication that it ever will relieve the dependence unless, in fact, we go to these new technologies. I just want to thank the gentleman for making that point.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. When 70 percent of the import is for transportation, we deny the fact that readily available today at these market prices, with no compromise in safety, speed or technology, a car is available, you can get 35 miles to the gallon. Not a big push from where we are today, but a dramatic change in our consumption pattern and our independence, if you will. That could just be done today with essentially no sacrifice being made. Not a dramatic runup in the price of an automobile, not a dramatic compromise in the safety for you or your families and your comfort or anything else. It is available today.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the House passed the Department of Interior appropriations conference report for the year 2001 by an overwhelming margin. Many of the votes for that legislation were the result of an historic commitment of funds to efforts to preserve our national resources, including parks and other public lands, wildlife, endangered species, forest programs and others. We are providing this support through a new $1.6 billion Lands fund because of the severe underfunding of resource programs over the past decade that have led to a deterioration of the environment and the recreational opportunities for tens of millions of Americans who treasure their national parks, wilderness areas, coasts and other public lands. No program has been more unjustifiably undermined than the Urban Parks and Recreation Program known as UPARR. UPARR is a vital program that provides on a matching basis relatively small grants to towns and cities throughout America to try and provide some expanded recreational opportunities to children who have very few alternative recreational opportunities. Across this country, there are dozens of towns and cities where baseball fields are overgrown, soccer fields are short of equipment, gyms and courts are unusable, and every day tens of thousands of children pass by those vacant and useless playgrounds and gyms and have to find something to do after school and in their evening hours. These are the children who fall prey to crime and drugs and gangs and inappropriate sexual activity that place these children and their futures in jeopardy. UPARR answers a terrible need for these children in their communities. And yet, for the past decade, UPARR has been denied funding by the Congress. Even though dozens of cities and towns filed applications and were prepared to raise the matching funds, the Congress refused to provide even minimal funding for UPARR, despite all the statements of concern about children's well-being and about the need for after school athletics and mentoring programs. For the past several years, I have been working with a wide range of organizations to fund the UPARR program. I want to pay special tribute to Tom Cove, the Vice President of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, who has spent so much of his time helping to build a network of people outside of Washington on behalf of UPARR's revival and who has been so successful here in the Congress and the administration in persuading people of this vital program. The UPARR coalition consists of a diverse array of organizations and interests, including the National Council of Youth Sports, which represents 46 million children through the National Youth Sports Leagues, such as Little League, Pop Warner football; the Amateur Athletic Union; the U.S. Soccer Foundation; PONY baseball; and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, especially Mayor Victor Ashe of Knoxville, Mark Morial of New Orleans, and Rosemary Corbin of Richmond, California. We have also had tremendous help from professional sports organizations and players, who recognize the need in providing young people a safe place to play and learn. I want to recognize our friends at the National Football League, the NFL Player Association, and Major League Baseball's ``Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities'' program. We have also had great support from the Police Athletic League, and I especially want to recognize them. They have fought long and hard with us for today's victory for UPARR. I also want to pay tribute to some of the people in the Seventh Congressional District of California who have been energetic and indefatigable supporters of UPARR, including Mayor Rosemary Corbin of Richmond, California; C.A. Robertson of the Richmond Police Activities League and the state-wide Police Activities League; the Greater Vallejo Recreation District and its general manager, Skip Radziewicz; and the Tri-City County Open Space Committee and its chair, Duane Krumm. Throughout the Nation, individuals such as these have joined together and demanded that Congress provide substantial new funding for UPARR; and this week, they succeeded. When we began this effort, UPARR was receiving nothing, only a few short years ago, not one cent, despite all the rhetoric about concern for our children. So we committed ourselves to UPARR's revival; and we began slow, finding a couple of million dollars on the House floor from here and there. We were able to convince the Clinton administration that this was a worthy program that met the President and First Lady's goals for children, and a couple of million dollars was included in last year's budget. This year the President asked for $10 million; and in the bill we passed today, that number was increased to $30 million for each of the next 6 years. I want to thank the members of the Committee on Appropriations for that increase, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). And we intend to get more, because with this program we can turn our cities around and we can change the lives of millions of young children. Today's bill, while not the level of funding we sought in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, is an enormous increase to $30 million for each of the next 6 years, with the promise of more above that. With the coalition we have built, I am confident we will successfully compete for dollars within the Committee on Appropriations for UPARR dollars and build a network of recreation and athletic facilities throughout the cities and towns of this Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2941, introduced by Mr. Kolbe, would establish a new national conservation area (NCA) in southeastern Arizona, near Tucson. The area consists of hills, grasslands and marshes along a stretch of Cienega Creek. Left unaddressed, this area is likely to succumb to urban sprawl. At the hearing on H.R. 2941, Interior Secretary Babbitt testified in general support a conservation designation for the area. However, there were a significant number of problems with the language of the bill that the Secretary and others elaborated on. Between the hearing and mark up of the legislation there were discussions among the majority and minority staffs, as well as BLM staff and the bill sponsor on changes that could be made to the bill to make it an acceptable proposal. We appreciate the fact that the bill reported by the Resources Committee made many positive changes to the bill. However, in one instance the reported bill represented a step backward rather than a step forward. We did not support the language in the Committee bill as it pertains to grazing. This language had the effect of according grazing a higher status than it has under current law. While the revised bill had many good features to it, on grazing it fell short. I am pleased that the version of the bill made in order today under the Rule includes provisions that address the problem with the grazing language of the Committee-reported bill. The new language provides for environmentally sustainable grazing on appropriate lands within the conservation area. As such, this language will be consistent with the protection of the important resource values of the area. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Representative Kolbe and his staff in addressing this important matter. I will be supporting H.R. 2941 with this new language and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), delivered an important address outlining the education agenda our party will pursue next year under a Democratic Congress. This agenda reflects our commitments to take bold action to make public schools strong and effective and to add, not replace, the efforts being made at the local level. I applaud the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), for his efforts that began more than a year ago in a series of meetings at the Madison Building over dinners and good conversations. Here is what we as Democrats propose on education: establish a major new partnership with States to lower class size and assure that every child has a qualified teacher; offer new investments while holding schools accountable for the results; make quality preschool available to every child; and provide direct grants and tax breaks to upgrade and modernize school facilities. We have set down our marker. I look forward to working with the then Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), in a Democratic House to move it forward.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, just quickly, because I want to follow on a point that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) made, and that is that this is not an abstract discussion. As he has pointed out and as other speakers have pointed out, when Governor Bush says that his answer is to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that is a matter that has been proposed and has been reported out of committee by the Republicans in the United States Senate. The reason it will not happen this year is because of the veto threat of the Clinton-Gore administration not to do it. But that is what stopped it the last couple of years. This is not something that people are thinking about later on. They are actively trying to do it. We have seen it in our committee, in the Committee on Resources. We have seen effort after effort reported out by the Republicans in the Congress to undermine clean water, to undermine clean air, to undermine the Endangered Species Act, to undermine the Superfund Act. The reason they have not become law is because of the Clinton-Gore administration because they say they will not accept it, that they will veto those bills, and the Republicans have to back down. Just in the bill we passed yesterday, there were over 20 damaging environmental riders on that bill. This is not abstract. That was yesterday on a vote. The reason those riders did not end up on that bill is because the President and the Vice President said they would not accept them. Now think, now think of Washington, D.C. and we have President George W. Bush. No threat of a veto. Agreement on this policy. What do we end up with? We end up with, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) pointed out, we end up looking like Texas. We end up looking like Texas. That is not what America wants. It is completely out of step, not with the Democrats, but with America. American people do not want this kind of environmental wrecking crew ranging across the very bedrock laws of this Nation that protect our environment, that protect our quality of life, that protect our communities, and just throwing them out because the timber industry, the mining industry, the oil industry, the chemical industry are not happy with these laws. It does not matter if one lives in New York City, if one lives in the San Francisco Bay area or Portland or lives in Upstate New York or one lives in the South or one lives in Florida. It does not matter. If one is going to drill in the Arctic, what is it that keeps Mr. Bush from drilling off the coast of California where the citizens have said no, off the coast of Florida, off the coast of the Carolinas, where people have said no we do not want our areas spoiled. If he is prepared to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, what keeps him from going off the coast of Florida and California? What keeps those places from being drilled today? The Clinton-Gore administration, because they are the ones, they are the ones that have continued to fight for those moratoriums.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding, and I thank him for taking this time that we might have an opportunity to discuss both the environmental challenges that are presented in this election season and by this Congress and by the differences between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore. I, as many Americans last night, was shocked when, although I guess we should not have been surprised but shocked when Governor Bush suggested that the way out of our energy crisis was to simply drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and that would in fact solve the problem. As was correctly pointed out by Vice President Gore, if you simply do that, you do nothing but add a couple of months of oil supply to the total consumption of the United States, but you have done nothing on the other side, which is consumption, conservation, new technologies, all of which are necessary if we are going to use these oil resources in a wise fashion. It is unfortunate that the first thing that Governor Bush would suggest to the American public is that we ought to, in fact, treat the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge much as we would an oil field in East Texas. There is a world of difference between those two, and perhaps Governor Bush does not understand that. But the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is not just that. It is a refuge for wildlife, of caribou and other species, that are greatly threatened by additional development in the Arctic, and it is important that we understand that, because I think, again, as Vice President Gore pointed out, you need not destroy our environment to improve the energy situation in this country. We know that there are all kinds of additional energy efficiencies, whether it is the insulation of our home, whether it is the improved efficiency of the generators of electricity around this country, as we are replacing old and worn out generators, whether it is the improvement of the gas mileage of our automobiles. This Congress, the Republican Congress, has stalled year after year the consideration of improving the gas mileage of automobiles. So now where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves, essentially, where the fleet averages are going backwards to where they were in the 1970s, and now we see once again we are threatened with competition by foreign auto makers introducing hybrid cars, racing ahead on fuel cells. We know that 70 percent of all the energy that is imported into this country is used for transportation, so to continue to waste it on the highways is a tragedy, and especially when people now are forced into paying, because of the cartel in the Middle East and the big oil companies in this country, are forced to pay in excess of $2 a gallon. I bet most Americans wish that this Republican Congress had not kept us from reviewing those mileage standards, so that if they are going to have to pay $2 a gallon, they might get 30 or 40 miles a gallon, as opposed to 19 or 20 miles per gallon. I think it is an important distinction, because I think it highlights the rather cavalier attitude of Governor Bush toward the environment. It is out of step with the American public. It is clearly out of step with the American public's desire to protect the environment, to clean up the environment where it has been polluted, and to keep it from being polluted where it has not happened. Clearly an overwhelming majority of Americans want to expand our National Park System and to protect the National Park System. They want to increase the public lands that are available to them and their families and their communities, whether those are neighborhood parks, city parks, regional parks or State park systems. In the State of California, where I come from, the State park system is oversubscribed on every holiday, on every weekend, by people who want to take their families out and enjoy that kind of experience. They want to protect the farmlands in our growing communities so there will be open space, so there will be an opportunity to protect the habitat of endangered species, so that they can use open lands to buffer the dramatic growth that has taken place in so many of our suburban communities. That is what the American public has said they want, and they have said that over and over and over again. Yet what we have seen in the agenda of the Republicans on the Committee on Resources on which I sit and in this House is to constantly attack the underlying basic national laws in this country that provide for the protection of the environment, the laws of the Clean Water Act, of the Clean Air Act, of the Superfund law, of the Endangered Species Act. Time and again in the Committee on Resources, the gentleman does not sit on the Committee on Resources, he sits on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I think he has some similar actions that take place there, but we see constant attempts to try to override the Endangered Species Act, to try to approve projects without the consideration of the impact on the species. Yet we know that in all of the polling data, which is an indication of the American public's attitude, that 80 percent of Americans agree that protecting land, water and wildlife and other natural resources is extremely important to them and two-thirds of them believe that the Federal Government, the Federal Government, should in fact be doing more to protect our forest resources, to protect our wilderness resources, to protect the national parks and the public lands of this Nation. In fact, they go so far as to suggest they would like the Federal Government to create more of these opportunities within our society. The gentleman from Oregon has been a leader in trying to explain that. As the Vice President pointed out last night, this is not about having to ruin one value in America to achieve another value. We would like energy independence, we would like energy efficiency, we want to make sure that we can meet the demands of our economy, but we do not have to destroy the environment in the process. So I thank the gentleman at this time for taking this time, and I want to yield back to him so he can participate. I see we have been joined by our colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen). But I want to point out that last night, to hear that that was the single strategy of Governor Bush to answer the energy question, was simply drill more, and to suggest that somehow we have not been drilling in the past, the hottest drilling area in the world is not in Russia, it is not in China, it is not in Indonesia; it is in deep water off of the coast of the Gulf Coast of the United States of America. People have been drilling here. But it is the manner in which we have been wasting the resources. We have been wasting the resources, and we now say we are going to invade the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in some desperate attempt to achieve energy independence. We ought to achieve energy independence, and the gentleman knows more about this and I would hope he comments on this. If 70 percent of the imported oil in this country is going into transport, that tells you that maybe where you want to start thinking about the problem is with the automobile, to make it more efficient, to do some of the things the gentleman has talked about that have not come to pass, unfortunately, in this Congress, in terms of mass transit, in terms of the design of our communities, in terms of making them transportation-friendly to various options, whether they are trains or mass transit or buses or car pooling, these kinds of arrangements. Then you really send a message to the sheiks in the Middle East, if you will, who are running the cartel, that their market is not going to be as great because we are going to stop the waste of that energy. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and will ask him to yield later in this special order.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I want to say that no one can argue with the desire of this delegation to save Steens Mountain and the surrounding area and the importance of this environmental asset. I will, however, unfortunately, have to disagree with him about how this was gone about by the process that was used here, and I think that it is unfortunate that a number of provisions of this bill deviate from public land management and conservation designations, including those dealing with wilderness. In addition, there are significant problems with the land exchanges proposed in this bill, including valuations and payments that have no basis in law or policy. As the General Accounting Office noted in a report done in June of this year given to our committee, many land exchanges have failed to protect the public interest or provide that the lands exchanged were of equal value. That is the law of the land. Unfortunately, the exchanges in this bill, I believe, continue that pattern; and I find that pattern troubling because I think it raises serious questions about the public interest, about the public treasury, and about the public good. No appraisals were done in this instance. Instead, BLM at the direction of the bill's sponsors prepared a realty report. Since the lands the ranchers offered were worth significantly less than the Federal lands they wanted, the BLM was asked by the bill's sponsors to use valuation assumptions that are not found in Federal law or policy. Further, the payments to the ranchers that this bill provides are an unjustified benefit, in my opinion. The provisions of this bill on wilderness are also troubling. First, thousands of acres of wilderness study areas are transferred to private ownership. The wilderness boundaries that were drawn in many instances follow section lines. This is both a serious management and ecological problem because those lines represent arbitrary markers and bisect resources that are hard to administer. Further, much of the wilderness is bisected by roads. While portions of the wilderness will be off- limits to cows, the Secretary is required to make other wilderness areas available to provide forage replacement. Grazing is given a high priority in this bill, and the promotion of grazing is made one of the objectives of the area. The bill contains numerous other exemptions for grazing. While there is a general prohibition on new roads in the area, that does not apply to roads needed for livestock. Likewise, while there is a general prohibition on the construction of Federal lands, that does not apply to facilities needed for livestock. The Secretary is also required to construct fencing and water developments for livestock in the area. I regret that the bill that is being brought to the floor today has deleted the wilderness water right language that was in the bill approved by the Committee on Resources. This is not an improvement, and in the end it will only make it harder to protect those wilderness values. Madam Chairman, I recognize that Secretary Babbitt and the Oregon delegation have signed off on this legislation, and I recognize again that Steens Mountain is clearly an asset that is worth the kind of protection that they seek. But I think that we have to raise these questions. Otherwise, we are going to continue to see a drift in the land exchange policy of this government that continues to ignore valuations, that continues to ignore or not require appraisals and continues to ignore the public interest. It is clearly in the public interest to protect Steens Mountain. The question is whether or not it is in the public interest to protect it in this manner. Is it in the public interest after we make an exchange of unequal parcels recognizing that there is a difference in the forage value of these lands as properly we should, we have exchanged? We have exchanged in Roaring Springs, we took 10,000 acres, almost 11,000 acres; and we gave back 76,000 acres, recognizing that there are distinctions. We then told the Secretary of the Interior that they shall provide the fencing and the improvements and the water on those lands. And then on top of that where these already started out unequal, we have now added on cash payments that range from almost $3 million to $148,000 against the policy and the recommendations of the Department of the Interior. I realize the desire and the sense of urgency about this and the asset that is being protected, but I think that we had better take a long and hard look at the exchange policy as the GAO recommended because it has cost the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars. At some point the integrity has got to be put back into that process. I think in fact there should be a moratorium on exchanges until such time as both the BLM and the Forest Service can tell this Congress that there is integrity in that process, that the public interest is in fact being served and the treasury of the United States is being protected. Those are my concerns. It is not with the merits of protecting Steens Mountain. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has worked very hard on this and has brought about an agreement. Much of that agreement is in fact necessary and quite proper, but I think there are questions around valuations that are serious here. But the delegation has come together on this. They believe this is the proper manner to proceed. But I think clearly in light of the GAO report and the warnings that we have been given that we ought to give due consideration to this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield all of the time on this side to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for the purposes of controlling the time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I do so not because this is a bad bill, I do so not because this bill has failed to dramatically increase the monies for the various environmental accounts. In many ways, this is the most environmentally friendly bill we have had out of this subcommittee in a number of years. I do so because I have strongly believed there was another way to redeem the promise that was made to the American people about the use of offshore oil royalties. I believed that the method by which that should have been done was in CARA, H.R. 701. It has been said several times that this appropriations bill is not CARA. Nobody is more aware of that than the gentleman from Alaska and myself. This approach is not CARA. This was devised within the Committee on Appropriations in responding to CARA and the grass roots support that was lobbying on behalf of CARA. They chose to do it in a Washington fashion. CARA was the outgrowth of grass roots organizations, over 5,000 organizations from across the country, that looked at what the Congress had done over the last 20 years and decided there had to be another way. There had to be certainty for communities to be able to plan for the protection of their environmental assets, whether that was open space or whether that was trails or whether that was trying to solve endangered species problems. There clearly had to be a way to help those States that have suffered the impacts of offshore oil. Also, there had to be a commitment established so we could go out and try to secure private financing, fundraising from foundations, from corporations, and from individuals over the long term to help pay for land acquisitions. That is why the certainty of funding was a key feature of CARA occurs, so it is not a start-again, stop-again operation. We believed that was important, and 315 Members of this House believed that was important, the biggest bipartisan vote I think we have had on any controversial legislation in this Congress. We sent it to the Senate. Unfortunately, there it started to stall out. We ask our colleagues to oppose this rule so we can have a chance to pass CARA and not undermine it with the actions of the Committee on Appropriations. We hoped that the same kind of bipartisan support could be resurrected in the Senate to see this bill through to the desk of the President, who has promised to sign it. I have to admit that I am a little disappointed in the signals from the Senate leadership about the improbability of scheduling the CARA legislation this year. But I believe the underlying proposition of CARA is the correct way for the Congress to deal with these issues, because local governments and park agencies and fish and wildlife agencies are struggling every day where the people and the species and the open space and the lands and the assets meet on a daily basis. What they need is a diversity of funding, and a certainty of funding; and they need a level of funding that will let them attack those problems in a manner that they understand best. I believe that that is what the CARA legislation did. It is unfortunate, that we will not be able to complete acton on that legislation in the Congress if the current indications from the Senate continue to hold true, because we believe that legislation, supported by a bipartisan coalition would have truly redeemed the promise that this Congress made to the American people about taking the monies from exploitation of nonrenewable resources and putting them into a permanent fund to protect renewable resources. While it is very clear to anybody who reads this legislation that this is clearly the most dramatic increase in the environmental accounts that we have seen in 25 years, I would have hoped that we would have been able to include the CARA program that would have guaranteed to local communities the kind of certainty they need to support private and public partnerships at the local level for the protection of these assets. It is for that reason that I will ask Members to vote against this rule. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his remarks on behalf of CARA, which I am very proud of. I think we did put together an incredible coalition. I also thank him for mentioning the UPARR program on urban parks and recreation. As the gentleman has said, for the last 4 years I have tried to resurrect the funding for the urban parks initiative, and in this legislation, clearly the committee has done that. The appropriation of $30 million will allow us to rehabilitate some of those recreational spaces, including sports facilities at public schools or regional centers available for all young people in this country that have fallen into disrepair for a whole host of reasons. We ought not to abandon them. We ought to reclaim them. We ought to give those children the recreational opportunities so many of us have had. I want to thank the committee for that effort to put that money into the urban parks legislation. I want to say this, that yes, we have had our differences over CARA. We have had our differences from time to time over this bill. But this committee did a remarkable job with this bill this year. What they have done in the various environmental accounts will give us an opportunity in a whole range of areas in this country, whether they are urban, suburban, or rural areas, to deal with some of the problems we are confronting in trying to hold onto agricultural land, to try to solve endangered species areas, to save the wetlands, to create the urban park space and recreational opportunities for our children, and for something that I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been a very outspoken person on, and that is maintenance of the Federal effort in our national parks. We can wear these parks out if we do not take care of them with the visitors that we have gotten. I appreciate the committee addressing this. I have had my tussles with this committee, but I have always tried to say every year that this committee has had far more demands on it than resources; that they have been able to meet the demands of the Members. I think what has been done here with $12 billion over the next 6 years, the manner in which it has been capped and fenced and reserved for resource programs is a magnificent start on that effort. We know the backlog. We know the troubles our communities face. But I think we would be remiss if we did not understand that this may be the single greatest increase for the protection of the environment in this country, certainly of the natural resources in this country, in the last 25 years. Members of Congress ought to be very proud of that. Does that mean that others and myself will not continue to fight for CARA? Of course we will. We will continue that effort, but we should not lose sight of what is happening here today with the passage of this legislation and what it means. Finally, I just want to say to a great guy, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as much as we have battled, I must say, I have never had more respect for an individual, because day in and day out he has tried to do the right thing with the limited resources that he has had available to him. He has been a tough guy. He has been kind of a tough guy on the street. He understands, I think, the Federal role. We have argued about that from time to time. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure working with you. I am sorry that the gentleman's side chose term limits, because I think the gentleman's continued role on this committee would have been good for the country. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for all their effort on behalf of this particular bill, and the final result brought about on behalf of the environment in this country.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for yielding me this time. I want to join in this tribute to our chairman, Bill Goodling. Mr. Speaker, we have had our battles. They even got to the point one time where he threatened to hit me over the head with the gavel, and I thought the next committee meeting I would come wearing a helmet so that we could continue our amicable discussions. But I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has hit it on the head. There was a core principle there. And as much as we come from different parts of the ideological spectrum, I was amazed at how well we were able to work together, once I understood the code. The code was simply: You mean what you say and you say what you mean. Bill Goodling has held that principle all of the time that he has served on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We came together to the Congress and served our entire careers on that committee. His focal point was the children and whether or not we really meant what we said. If we were going to have quality, then we were going to have quality and we were going to hold someone accountable for delivering that quality. And if they were not going to do that, we were not going to fund them or we were going to know why. When we said we were going to fund the excess cost of special education, the 40 percent, in his time as chairman he has moved us further toward that goal than any other single individual. When they said that a diploma ought to mean something, he asked those questions and that is what teacher empowerment was about, whether or not a diploma would, in fact, mean something. For schools of education where we are turning out our teachers of the future, if they did not know the subjects they were teaching, he wanted to know why, and has dramatically changed the manner in which schools of education will now educate the teachers of the future so they will be better equipped to provide that quality education that has always been at the core of all of his dealings on this committee. He has not been much for the politics. He has not been much for the posturing. But he has certainly done a great deal for the education and the well-being of the children of this Nation, and we are going to miss him. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, while I will not oppose H.R. 4389, I will note that this project transfer bill does not in my view represent good stewardship of a valuable Federal asset. The bill is full of generalities, and the United States and taxpayer-owners get practically nothing out of this deal. No environmental benefits will result from this transfer, and public involvement opportunities are minimal. My formal views on H.R. 4389 are set forth in the Committee Report accompanying the bill. The bill mandates conveyance without first allowing the Secretary to determine whether such a conveyance is in the public interest. The bill should, instead simply authorize the conveyance so the Secretary can make such a determination. The bill does not provide for local public involvement prior to final action on the transfer. The bill fails to provide for environmental protection and enhancement. Environmental protection and enhancement are the appropriate quid pro quo to mitigate for post-transfer loss of federal control and applicability of most federal laws. Finally, H.R. 4389 creates a fixed ``sale price'' prior to knowing the details of the transfer. The United States should negotiate a fair price for the conveyance only after the terms and conditions of transfer are established through negotiations with local stakeholders. Transfers of Western water projects to local beneficiaries are not inherently bad, but H.R. 4389 should not be used as a template for future transfers. These projects are publicly-owned, and taxpayer interests should be recognized and protected.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today, once again, America awoke to the story of another senior citizen that finds the difficult choices in their life because of the cost of prescription drugs. Winifred Skinner, 79 years old, of Des Moines, Iowa, yesterday told the Vice President how on her $800-a-month income, $250 will go to prescription drugs, which leaves her very little for her other costs of maintaining her household. Therefore, she spends 2 and 3 hours a day collecting aluminum cans to turn in to provide food for herself. She is reduced to walking the streets and the roads of Des Moines, Iowa, so that she can collect cans to provide food because of the high cost of prescription drugs. She has no prescription drug benefit. Madam Speaker, we have been trying now for almost 2 years to get the Republicans to agree to have a Medicare prescription drug benefit so people like Winifred Skinner will have a reliable benefit to help pay for the medicines that they need; not a plan that depends on whether or not their HMO is in business or out of business; not a plan that depends on whether or not an insurance company will write the benefit or not, but a guaranteed plan within the Medicare system so that seniors know that they can rely on it. The time has come so Winifred Skinner does not have to keep walking the roads.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Benicia Police Chief Otto William Giuliani on the occasion of his retirement after a very busy and successful twenty-eight years of service in law enforcement. Otto Giuliani began his law enforcement career with the Hayward Police Department, holding numerous positions in his 15-year career there. He was awarded the Hayward Police Department's highest honor, the Medal of Valor, for extraordinary duty on the night of November 29, 1978, when he pried open the door, removed and carried an unconscious man from a wrecked vehicle stuck on the Western Pacific Railroad tracks just as the train struck the vehicle, almost sweeping Officer Giuliani and the victim back into the path of the train. For his action he was recognized by Kiwanis International as Police Officer of the year for 1979 for the California, Nevada and Hawaii Districts, and received the Nathan Hale Award for Heroism. Otto was a member of the Hayward Kiwanis Club for fifteen years, with eleven years of perfect attendance, he served as president in 1981. He was charter president and two-time distinguished president of the Livermore Kiwanis Club in 1986 and 1987, with seven years of perfect attendance. He was a member of the Livermore Police Department for seven years, holding the positions of Captain of both the patrol and investigation divisions during separate and concurrent terms, and fulfilling the role of Acting Chief of Police. Otto is a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigations National Academy (FBI/NA 153rd). He was Chief of Police for the Benicia Police department for eight years during which the department initiated Community Oriented Policing, began a formal School Resource Officer Program dedicating police officers to the campuses of Benicia High School and Benicia Middle School, expanded the DARE program to all fifth grade classes in each public and private school in the city; added three police officers to the department by means of federal and state grants; created a Citizen and Police Partnership Program; began the GREAT program to prevent gang activity from entering Benicia from other cities; conducted Citizen Police Academies; created a Parking Adjudication program which was the first of its kind in the nation for which the department received the Helen Putnam Award for Excellence (the League of California Cities' highest recognition); began a Citizen on Patrol program for which the department received national recognition from the International Association of Chiefs of Police in the form of the Webber Seavey Award for Excellence in Police Service to the Community, and raised the professional development of the department by successful completion of either the FBI National Academy or California POST Command College by all management personnel and enrollment or completion of the California POST Supervisory Leadership Institute by first line supervisors. Chief Giuliani was appointed City Manager/Chief of Police for the City of Benicia in December, 1994, and served in that capacity for six years, serving the longest career in the State of California in the dual role of City Manager/Chief of Police. Otto is a member of the Benicia Rotary Club and currently serves as President, is an ex-officio member of the Benicia Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Benicia Police Athletic League (PAL). Chief Giuliani and his wife Jan have been married for twenty-five years and have a set of twins, Mario and Melissa, age 22. Otto is retiring from law enforcement after twenty-eight years of service, but he will continue to serve as the City Manager of Benicia. It is clear from his record of achievement that Chief Giuliani has never taken his positions of authority for granted and has excelled at his every endeavor. Many communities in our area have been enriched by his efforts. I wish Chief Giuliani a very happy, healthy and much deserved ``retirement,'' and I thank him for his many contributions to law enforcement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4904 is a natural evolution of the relationship the United States has with Native Hawaiians. The need for this legislation began with the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 which disrupted a peaceful citizenry and developing island monarchy. It was highlighted by the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1921 which put lands into public trust for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. The next step was taken when Congress, a hundred years after the overthrow of the Kingdom, adopted a Joint Resolution making a formal apology on behalf of the U.S. to Native Hawaiians. Today we unfold yet another chapter in our relationship with Native Hawaiians as we consider this legislation which provides a process for the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government and recognition of the Native Hawaiian government by the United States for purposes of carrying on a government-to-government relationship. This legislation was thoughtfully crafted. Our colleague, Mr. Abercrombie and the entire Hawaii delegation here in the House and the Senate have invested a lot of effort into this legislation. In putting this together, they solicited input from all interested parties. The Resources Committee held five hearings on this legislation and reported the bill out with a unanimous vote. This is just legislation, it has been a long time coming and I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to raise two matters which are fundamental to an understanding of why the pending legislation has been proposed. The first has to do with the authority of the United States to delegate Federal responsibilities to the several States. The second is important to an understanding of why the Federal policy which recognized the rights of the native people of America to self-determination and self-governance was not extended to the native people of Hawaii when Hawaii joined our Union of States in 1959. For the past two hundred and ten years, the United States Congress, the Executive, and the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized certain legal rights and protections for America's indigenous peoples. Since the founding of the United States, Congress has exercised a constitutional authority over indigenous affairs and has undertaken an enhanced duty of care for America's indigenous peoples. This has been done in recognition of the sovereignty possessed by the native people--a sovereignty which pre-existed the formation of the United States. The Congress' constitutional authority is also premised upon the status of the indigenous people as the original inhabitants of this nation who occupied and exercised dominion and control over the lands to which the United States subsequently acquired legal title. The United States has recognized a special political relationship with the indigenous people of the United States. As Native Americans-- American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians--the United States has recognized that they are entitled to special rights and considerations. The Congress has enacted laws to give expression to the respective legal rights and responsibilities of the Federal government and the native people. However, we must also recognize that over the last two hundred years, Federal policy toward America's native people has vacillated significantly. While the United States Constitution vests the Congress with the authority to address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of the United States, from time to time, with the consent of the affected States, the Congress has sought to more effectively address the conditions of the indigenous people by delegating Federal responsibilities to various States. Beginning in the 1950's, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 108, Federal policy sought the termination of Indian reservations and a general transfer of some Federal responsibilities to the states. In the 1960's, California was one of the states that was made the subject of Federal law in this respect, when criminal jurisdiction and certain elements of civil jurisdiction formerly exercised by the United States was transferred to states with the enactment of Public Law 83-280. So it is that the two significant actions of the United States as they relate to the native people of Hawaii must be understood in the context of the Federal policy towards America's other indigenous, native people at the time of those actions. In 1921, when the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was enacted into law, the prevailing Federal policy was premised upon the objective of breaking up Indian reservations and allotting lands to individual Indians. Those reservation lands remaining after the allotment of lands to individual Indians were opened up to settlement by non-Indians, and significant incentives were authorized to make the settlement of former reservation lands attractive to non-Indian settlers. Indians were not to be declared citizens of the United States until 1924, and it was typical that a twenty-year restraint on the alienation of allotted lands was imposed. This restraint prevented the lands from being subject to taxation by the states, but the restraint on alienation could be lifted if an individual Indian was deemed to have become ``civilized.'' However, once the restraint on alienation was lifted and individual Indian lands became subject to taxation, Indians who did not have the wherewithall to pay the taxes on the land, found their lands seized and put up for sale. This allotment era of Federal policy was responsible for the alienation of nearly half of all Indian lands nationwide--hundreds of millions of acres of lands were no longer in native ownership, and hundreds of thousands of Indian people were rendered not only landless but homeless. The primary objective of the allotment of lands to individual Indians was to ``civilize'' the native people. The fact that the United States thought to impose a similar scheme on the native people of Hawaii in an effort to ``rehabilitate a dying race'' is thus readily understandable in the context of the prevailing Federal Indian policy in 1921. In 1959, when the State of Hawaii was admitted into the Union, the Federal policy toward the native people of America was designed to divest the Federal government of its responsibilities for the indigenous people and to delegate those responsibilities to the several states. A prime example of this Federal policy was the enactment of Public Law 83-280, an Act which, as I have indicated, vested criminal jurisdiction and certain aspects of civil jurisdiction over Indian lands to certain states. In similar fashion, in 1959, the United States transferred most of its responsibilities related to the administration of the 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to the new State of Hawaii, and in addition, imposed a public trust upon the lands that were ceded back to the State for five purposes, one of which was the betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians. The Federal authorization for this public trust clearly anticipated that the State's constitution and laws would provide for the manner in which the trust would be carried out. In 1978, the citizens of the State of Hawaii exercised this Federally-delegated authority by amending the State constitution in furtherance of the special relationship with Native Hawaiians. The delegates to the 1978 constitutional convention recognized that Native Hawaiians had no other homeland, and thus that the protection of Native Hawaiian subsistence rights to harvest the ocean's resources, to fish the fresh streams, to hunt and gather, to exercise their rights to self-determination and self-governance, and the preservation of Native Hawaiian culture and the Native Hawaiian language could only be accomplished in the State of Hawaii. Hawaii's adoption of amendments to the State constitution to fulfill the special relationship with Native Hawaiians is consistent with the practice of other States that have established special relationships with the native inhabitants of their areas. Fourteen States have extended recognition to Indian tribes that are not recognized by the Federal government, and thirty-two States have established commissions and offices to address matters of policy affecting the indigenous citizenry. We all know that on January 17, 1893, the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown with the assistance of the United States minister and U.S. marines. One hundred years later, a resolution extending an apology on behalf of the United States to Native Hawaiians for the illegal overthrow of the Native Hawaiian government and calling for a reconciliation of the relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians was enacted into law (Public Law 103-150). The Apology Resolution acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands to the United States, either through their government or through a plebiscite or referendum. With the loss of their government in 1893, Native Hawaiians have sought to maintain political authority within their community. In 1978, the citizens of the State of Hawaii recognized the long- standing efforts of the native people to give expression to their rights to self-determination and self-governance by amending the State constitution to provide for the establishment of a quasisovereign State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The State constitution, as amended, provides that the Office is to be governed by nine trustees who are Native Hawaiian and who are to be elected by Native Hawaiians. The Office administers programs and services with revenues derived from lands which were ceded back to the State of Hawaii upon its admissions into the Union of States. On February 23, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Rice v. Cayetano. The Supreme Court held that because the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is an agency of the State of Hawaii that is funded in part by appropriations made by the State legislature, the election for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs must be open to all citizens of the State of Hawaii who are otherwise eligible to vote in statewide elections. Contrary to a mostly erroneous article published today, the Court expressly declined to address the powers and authorities of the Federal government as they relate to Native Hawaiians. This bill thus does not in any way circumvent the decision of the Supreme Court in Rice. However, with the Court's ruling, the native people of Hawaii have been divested of the mechanism that was established under the Hawaii State Constitution that, since 1978, has enabled them to give expression to their rights as indigenous, native people of the United States to self- determination and self-governance. H.R. 4904 is designed to address these developments by providing a means under Federal law, consistent with the Federal policy of self- determination and self-governance for America's indigenous, native people, for Native Hawaiians to have a status similar to that of the other indigenous, native people of the United States, the First Americans.