George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. It is George W. Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit plan that undermines Medicare, not George W. Bush but his Medicare plan, so everybody is corrected. He would undermine the system and put these seniors at the peril of the same HMOs that are canceling their coverage all over the country, put them at the peril of the insurance companies, put them at the peril of pharmaceutical companies. What we need is a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare so that senior citizens can get the medicine they need.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, time is running out for America's seniors. America's seniors are well aware now that many of them cannot afford the drugs that their doctors prescribe. If they in fact buy those drugs, we find that they are taking the medicine one every other day instead of one every day or three times a day instead of four times a day to try to extend the medicine at the peril of their own health. Time is running out for them because the Republican leadership refuses to bring forth a real prescription drug benefit. Rather than use the prescription drug benefit to try to undermine the Medicare system as George W. Bush has or to undermine the Medicare system as the Republican leadership has---- Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce, along with my colleagues Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Frost, and Mr. Gilman, the Younger Americans Act. This is landmark legislation that will dramatically increase after-school opportunities for young children and teenagers by providing them with adult mentors, education, sports, and volunteer activities. As any parent or teacher knows, the best way to keep kids out of trouble and help them learn and grow is to keep them busy and give them opportunity. Today's bill is an historic opportunity to dramatically expand safe and exciting programs for children and youth after school, a time when too many kids suffer from a lack of activity and adult supervision. A recent Urban institute study found that one in five young people age 6-12 are left without adult supervision after school and before their parents come home from work, a critical period during the day to keep youth both positively engaged and out of trouble. Thirty-five years ago, Congress made a decision to help seniors and passed the Older Americans Act. In doing so, Congress launched a series of highly effective local efforts that have improved and enriched the lives of our nation's elderly. It helped pay for senior centers, Meals on Wheels, and community service programs like Green Thumb. For too long, however, Congress has ignored the needs of our nation's young people. It has failed to make the issues of young people a priority and has failed to make an adequate investment in their development and well-being. Our new bill attempts to correct that oversight. Today, we seek to repeat the success of the Older Americans Act by funding a national network of high-quality programs tailored to the particular challenges faced by youth today. Too often, we find that public programs for young people focus on the problems of youth and promote piecemeal policies that seek to redress negative behaviors like juvenile delinquency or teen pregnancy. But the evidence shows that the most promising approaches are those that foster positive youth development, build social and emotional competence, and link young people with adult mentors. This is the future of youth social programs in the 21st century and it is an approach we seek to advance through this legislation. The Younger Americans Act will help coordinate and fund youth- mentoring, community service through volunteerism, structured academic and recreational opportunities, and other activities aimed at fostering the positive educational and social development of teens and pre-teens. Under the bill, the federal government would distribute funds by formula to community boards that would oversee the planning, operation, and evaluation of local programs. Funding for local programs in the initial year would be $500 million, and would rise to $2 billion in 2005, in addition to matching funds provided by local and state governments and the private sector. To qualify, each local program would be required to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated system of youth programs with the following five general components: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured activities; access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health; opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and, opportunities for community service and civic participation. Thirty percent of funds would be targeted to youth programs that address specific, urgent areas of need such as youth in correctional facilities and situations where youth are at high risk due to neglect or abuse. The bill has a vast national coalition of supporters including former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the National Urban League, America's Promise, the Child Welfare Leagues of America, United Way, the National Mental Health Association, and others. I want to thank all of members of the coalition behind this bill for bringing us together. I applaud their work on this legislation and the work that they do every day in each of our local communities. I want to express special appreciation to all of the young people from these associations, who have rightly played such a key role in drafting and advocating for this legislation. Congress has enacted many worthwhile programs to help young people. But the bill we are introducing today has a different message. Our bill responds to the tremendous desire of young people to have the greatest opportunity possible to be active, creative, and productive citizens in our society, rather than receiving society's help only after they are in trouble. Kids are asking to be given a chance to make a difference in their own lives. We are saying today that that is exactly what Congress can and should do. I am confident we can make that happen. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on this matter. We know very well why the increased moneys in education have been put there, because of the insistence of the minority in Congress and the insistence of President Clinton in the negotiations. And each and every time they have made these terribly inadequate bills that have been reported out of this House better. But let us understand something. The Obey amendment is about whether or not we are going to meet our commitment to the children of this Nation. Yes, some of the money is targeted, but how do you think those school buildings got in the condition they are in today? Because of the neglect of the local school boards and others. What we are suggesting is that the Federal Government ought to make an effort, because the children who are doing the poorest most likely are in the poorest condition schools. We ought to try to target some effort so that those local communities could fix up those schools and make them appropriate for the education of our young children. To sit here and suggest that somehow local school superintendents and others cannot move around Federal money, then you ought to get yourself a new superintendent because restraints are minimal. Most superintendents will tell you the problem is with the State Department of Education, not with the Federal Department of Education. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, at the time that Wen Ho Lee was first arrested, I met with the Chinese-American Political Association of the greater San Francisco Bay area. Many in that community raised their concerns that he was the target of selective prosecution, of racial profiling, and prosecutorial abuse. As we now see, as that case has started to come to a conclusion with the plea bargain, in fact many of the concerns raised by the Chinese community turned out to be true. All Americans should be deeply disturbed by the prosecutorial abuse that was raised in this case and used against Wen Ho Lee. This does not suggest that Wen Ho Lee did not have some serious transgressions of the current law and policy, but what his government did to him should cause concern by all Americans. All Americans are entitled to an impartial review of the actions by all parties to that prosecution. Unfortunately, the congressional committees, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and all the rest participated in the feeding frenzy at the time of the arrest. I think maybe we ought to have a national, impartial blue ribbon commission to look at the Wen Ho Lee case and see how we can better safeguard the rights and liberties of all American citizens.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just in quick response, I would say that obviously the number of suspension bills is greater because this committee really only does business by suspension and that is obviously their prerogative. I would also say that I appreciate yesterday's schedule. That was negotiated. That was negotiated with notice. However, amendments were offered without notice. Last week it was 16-zip. Obviously we continue to fall further and further behind. I appreciate it is a third of the bills and the gentleman is contending that is fair. We represent half of the Congress, half of the people in the Nation, and we are put in the position now as this session comes to a close as I said before that many members of this caucus had bills that were important to them and their district, not of great controversy, not of great ideological battle and to date we have not been able to get those matters put before the House. I would again urge the members of our caucus to oppose the two bills offered by the Committee on Resources. This does not go to other matters on the suspension calendar, because that is the purview of those committees. But with respect to these two matters from the Committee on Resources, I would urge a no vote so that we can get consideration of the members of the caucus's bills that are still pending.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington I think has properly explained the legislation and the purposes of the legislation and the intent with which it is offered before the House. I do not disagree with that. I, however, will ask Members to vote against this legislation, especially Members of our caucus. I do so not because of the content of the bill but because of the manner in which Democratic Members of the committee and of our caucus have been treated in this committee in terms of the scheduling of legislation that has been offered by Democratic Members of the House. Much of that legislation is essentially noncontroversial but important in those particular districts, and we continue to have a gross disparity both in the treatment in the committee and on the floor of the House. As I have noticed and the leadership has agreed to, we would ask Members to vote against this legislation until such time as we can get a fairer treatment of pending legislation as we come to the closing days of this session. We have asked continuously, we have sent numerous letters to the chairman asking for hearings on various pieces of legislation. Those hearings have not been granted. Again many of those bills are noncontroversial. Then we are told because they do not have hearings, they cannot come to the floor. Yet we constantly are considering bills from the other side, without hearings on the floor, many of which have not even been heard in the committee. Last week, 18 Republican bills were scheduled and no House bills, one Senate Democratic bill was scheduled and dealt with. Tomorrow there are scheduled to be 15 Republican bills and six Democratic bills. It is very clear that if we continue this, there will be many members of the Democratic Caucus who have matters pending before the committee and the House that simply will not be considered before the clock runs out. I think we can do better. We have done better in past sessions of the Congress. I would encourage at least the members of our caucus to vote against the consideration of this and the next bill on the suspension calendar later today when we have a recorded vote on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to continue this dialogue. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the speech that the gentleman just gave with respect to this bill and other bills about being considered on the merit is the reason we are asking Members to vote against these bills so that the Democratic Members can have their bills heard on the merits, marked up on the merits and voted up or down on the merits in the full House, that has not happened. The gentleman can go on and on about 23 percent of the bills. The fact of the matter is we are half of the Congress, and there is a good number of Democratic bills that are languishing for no other reason than I guess that they are Democratic bills. I do not know how that determination is made, but obviously they have not been allowed to be considered on the merits. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Members would understand that there is very little else we can do other than to refuse to pass these bills until we get that kind of consideration to protect the rights of the minority Members of the House of Representatives, and I think it is important that we do that. I think those Members were elected by the same number of people that others were elected by and their bills ought to be considered on the merit. Again, these are not great controversial bills. These are bills that are important to local districts, just as the ones before us today are, but they have not been accorded the same rights and privileges and, therefore, I would ask the members of the caucus and others, if they would like, to join us to vote against these two bills from the Committee on Resources. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, I said that that bill had been dealt with, a Senate bill, a Democratic bill. That does not solve the problem for Members of the House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the decline in estuary habitats nation-wide has been well-documented in the scientific and resource management literature for over 30 years. Worse, we are now finally seeing how ruinous this habitat loss has been to our coastal environment through degraded water quality, depleted commercial and recreational fisheries, and destructive shoreline erosion and subsidence. Within my own district, the baylands provide some form of food, shelter, or other benefits to over 500 species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In addition, there are almost as many species of invertebrates in the ecosystem as all the other animals combined. This brings the total number of animal species that use or call the baylands ecosystem home to over one thousand. Unfortunately, this area has lost over 95 percent of its tidal wetlands and continues to be besieged by invasive and aquatic nuisance species. These impacts are real. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to begin the effort to reverse that trend. H.R. 1775, the Estuary Restoration Act, would provide a reasonable, balanced approach to both preserve remaining estuarine habitats and to facilitate effective, locally- driven estuary restoration. I commend the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster, and the senior ranking Democrat member, Mr. Oberstar, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, Mr. Young, for their collaborative efforts and cooperation in developing this compromise legislation. I would also like to thank the bill's sponsor, Mr. Gilchrest, for his energy and persistence in pursuing this worthwhile and important bill. I am glad to see that the bill will include as eligible restoration plans any Federal or State plan developed with the participation of public and private stakeholders. This will mean that many innovative, collaborative plans developed for the San Francisco Bay estuary, such as the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Plan, the San Pablo Baylands Restoration Plan, and the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan will become eligible for project funding. I am also pleased that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will be eligible to participate in the program. NGOs, such as Save the Bay and The Bay Institute in the Bay Area, embody the locally driven focus of this legislation. In addition, NGOs contribute valuable matching funds, expertise and local support--all factors critical to the long-term success of estuary restoration projects. I share the concerns raised by my colleague, Mr. Oberstar, that the burden placed on these organizations to participate might be excessive. There is little need for further restrictions on NGO participation because the stringent review process within the bill will ensure that only the most outstanding projects are selected and funded. I hope that this will be addressed in conference with the Senate. I appreciate the willingness of the bill's sponsors to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the manager of monitoring data gathered within this program. NOAA has impressive scientific expertise and superb competence in environmental data management. In addition, NOAA programs such as the National Estuarine Research Reserves and Coastal Services Center, will be useful conduits for dissemination of estuary restoration data to coastal resource managers nationwide. The establishment of an Estuary Habitat Restoration Council within the bill is of paramount importance due to the largely experimental and innovative nature of many estuary restoration techniques. The science of estuary restoration, at present, is imprecise. It is important to recognize that we will have to learn from our mistakes; undoubtedly, not every project will meet expectations. I had hoped to include a more rigorous post-construction monitoring and evaluation process in the bill. In its absence, the Corps would be wise to work closely with the Council to prioritize and select projects based upon successes validated in the field. In lieu of the recent criticism that has been directed at the Corps, I retain some reservations about the wisdom of Congress authorizing the Corps to take on such a significant expansion of its mission at this time. I am sure we have all been closely following the series of articles that have appeared in the Washington Post this week. Since its inception, the Corps has launched tens of billions of dollars worth of public works projects around the country, many of which have severely damaged the environment because of a lack of oversight. I am encouraged by the efforts of several colleagues to address this issue, notably Congressman Ron Kind, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and Congressman Earl Blumenauer. Public works projects will always be needed, but at the same time we also need to ensure the protection of the environment. Environmental considerations should be taken as seriously as economic ones when analyzing projects. Certainly, the Corps should not approve projects with severe ecological consequences. Once again, I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, here we are again passing legislation to implement the settlement agreement to stop 18 years of litigation and provide the desperately poor Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians with some usable land. Currently, the Tribe has over 11,000 acres of land sitting at the bottom of the Salton Sea with no hope of ever using that land for needed economic development or sustainable housing for their members. A court found in favor of the tribe in a 1984 trespassing suit brought against the Imperial Irrigation District (ID) and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and awarded damages to the tribe. To stave off a second suit filed on behalf of the tribe, the U.S. stepped in and worked out a settlement agreement agreeable to all parties. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this settlement legislation in the 104th Congress when our former colleague Sonny Bono pushed for its enactment. Congressman Bono tried to do the right thing by this tribe then and now Congresswoman Bono is continuing to fight for the tribe. I have been a proud sponsor of both bills and want to commend Mrs. Bono for all her hard work on behalf of this needy tribe. She has had to overcome a small but very well funded campaign of misinformation to bring the bill to this point. This settlement will provide for payments to the tribe for the two water districts and provides to them permanent drainage flowage easements. Further, the tribe agrees to drop all claims against the United States with regard to their worthless land and is permitted to purchase some 11,000 acres out of two boxes drawn within ancestral lands to use for the benefit of the tribe. It is important to note that this tribe has been unable, through no fault of their own, to use most of their land since 1876. This legislation has a wide range of support including the Imperial Irrigation and Coachella Valley Water Districts, the Department of Interior, the Department of Justice, numerous surrounding non Indian communities, several Members of Congress, and all local Indian tribes. I have letters from some of these supporters which I'd like entered into the record along with my statement. The bill before us today includes numerous concessions agreed to by the Torres-Martinez Tribe. Some I personally do not agree with, however I support the sovereign right of the tribe to make its own decisions and they have maintained legal representation througout the process. The path this bill has taken has been a painful and difficult one due to the earlier opposition of a lone, small, wealthy tribe. Garnering non Indian support to fairly assist needy Indian Tribes has always been a hard task and one I've gladly taken on throughout my 25 years serving in the House. However, tribe against tribe situations are the most difficult we deal with and when one side is vastly out spent in its efforts, it makes the situation all the more sad. I hope this is the last of such battles we will have to address. With that I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally end this sad chapter in our history. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, CA. Hon. Mary Bono, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Bono: On behalf of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians I wish to state that we support H.R. 4346. This bill contains a settlement agreement between the Torres-Martinez tribe, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District and the Federal Government. This agreement settles a 15-year-old lawsuit that is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court. The entire east valley community stands to benefit from the legislation. Advantages will include the fact that agriculture will obtain rights to run off water from the numerous farms in the area and the federal government will continue efforts to clean up the Salton Sea. As fellow Indian Nations we understand the hardships that the Torres-Martinez Band of Mission Indians have endured for nearly a century. A major injustice will be made right by the passage of this settlement agreement and we commit ourselves to help end this struggle. We are disappointed that the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians will not take this opportunity to help a fellow, disadvantaged nation, as they instead stand alone in their efforts to defeat this agreement. If we can provide your office with any information on this matter, please feel free to contact us at any time. Also, if requested, we would be pleased to provide the House Committee on Resources with testimony in support of this measure when it becomes appropriate. Yours truly, Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman, Tribal Council.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, California's 7th congressional district includes portions of Contra Costa and Solano Counties and is situated astride San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento River. Its economic, demographic and political history is deeply linked to its geography. Industry ranging from oil refining to shipping, an extensive Navy presence, and deep concerns about water quality and the environment--especially the protection of the Bay and the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta--have long been central features of the region. It is no accident that it was in Martinez, the Contra Costa County seat, Sierra Club founder John Muir resided and wrote his tracts that transformed our view of natural resource protection. The 7th district is also the site of significant national historical events from the era of World War II. At the site of the former Port Chicago Naval Weapons Magazine (currently the Concord Naval Weapons Station), the largest domestic loss of life during World War II occurred on July 17, 1944 when over 320 men, most of whom were black, were killed in a cataclysmic explosion. The subsequent refusal of black sailors, who were the subject of discrimination, to resume the loading of munitions led to the largest court martial in Navy history and a landmark civil rights case that helped facilitate President Truman's decision to integrate the armed forces later in the decade. Congress designated the site of the explosion as the Port Chicago National Memorial in 1992. In December of 1999, after a long effort I led with other lawmakers, activists, and veterans, President Clinton issued a Presidential pardon to Mr. Freddie Meeks of Los Angeles, one of the last remaining men who was court-martialed more than half a century ago. Richmond, California, on the 7th district's west side, was a small city when World War II began and the Kaiser Shipyards were created to build the Liberty and Victory ships that supported the war effort. Tens of thousands of new workers--including many minorities and women-- ballooned the local population and created the legendary ``Rosie the Riveter'' image. Together with providing women previously unavailable jobs in industrial plants, Richmond served as the epicenter of dramatic changes in American life that were to affect generations including racial and gender integration of the workplace, group health services and expansive child care. Congress is now completing action on my legislation to create a National Historic Site to commemorate the rich history of Richmond's contributions to ending WWII and changing our society forever. Those historic changes continue today with the conversion of the former century-old Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo to civilian uses including environmental protection and local economic development. The 7th district has an historic past and today is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay Area's economic, environmental, cultural and communications life.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the passage of H.R. 2296 is long overdue. This noncontroversial legislation allows the Virgin Islands Government to free up government revenue by reducing the size of their legislature and thereby redirecting the savings towards education, law enforcement, and other issues confronting their community. H.R. 2296 was first introduced by our colleague, Ms. Christian- Christensen, during the 105th Congress and though it passed the Resources Committee unanimously, we were unable to get it scheduled for floor consideration. I am pleased that we are finally taking action on this legislation today and hope that it provides some relief of our fellow Americans in the Virgin Islands who have not experienced the same level of economic prosperity we have enjoyed on the mainland. I commend the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for her work on this matter and urge full support of its passage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 755--the Guam War Claims Review Commission Act. I thank Mr. Underwood for his work on this substitute version of H.R. 755 which addresses concerns that have been raised in previous Congresses. This legislation has been, in one form or another, offered by every delegate from Guam to Congress since the people of Guam began electing delegates to Congress in the 1970's. In my years of service on the Resources Committee, I have had the privilege of meeting many from Guam who traveled a great distance to share their wartime memories of Japanese occupation. Their stories are compelling and regrettable. Their experiences often sounded unbelievable but they were very real. I recall an elder woman who came to testify before our Committee--Mrs. Beatrice Elmsley. She bore a scar along her neck. A permanent reminder of her attempted beheading at the hands of Japanese soldiers. To the American public, Guam's story is not widely well-known. The island's loyalty to the United States before, during, and after World War II has never been questioned. Our fellow citizens are proud and patriotic Americans and if they were not fully made whole from the atrocities they faced from Japanese occupation, then we should make a good faith effort to correct those errors. That we have been able to overcome concerns raised in the past over this legislation, while still recognizing the validity of reexamining war claim awards made to the people of Guam in the wake of World War II, is truly a milestone. We would not have reached this point if it weren't for the patience, diligence, and tenacity of Mr. Underwood. I congratulate him for his persistence and ask my colleagues to give this measure their full support.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for bringing this legislation forward and note that many of the speakers this morning talked about the educational aspect of this museum. Many of us have school children, young people who come and visit Washington as part of trips for various organizations or schools or social clubs and what have you, and when you talk to these young people when they come to our office and you ask them about their experience in Washington D.C., for those who had the opportunity to visit the Holocaust Museum, it is quite something to talk to these young people as they speak of their amazement, of their horror, and of their sadness visiting the museum, and the fact that but for the museum they may have never learned or they had not learned to date of the story of the Holocaust, of the history of the Holocaust and of the scale of the Holocaust. Clearly, a decision that was championed for so long by our former colleague Sidney Yates of Illinois, a decision by this Congress to establish this museum is clearly one that is paying back incredible dividends in terms of enriching the knowledge of history of young people and so many others in this country and from around the world about the Holocaust. I think the Congress should be very proud of the establishment of this museum. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) pointed out, at one point people thought maybe this was not wise, it should not be done, there was no constituency for it. But the fact of the matter is, that we now see it as among the most visited of the museums and sites in Washington D.C. When we establish these kinds of museums or the national parks or the wilderness areas, very often, as we find out, these are decisions that we make that keep giving back to this Nation, and they give back on a daily and a yearly basis as they enrich the lives and the understanding of the American people and others about our place in history, about the role of history and our consideration of the future. Clearly the Holocaust Museum is a major, major monument to that effort. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) reminds us, the Holocaust is not only about the past and about history, it is about a very deep consideration of human rights in the future and in current- day political struggles throughout the world. In many ways, that may be one of the finest gifts that the Holocaust Museum gives to each new generation as they take their place of position of authority, is to think about the Holocaust, and then to think about the tragedies that everyday people are suffering throughout the world at the hands of despots and those who seek power almost just for power's sake, but have to do it at the great price of another people so that they can achieve that kind of incredible totalitarian power over others. So it is with great respect that I support this legislation, and again thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and the cosponsors of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4115 is a noncontroversial measure that would legislatively establish the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as the institution with primary responsibility for our national remembrance to victims of the Holocaust. In addition, the bill provides for the permanent authorization of appropriations for the museum's operation. In 1980, Congress enacted Public Law 96-388 establishing a U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. Among the council's responsibilities was the planning, construction and operation of a permanent living memorial museum to the victims of the Holocaust in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agencies. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum opened to widespread acclaim in April 1993. Visitation to the museum has greatly exceeded our expectations. With more than 2 million visitors annually, it is one of the most visited museums in Washington, D.C. In addition, the museum has won awards for architectural and programmatic excellence. H.R. 4115 is based upon the recommendations of a study done by the National Academy of Public Administration on the governance and management of the council and the museum. The bill would establish the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum as the institution with primary responsibility for the mandates of the original Holocaust Memorial legislation. The existing Holocaust Memorial Council would be established as a board of directors of the museum with the council's director as the chief executive officer of the museum. The bill would also authorize the museum to retain and expend revenues generated from activities. The bill includes a permanent authorization of appropriations of such funds as may be necessary for the museum's operation. Mr. Chairman, we must assume that the Republican leadership had some time it needed to fill on the floor schedule because H.R. 4115 is a wholly noncontroversial measure that did not need to be brought to the floor under a rule. Nevertheless, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would draw our colleagues' attention to The New York Times and the Washington Post this morning where, after reviewing the Bush proposal on Medicare drug benefits, prescription drug benefits for our elderly, they draw the conclusion that, in fact, it is no benefit at all for millions of modest-income senior citizens in this country. In fact, it is a benefit that is illusory. It is a benefit that requires us to wait for the governor to put in place a new bureaucracy to provide for drug benefits. It is a benefit that can be charged any price for its premiums and, as they draw the conclusion, that millions and millions of Americans simply will not be able to afford it. Therefore, the benefit is of no value to them at all. More and more independent reviews of the Bush proposal are drawing this same conclusion, that it is only the appearance of a prescription drug benefit. It is not in fact a prescription drug benefit and that it would rely on the same private insurance companies that today are gouging people for health care or withdrawing health care from the elderly or denying them the services. The one thing the Bush proposal does do is it undermines the current Medicare system.