George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, a General Accounting Office report I requested on land exchanges confirms many of the concerns I have expressed over the past several years: too many land swaps by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service shortchange taxpayers and are not in the public interest. The GAO report released on July 12, entitled ``Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public Interest'' (GAO/RCED-00- 73), highlights numerous failings of the exchange program. GAO found that the agencies have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars swapping valuable public land for private land of questionable value, and the report concludes that the BLM may even be breaking the law. According to GAO, the agencies ``did not ensure that the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or that exchanges served the public interest or met certain other exchange requirements.'' GAO went on to state that ``the exchanges presented in our report demonstrate serious, substantive, and continuing problems with the agencies' land exchange programs.'' In addition, GAO found that the BLM has--under the umbrella of its land exchange authority--illegally sold federal land, deposited the proceeds into interest-bearing accounts, and used these funds to acquire nonfederal land (or arranged with other to do so). These unauthorized transactions undermine congressional budget authority, GAO said. The GAO recommended that Congress consider eliminating the programs altogether. I believe that the appropriate step is to halt the programs and then fix them. In light of the GAO's report, I have asked the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to immediately suspend their programs while they evaluate the best method to achieve their laudable goals. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to review the findings of the GAO report and to consider my call for a moratorium on land exchanges while the programs are being fixed. I am submitting for your review as well the letters I sent to the federal agencies yesterday and several newspaper articles on the GAO report. Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, Washington DC. Dear Secretary Babbitt: I am writing to request that you direct the Bureau of Land Management to enact a moratorium on land exchanges until the agency demonstrates that it can ensure all exchanges are in the public interest and of equal value, as required by law. In addition, the Bureau should immediately identify and cease all activities carried out under the land exchange authority umbrella that are not authorized by law. The agency should also thoroughly account for the funds used in these transactions. I am extremely concerned by the General Accounting Office's findings in its June, 2000 report entitled ``Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Service the Public Interest'' (GAO/RCED-00-73). GAO documented numerous instances in which valuable federal land was traded for private land worth significantly less. In addition, the report described exchanges in which the public interest being served was unclear. According to GAO, the Bureau ``did not ensure that the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or that exchanges served the public interest or met certain other exchange requirements'' GAO went on to state that ``the exchanges presented in our report demonstrate serious, substantive, and continuing problems with the agencies' land exchange programs.'' In addition, GAO found that the Bureau has--under the umbrella of its land exchange authority--illegally sold federal land, deposited the proceeds into interest-bearing accounts, and used these funds to acquire nonfederal land (or arranged with others to do so). I am also concerned by the Bureau's response to these findings; it appears that the Bureau would rather deny the problems than solve them. GAO reported that the Bureau is attempting to make superficial changes that do not adequately address these illegal land transactions. For example, according to GAO, the Bureau is renaming the disputed land transactions, calling them ``disposals'' rather than ``sales'' and ``acquisitions'' rather than ``purchases.'' In addition, the Bureau is switching from using cash in these transactions, to financial instruments, like bonds. According to GAO, the transactions are still not authorized by law and the Bureau's arguments to the contrary are ``circular and unconvincing.'' Many of the problems highlighted by GAO are not new and have been reported on by the Inspector General and in numerous news accounts. While I am supportive of the Bureau's ongoing efforts to address these concerns, such as creating a national review team, these changes have not yet produced sufficient results. The Bureau's moratorium should suspend all pending exchanges for which a decision has not yet been signed and halt the initiation of new exchanges. Before the Bureau considers lifting the moratorium, the Inspector General should complete a comprehensive review of procedures and pending exchanges and certify that the agency has sufficient control of the program and can ensure that all exchanges are of equal value and in the public interest. The IG review should include a close look at exchanges involving third- party facilitators, which may be more likely than other exchanges to lead to inequitable results. As the Bureau works to regain control over its exchange program, it may want to consider ways to improve appraisals, better incorporate the public in its process, reduce the influence of third parties and project proponents. Some specific reforms the Bureau should evaluate include: the automatic release of all appraisal information to the public upon completion of review by the agency appraiser limits on the ability of proponents to select appraisers; application of the NEPA and NHPA requirements in Muckleshoot v. Forest Service to all exchanges; incorporation of the agency's priorities for acquisition in the exchange process; release of a schedule of all proposed land exchanges; inclusion of maps with the legal description of an exchange; reforms of the appeal process; greater notification of adjacent landowners; and the compilation of better system-wide financial and environmental information on all exchanges. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, George Miller, Member of Congress.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4063, which is to create the Rosie the Riveter-World War II Home Front National Historic Park. By passing this bill today and sending it over to hopefully expeditious consideration in the other body, we honor all of those who served in the war, in uniform and in coveralls, wearing helmets or bandanas, hoisting a machine gun or a welder's torch. The Rosie the Riveter National Park would salute the role of the home front during World War II, particularly recognizing the significant changes in the lives of women and minorities that occurred during that era. I am very pleased by the wide support this legislation has received not only in our home community of Richmond, California, but from groups like Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for their solid support for this legislation, which will give this House an opportunity to go on record as honoring the millions of women who served in the home front during World War II. I want to thank the members of the Committee on Resources who voted unanimously to report this legislation to the House last month. There has been a great deal of discussion about the significance of World War II this year which marks the 55th anniversary of the end of that horrific conflict. Just last month, the D-Day Museum was opened in New Orleans with a great deal of attention paid to the critical role in the successful invasion of the Higgins boat and those who manufactured it. H.R. 4063 allows this Nation to honor permanently, through the creation of a national historic park, all of the millions of women and minorities in particular who were the forgotten soldiers of World War II, those who made enormous contributions to this Nation during World War II on the home front. Their migration to industrial centers like Richmond, California, and their ability to move into jobs formerly held only by white males who had moved into the Armed Forces changed the course of the war, the course of history, and the course of social and economic policies in this country forever. It should be noted that thousands of them gave their lives as part of the war effort. I would like to note that in the report from the National Park Service, they note that between Pearl Harbor in 1941 and January of 1944, that 37,000 people lost their lives on the home front working to build the military mechanism that we used to defeat the Axis, that over 4 million people were temporarily disabled, and 210,000 people were permanently disabled. So in fact the war, the war that World War II was creating, was creating the casualties also on the home front for those who responded to the national need. Rosie the Riveter has survived as the most remembered icon of the civilian workforce that helped win World War II and had a powerful resonance in the women's movement, the National Park Service tells us in their feasibility study. The National Park Service also found that the Rosie the Riveter-World War II Home Front National Historic Park is nationally significant and that Richmond offers an exceptional opportunity to interpret the many layers of World War II home front experience, including migration and resettlement for jobs, integration of the workforce, industrial and employee service innovations, and the remarkable effort by government, industry, communities and unions to enable America to win the war. At the hearing we held on this bill, we heard from former Rosies and Wendy the Welders, through the moving testimony of Ludie Mitchell. We heard what it was like for minority women to journey from the South to the West Coast of the United States, to areas that they had never been, had never seen and had barely heard of, to take up a welder's torch, to climb into the belly of a ship under construction and do their job and at one point complete the construction of that ship within 4 days. We also heard from Ruth Powers, who worked in the child care center which was necessitated by the construction schedule in the Kaiser shipyards for 24-hour child care. In fact, what we found in the discussions during the hearing was that today as we talk about the 24 and 7 economy, the fact that dot coms and the new technology cause people to work around the clock with the globalization of the economy, what in fact we find out that 24 and 7 existed long before that. It existed in the home front battle in World War II where we had 24-hour child care, 24-hour food service, 24-hour health care, movie shows ran 24-hour schedules and in many instances boarding houses ran 24-hour schedules because one shift would sleep while the other shift was working and then the others would come in so that there would be enough housing for all of the workers who migrated to the West Coast shipyards in Richmond, California. What this legislation is really about is about a celebration of the American spirit. It is about a celebration of Americans' ability to sacrifice. It is about a celebration of Americans responding to the call of the country to the national need and responding to problems in other parts of the world, because that is what America did in the home front during World War II. America responded with every being in the country to contribute to that effort. As white America, white male America went off to the war, quickly the Roosevelt administration found itself with the inability to conduct that war because America was not prepared for that war. So some 10 million people went off to military service. That meant that somebody else was going to have to take the jobs in the shipyards and the tank manufacturing facilities and all of the war material plants across this country. That fell to Rosie the Riveter and to minority workers, who were not allowed at that time to join the battle front. They had to stay on the home front. And respond they did. In my hometown of Richmond, California, a sleepy western town on the edge of San Francisco Bay, it went from 23,000 people to over 90,000 people in a matter of months, as Henry Kaiser responded to the call of President Roosevelt to create the infrastructure to build the ships. In the 1930s, I think I am correct, America launched about 30 ships. In the 1940s, very few, until the war started. In this shipyard we built over 747 ships, and at one point in the historical report they tell us the Robert E. Perry liberty ship was constructed in Richmond Shipyard Number 2 in 4 days, 15 hours and 29 minutes and it was ready to go battle overseas. In 4 days, 15 hours, the shipyard workers constructed a liberty ship. That is one of the remarkable efforts that is celebrated by this legislation and would be celebrated by the Rosie the Riveter Park. It is also celebrated as the integration of the workforce. For the first time, out of the South blacks and whites were forced to work together if in fact we were going to defeat our enemies in World War II. So in this case, not only was the workforce becoming more female, it was becoming integrated. Again, that changed the social dynamics, not only of our civilian structure, where people were living in the same housing, there was no time to segregate them, it was too expensive, people came together in integration in the workplace, in child care centers and health care facilities, and in housing, but eventually it also changed to the integration of the armed services in responding to this. But it was not just the Rosie the Riveters and the welders responding and sacrificing and responding to the call of President Roosevelt and the needs of our nation. Other Americans were doing the same thing. Those of that generation will remember the efforts to ration gasoline, to ration all the critical materials, any metals, rubber, tires, bicycles, vacuum cleaners. All of these things had to last. They had to last longer than normal because we needed the materials for the Second World War. Some people will remember the slogans: ``Use it all up. Don't waste it. Wear it out. Make it do or do without.'' Victory gardens cropped up all over the Nation, all part of the home front battle. The effort of this legislation is to remember that and create a repository for so many of the artifacts that continue to exist, to create oral histories of the women and the men and the minorities that worked in the shipyards and the home front effort. A couple of years ago, under the leadership of Councilwoman Donna Powers, we had a celebration in Richmond, California, where, to the best of our knowledge, we tried to invite many the women who worked in the shipyards during World War II to come back and to participate in the celebration, recognizing their contribution to the winning of World War II. The fact is that over 100 women came from all across the country, with their daughters, with their granddaughters. In some cases granddaughters and daughters came because their mother or grandmother had passed on, but they wanted to come see where their mother or grandmother or great grandmother worked and to participate in that piece of history. Hopefully the creation of this Home Front Historic Park will allow other families to participate in that historic journey on behalf of their families and the contributions that these women made to winning the war effort. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would give its overwhelming support to this legislation so that we can follow up on the finding of value of this park by the National Park Service and we can pay proper tribute to all of those who participated in the battle for the home front. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4063 which would create the ``Rosie the Riveter-World War II Home Front National Historic Park.'' By passing this bill today, and sending it over to hopefully expeditious consideration in the other body, we honor all those who served in the war, in uniform and in coveralls, wearing helmets or bandanas, hoisting a machine gun or a welder's torch. The Rosie the Riveter National Historic Park would salute the role of the home front during World War II, and particularly recognize the significant changes in the lives of women and minorities that occurred during that ear. I am very pleased by the wide support this legislation has received not only in our home community of Richmond, California, but from groups like Kaiser Permanents and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I want to thank Chairman Don Young of the Resources Committee, and Parks Subcommittee Chairman Jim Hansen for their solid support for this legislation, and for expediting consideration of this bipartisan and noncontroversial legislation so that the House would have the opportunity to go on record as honoring the millions of women who served on the home front during World War II. And I also want to thank the members of the Resources Committee who voted unanimously to report this legislation to the House last month. There has been a great deal of discussion about the significance of World War II this year, which marks the 55th anniversary of the end of that horrific conflict. And just last month, D-Day museum was opened in New Orleans, and a great deal of attention was paid to the critical role in the successful invasion of the Higgins boat and those who manufactured it. H.R. 4063 allows the nation to honor permanently, through creation of a National Historic Park, all of the millions of women and minorities in particular who were the ``forgotten soldiers'' of World War II-- those who made enormous contributions to this nation during World War II on the home front. Their migration to industrial centers like Richmond, and their ability to move into jobs formerly held only by white males who had moved into the armed forces, changed the course of the war, the course of history, and the course of social and economic policies in this country forever. And, it should be noted, thousands of them gave their lives as part of the war effort. As the National Park Service Feasibility Study on the project concluded, ``Rosie the Riveter has survived as the most remembered icon of the civilian work force that helped win World War II and has a powerful resonance in the women's movement.'' This legislation has been carefully developed by local officials and organizations in the Richmond and East Bay Area in conjunction with the National Parks Service pursuant to legislation enacted by the last Congress. The bill is based on the Feasibility Study prepared pursuant to that legislation. I would note that Assistant Secretary Donald Barry has stated: ``The study found that the area proposed as the Rosie the Riveter-World War II Home Front National Historic Park is nationally significant [and that] Richmond offers an exceptional opportunity to interpret the many layers of World War II Home Front experience, including migration and resettlement for jobs, integration of the workforce, industrial and employee service innovations, and the remarkable efforts by government, industry, communities and unions to enable America to win the war.'' At the hearing we held on this bill, we heard from former Rosies and Wendy the Welders--through the moving testimony of Ludie Mitchell. We heard what it was like for minority women to journey to new areas of the country, to take up welders' torches and climb into the belly of ships under construction, building, in one case, a complete ship in just four days. We also heard from Ruth Powers, who worked in the child care center that was necessitated by the round-the-clock schedule of the Kaiser Shipyards. In fact, child care and group health pioneered by Kaiser were among the most historic social developments to emerge from World War II, and at the Rosie Historic Site, we have original buildings from both. We also have some of the remaining dry docks where the Liberty and Victory ships were constructed, and some of the unique architecture that was transformed into war production facilities or built to accommodate defense needs. The full story of the Home Front's contributions and sacrifices during the war, and Richmond's particular contributions to that effort, are outlined in the Feasibility Study at this point. Excerpts from Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front Final Feasibility Study Report, National Park Service (June 2000): In the first year of America's entry to World War II, the U.S. Navy was losing ships faster than they could be built. In the 1930's America had launched only 23 ships. In 1940, it took 14 months to build a typical cargo ship. By 1945, it was being done in eight weeks. Four shipyards were built in rapid succession in Richmond beginning in early 1941 and completed by 1942. Employment at the Richmond Shipyards peaked at 90,000 and, along with the rest of the defense industry buildup, forced a national recruitment and migration of workers and integration of the work force that was unprecedented in its magnitude and impact. As America went to war, its people fought overseas on the battle fronts and pitched in on the home front; ten million people departed the civilian workplace for active military service. Industry, challenged to undertake a massive overnight buildup, aggressively began recruiting and training an effective workforce from the population left behind. ``Rosie the Riveter'' was a propaganda phrase coined to help recruit female civilian workers and came to symbolize a workface that was mobilized to fill the gap. ``Wendy the Welder'' was another less glamorized icon, who in real life was Janet Doyle, a welder in the Richmond Shipyards. After some initial resistance from employers, women replaced men in many traditionally male stateside jobs to support World War II Home Front production efforts as men enlisted in active military service. People of color encountered more lengthy resistance, but ultimately were brought in the Home Front workforce. The four Richmond Shipyards, built by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser's firm . . . employed 90,000 including tens of thousands of women of all ages and backgrounds. In Richmond, these women helped build 747 ships in record time for use by the United States Navy and Merchant Marine. Their labor marked an unprecedented entry into jobs never before performed by women and played a critical role in increasing American productivity to meet the demand for ships to overturn the German and Japanese strategy to defeat the U.S. Navy. These four shipyards constitute the largest World War II shipyard operation in the U.S. Richmond also had 55 other wartime support industries and one of the nation's largest wartime housing programs. The Ford Assembly Plant converted from automobile to tank production during the war, processing over 60,000 tanks plus a variety of other military vehicles. Nationwide six million women entered the World War II Home Front workforce. The employment opportunities for black women and other women of color were unprecedented. African Americans, Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans were eventually employed for the first time to work side by side with whites in specialized, high-paying jobs previously unavailable to them. Women and people of color earned more money than they ever had and mastered job skills that had been solely performed by white men up to that point. Many of the Home Front industries were set up at the nexus of railroad lines and harbors where materials could be assembled and shipped overseas. Richmond was ideally situated as a West Coast rail terminus on San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate opening to the Pacific Ocean. During World War II, Richmond's population grew dramatically from 23,642 to over 100,000 attracting people from all over the country. By 1944, 27% of the Richmond Shipyards workforce of 90,000 were women, including over 41% of all welders and 24% of all craft employees. Another 10,000 workers, including commuters from other Bay Area cities and towns, worked in Richmond's 55 other war industries. The jobs available at World War II Home Front industrial complexes attracted and actively recruited-workers from across the country resulting in massive, mostly permanent population relocations. Many, who relocated from poor, rural places and marginal jobs such as sharecropping, were determined to stay on after World War II. The cities where the World War II industries mobilized were confronted with overwhelming demands on housing, transportation, community services, shopping, and infrastructure. To enable the 24-hour production, the largest companies, such as Kaiser, and the public sector cooperated to provide round the clock child care, food service, health care, and employee services. Despite their best efforts, many workers often had to settle for marginal housing, long lines for purchases and lengthy commutes, in addition to the other Home Front sacrifices. Working conditions on the Home Front could be difficult and dangerous and took a very high toll. A January 21, 1944 New York times article cited: ``Industrial casualties (women and men) between Pearl Harbor and January 1st of this year aggregated 37,500 killed, or 7,500 more than the military dead, 210,000 permanently disabled, and 4,500,000 temporarily disabled, or 60 times the number of military wounded and missing.'' While the ultimate United States casualty count on the Battle Front reached 295,000, the additional casualties on the Home Front represent the full price America paid to win the War. For most Americans, the World War II Home Front experience also involved many day-to-day adjustments to support the War effort. These adaptations involved: collection and recycling of strategic materials such as metal, paper, waste fat, nylon, silk, and rubber. Twenty common commodities, including gasoline, sugar, coffee, shoes, butter, and meat, were carefully rationed. Tires, cars, bicycles, vacuum cleaners, waffle irons and flashlights had to last because they were no longer manufactured. People were asked to ``Use it up/Wear it out/Make it do/or Do without.'' Victory gardens cropped up everywhere. Everyone bought war bonds. National parks were closed. Women replaced men in professional sports leagues, orchestras and many other tasks. As World War II drew to a close, war-related industry jobs peaked in early 1945 and began to shut down as the last battles were fought. After the war, jobs for women and people of color diminished dramatically. Post-war jobs were largely reserved for returning servicemen. Propaganda messages were re-phrased from telling women to come to work to advise them that their appropriate roles were not at home. While most assumed those who relocated to the Home Front industrial sites would return to where they came from, the majority of migrants were determined to stay. The World War II Home Front in Richmond was representative of other industrial centers that emerged specifically to support America's war effort. Many of those who worked in Richmond's industries are part of the community today. The effort to preserve these historic sites has been led by the City of Richmond, including Mayor Rosemary Corbin and Councilman Tom Butt, former Councilwoman Donna Powers, and local preservationists including Donna Graves. They have generated not only plans, but substantial financial resources to support the restoration and maintenance of the historic structures. The National Park Service will play a key role in developing the Site, including the maintenance of a visitors' center and services, but the major financial responsibilities will remain with the local community. I do want to pay tribute to Regional Director John Reynolds and Ray Murray of the National Park Service who have played a key role in producing the Feasibility Study and in working closely with the local groups to finalize this project and develop the legislation before us today. This legislation pays tribute to all those who participated, contributed and sacrificed on the home front during World War II. They fought that greatest war for all of us, and this legislation will ensure that future generations of Americans know what they did, and honor them for their sacrifices.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for this legislation. I think we would make a terrible mistake if we thought about this in very narrow terms, if we thought about this simply as a matter of dollars. Obviously, we have an obligation to think about the dollars that we expend. This legislation is drafted with that in mind, and the requirements for self-sufficiency. We did this when we acquired the Presidio and created the national park there after the Army left, in San Francisco. We did that because we recognized that this was one of the unique natural assets in our Nation. Today we do the same thing with the Baca Ranch. It is not like we discovered this ranch yesterday. It is not like people just all of a sudden realized this was of value. People have recognized this as a value, a natural asset in this country, for many, many years. We now have the opportunity, through the cooperation of the family, to make this a part of our Federal land base, a land base that is envied around the world; a land base that, as many will find with the Baca Ranch, in many ways become economic generators to communities because tourists want to see these protected lands, whether it is the headwaters of the rivers or whether it is the great valleys of this ranch or the wildlife. Fortunately, this Nation, this Congress, and Presidents of both parties have continued to acquire these lands. It is not to acquire them willy-nilly, it is to acquire them based upon a set of values and a set of assets that are unique, that are important to the history and the heritage of this country. Clearly the Baca Ranch qualifies in every category, however we measure it. But if we thought about it in very narrow terms, we probably never would have done Yosemite, we never would have created the Tetons, Yellowstone, Arches, the Gateways, any of these great national parks and wilderness areas and Federal preserves in this country. This is to protect it for future generations. That is what we have done best in this country. That is why other governments send people here to look at this and to see how they can manage lands and open them up for recreation, how we can have the public participate in the utilization of these lands, and at the same time protect them for future generations. I would hope that this House would give overwhelming support for this legislation. This is truly one of the gifts we give this Nation to be enjoyed by future generations, to preserve and protect the uniqueness of this ranch which was fortunately held in one ownership for so many years, and cared for in the manner in which it was cared for. The House ought to recognize that and support this legislation, and thank our two colleagues from New Mexico for getting this matter before the House of Representatives, and thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his stewardship of this legislation through the Committee on Resources.

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 this legislation, H.R. 4579, that would ratify an agreement reached May 30 between Interior Secretary Babbitt and Utah Governor Levitt to exchange Federal and State lands in the West Desert of Utah. Such legislation is necessary because the proposed exchange does not comply with the requirements of the Federal Land Policy Management Act and other applicable law. The agreement between the Secretary and the Governor has only recently been finalized, and the hearing held by the Committee on Resources raised several questions. Fortunately, I think we have been able to address the questions that were raised with respect to appraisal of these lands and the process by which the BLM went through this and raised concerns about the general, if you will, BLM appraisal process with respect to land exchanges. Clearly here the worry was that valuation methods were used that had no basis in law or policy and could not stand up to the appraisal standards. But I think the fact of the matter is that while that process was far from ideal, I think also we have a unique situation here in the sense that there is a benefit in this exchange, especially in the fact that we will have the opportunity to consolidate Federal land holdings in many wilderness study areas and other lands found to have significant wilderness qualities, and I think that is important. So some of these lands in and of them themselves may not have great value, but in terms of management and the consolidation impact, I think that clearly this exchange is needed, and I believe the bill now contains provisions that will provide reasonable process for assessing the value of the proposed land exchange before it is implemented. The language provides that the Secretary and the State of Utah will each prepare a statement of value for the lands to be exchanged. In addition, the two parties will select an independent qualified appraiser who will review those statements of values and all relevant documentation to determine if the lands are of approximately equal value. I think this in fact will make the bill acceptable. I really want to thank the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), for all of the effort that he has put into this legislation to address these concerns. I think it is clearly a bill that the House should now support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance much my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4132, a bill to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1984. This legislation extends the authorization's important program for 5 years and provides a modest increase in the authorization of appropriations. The water research program has provided us with extraordinary benefits for many years, and I would ask that all Members support the legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I support H. Res. 415 and urge all Members to do the same. The oceans are vital to the welfare of this Nation and its people. The idea of taking one day annually to remind people why they need to appreciate our oceans and coasts should attract broad bipartisan support. Much of today's public awareness in the environment is attributed to the establishment 30 years ago of the first Earth Day. But as much as I applaud the success of Earth Day, it is my impression that we can and should do more to inform the public about the many threats confronting our oceans and coasts. I have been encouraged by recent efforts of the Clinton administration that have focused public attention on ocean issues such as the International Year of the Reef in 1997, and the International Year of the Ocean in 1998. But it appears to me that an annual event to rally public support and interest in the oceans is needed if we are to sustain long-term public awareness. H. Res. 415 would be a very helpful step in that direction, and I commend our colleague from Hawaii, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, for proposing this resolution. I also commend the Chairman of the Fisheries Subcommittee, Mr. Saxton, and the ranking Democrat, Mr. Faleomavaega, for their support and cooperation in fine-tuning the resolution while it was under consideration by the Resources Committee. I urge all Members to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to join my colleague from Oregon in calling for the support of this legislation to establish the Centennial Committee to coordinate the 100th anniversary of the refuge system. Our National Wildlife Refuge system is one of the most magnificent land systems that we have in this country. It is the only system that we have where lands are set aside exclusively for the protection and conservation of fish, wildlife, and their habitats, and it is something that we can be very proud of as a nation. It is envied by countries all over the world for the foresight that so many people in different locations had to try and protect these available ecosystems and the refuge systems to protect fish and wildlife. I also want to recognize that the workload of the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage these refuges has continued to soar as the public has continued to want to enjoy them, as they become outdoor schoolrooms for children to learn about fish and wildlife, for communities to learn about the interaction of fish and wildlife and our environment. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the Audubon Society, and others for working out an amendment to the legislation with the Department of the Interior.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the Members obviously have made a compelling case, the case that we heard in committee for the protection of the Cahaba River. I would hope that all Members would support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for explaining this legislation. He has done more than an adequate job explaining the values of the Deschutes Resources Conservancy and I urge Members to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 129, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for bringing this to the floor. We frequently hear concerns regarding the adequacy of education our children are receiving in the areas of math, science, and technology. Indeed, our committee, Congress, and the community as a whole currently focuses a great deal of attention on improving programs aimed at increasing the literacy of students in these subjects. We should, of course, continue to pursue excellence in the areas of math, science and technology, if we intend for the United States to remain a world leader in the increasingly competitive global economy. However, is it not just as important that our citizens understand and appreciate the history of this great Nation, the democratic principles that define and sustain this Nation, such as liberty, justice, tolerance and equality under the law? For in the words of the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, ``If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.'' However, as my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), has already stated, according to a recent study commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, knowledge of American history in today's students is sorely lacking. According to this study, which surveyed students from the top colleges and universities of this Nation, less than 20 percent of today's students could pass a high school level American history exam. Barely half possess the basic knowledge about American democracy and the Constitution. We are not talking here about very difficult subjects, but we are talking about the great history of this country, the great history of the documents and theories of government that govern this Nation. We are talking about the roles of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These are basic fundamental tenets of this Nation. They are also basic and fundamental tenets that so many other nations aspire to, and yet we find out that knowledge of these documents and of this Nation's history is sorely lacking. The purpose of this resolution is to call attention to that problem and to try and get people to understand the need to pursue the knowledge of history in this country and the history of this Nation to better serve the Nation as we govern it. I would like to thank the involvement of John Patrick Diggins, one of my former professors, at that time at San Francisco State who is now at the State University in New York, and I want to thank again my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and Senator Lieberman and Senator Gorton for introducing this legislation in the Senate, and I would hope that all of my colleagues would support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), for introducing this amendment. I rise in support of this amendment, unfortunately, it was struck on a point of order, to limit the purchases of sugar to $54 million. The U.S. sugar program represents Congress at its worst. It takes precious resources held by the U.S. taxpayer and funnels them to private businessmen who are multimillionaires. The sugar program is nothing but corporate welfare that has survived solely due to the generous financial contributions from a very narrow interest groups. My colleague knows the sugar program props up the price of sugar by restricting imports and guaranteeing the repayment of sugar loans if the price falls too low. But the sugar program is a failure. Prices keep falling. The government is spending our money in a desperate attempt to salvage its own mess. Taxpayers should not be asked to support this. Twice taxpayers were robbed under the sugar program. First the program inflates the price of sugar. That means consumers pay more. In fact, the Government Accounting Office has been reported here as paying almost $2 billion more than they would otherwise. Then, because the price support actually creates an incentive to grow too much sugar, the price of sugar goes down from oversupply, and the taxpayers pay directly to buy up sugar stored in an effort to prop up the price again. I think the average American understands the program quite well and they do not like it. My office got a call the other day from a man down in Donaldsonville, Louisiana, an area where they grow a lot of sugar. The man says he owns a small dry cleaning business. He said, ``Wouldn't it be nice if the government guaranteed me a steady price during slow times? With sugar, the richest farmers in this country are getting bailed out by the government. It just isn't right.'' That man in Donaldsonville, Louisiana, understands sugar. He does not need a GAO report or USDA analysis. He lives in sugar country. He sees how it works. Who benefits from the sugar program? The GAO has said that only two industries benefit, sugar beet growers and sugar cane growers. But the benefit handsomely is tuned to $1 billion in additional profits, $1 billion extra, thanks to the program. Consider some of these allegedly needy farmers. One of the largest beneficiaries is the sugar family of the Fanjuls, estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and who own extensive properties in Florida and the Dominican Republic. They also contribute vast sums to both political parties to ensure that this program stays alive. The Fanjul family Members and business executives alone have contributed over $2 million in the past three election cycles, but they have figured out how this program works. They have figured out how it works twice. First, they grow sugar in Florida and sell it at inflated prices guaranteed by the government. They earn an additional $50 to $65 million per year from the sugar production of Florida, thanks to this program. Next, on top of that, they also grow sugar in the Dominican Republic, one of the countries with a guaranteed contract to export sugar to the United States, because of a treaty obligation. But the import comes to the U.S. at inflated U.S. prices, not at the lower prices on the world. Therefore, the Fanjuls, the biggest growers of Dominican Republic sugar, sell the sugar to the U.S. under the import quota and are estimated to earn an additional $80 million than they would otherwise earn because of the inflated prices under this program. It is very smart business for them and it could only happen because of the U.S. Government and the Congress' complacency in this program. Mr. Chairman, the sugar program is making a number of sugar growers very rich, but it is a failure as a policy. That is why the USDA had to take an unprecedented step earlier this year for the direct purchase of 130,000 tons of sugar this spring for $54 million, 130,000 tons of sugar they do not know what to do with. They cannot put it on the market, sell it overseas, they cannot give it away. It is just $54 million that is sitting in a dark warehouse somewhere, taxpayer dollars, taxpayer dollars to buy sugar that nobody wants and nobody can let them put on the market, because if they put it on the market, the price would go lower and we would have to buy more sugar. If we put that on the market, the price would go lower and we would have to buy more sugar. Do Members see why this is important? The $54 million was just the opening bid for sugar in this country. But if we have the U.S. taxpayers' purse, if we have open access to that, we can put down another $54 million in a couple of months, and then when the Mexicans import 250,000 tons of sugar, we can put another $54 million. Do Members get the idea? Do Members get the idea that maybe the U.S. taxpayer is being robbed to prop up the sugar industry that is failing? It is failing because of this support program. Refiners are going out of business, farmers are going out of business. Yet, we are keeping a very narrow band of these farmers in business. We ought to stop this program now. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), is quite right in offering this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is a popular, effective and completely voluntary program. Claims that the program somehow violates property rights have been rejected by this Congress, the courts and the communities who participate in the Initiative. Having failed to abolish this program outright, the anti-river forces are now attempting to starve the program to death through a series of small funding cuts. These attacks are unwarranted, unwise and should be defeated. background The American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI) was first proposed during President Clinton's 1997 State of the Union Address. The program was actually established in September, 1997 through Executive Order, after an extensive notice and comment period. The notice and comment period included a series of public meetings held around the country. One hundred and twenty-six rivers in 46 states were nominated for designation and, in 1998, President Clinton selected 14 of those rivers, running through portions of 25 states, for designation. The rivers selected in the first round include some of the most vital waterways in America including the Hudson, Mississippi, Rio Grande, and Potomac Rivers. Contrary to the claims of opponents of the program, AHRI remains extremely popular. Nearly 200 Members of Congress, more than 500 mayors, and 21 Governors have expressed support for the AHRI. CEQ receives new nominations, in addition to the 126 received in the first round, regularly. what ahri does The program allows local communities to voluntarily nominate a river in their area for designation as an American Heritage River. For those rivers selected, a ``River Navigator'' is appointed to help coordinate federal, state and local efforts to protect the qualities which made the river eligible for designation in the first place. Anyone who has attempted to navigate the sea of federal, state and local grant and technical assistance programs understands why a river navigator working on behalf of each of these rivers is necessary. AHRI is designed to identify some of the most important waterways in this nation and make certain that any and all efforts to protect those rivers are as targeted and well coordinated as possible. The program is about achieving managerial efficiency and using federal resources to leverage private funds. what AHRI does not do The American Heritage Rivers Program is in no way a federal ``land grab.'' The program involves no land acquisition or condemnation authority. AHRI is not an attempt to limit the use of private property. The program involves no new regulatory authority of any kind. The AHRI does not waste a single tax dollar. The program does not involve the expenditure of any new funds. Rather, the program takes money that likely would have been spent on general water quality programs or other environmental protection efforts and attempts to focus and leverage those funds more effectively. The program has no international component. Claims that this initiative is somehow part of a U.N. conspiracy to control America, a claim which has been made regarding this program, simply have no basis in fact. effects of the limitation in the base bill Language inserted in the base bill would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to carry out the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Specifically, this would prohibit the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the Department of Agriculture from participating in the program. The effect would be two-fold. First, the NRCS is the conservation assistance arm of the Agriculture Department. This limitation would prohibit NRCS experts from working with local communities, which have requested assistance, to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, re-vegetate eroded areas, restore habitat and wetlands and help create economic development opportunities. The limitation leaves the AHRI program standing but robs the program, and the 14 rivers and 25 states included in the program, of expertise critical to achieving the goals of the program. A second effect is even more devastating. A representative of the NRCS happens to be co-chair of the Interagency Task Force which coordinates the AHRI. If the language stays in the bill, it would cripple the entire initiative by removing one of its current leaders. Rather than address the program on its merits, this funding limitation, another like it in at least we other appropriations bills, seeks to weaken the program by robbing it of crucial know-how and manpower. conclusion Attempts to abolish the American Heritage Rivers Initiative are based on misunderstanding of the program and, in some cases, purposeful mischaracterizations. Legislation to end the program never made it to the floor and a lawsuit challenging the program failed. AHRI is fiscally and environmentally responsible, which is why it is so popular. This attempt to strip the program of the tools it needs to continue succeeding should be defeated.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of this important legislation, sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska. As Members of this body know, the Chairman of the Committee on Resources is a forceful advocate for his Alaska constituents. The bill before the House today has improved in numerous respects from the version reported by the Committee last April. As a result of changes made to accommodate NOAA's concerns, it is my understanding that the Administration supports the bill as amended. The history of our involvement in the Pribilof Islands, as is the case with many Alaska matters, is long and complex. Prior to the purchase of Alaska in 1867, Aleut Natives had been enslaved by the Russians to exploit fur seals. In 1910, Congress passed a law which regulated the seal harvest and provided federal support for the Native residents of the islands of St. Paul and St. George. With the Fur Seal Act of 1965, and substantial amendments to that Act in 1983, Congress has attempted to provide for a transition from federal management to local control and self-sufficiency on these remote islands. Clearly, it is vital that the government meet its obligations to the people of the Pribilofs, including the timely completion of environmental cleanup of contaminated federal property. With the changes that have been incorporated, this legislation is intended to responsibly close out the U.S. obligations and liabilities on the Pribilof Islands as established under the Fur Seal Act. In an attempt to strike a responsible balance in this bill, there are now caps on the amounts authorized for the economic assistance grants to the Native entities and local governments. At the request of the Minority, auditing and reporting requirements have been included for these grants. Minority concerns have also been addressed by language stating that funds authorized by this bill should not supplant NOAA appropriations as enacted in FY 2000. NOAA programs such as severe weather forecasting and the management of commercial fisheries benefit every region of the country. This language affirms the intent of Congress that funding for concluding the transition in the Pribilofs should not come at the expense of other important NOAA programs. Mr. Speaker, I again commend the gentleman from Alaska and his staff for working with all interested parties to improve this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3417 as amended.

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and have cosponsored its companion in the House with the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, this is a rather dramatic migration of billions of birds that takes place every year, but the populations of many of these birds are, in fact, threatened. This legislation is designed to take a proactive approach to reversing the decline of the neotropical migratory birds' populations. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic striped bass is an important commercial and recreational fish found along the U.S. East Coast from the Saint Lawrence River in Canada to the Saint John's River in Florida. The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act was first passed in 1984, and since then has been an effective mechanism for enforcing the interstate fishery management plan for the striped bass, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has explained the bill. There is not much more to say about this bill. It is a simple land transfer bill, and the land will be conveyed at a price that fairly reflects the value of the property. I urge our colleagues to support the legislation.

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

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has properly explained the bill, and I am pleased to rise in support of this important legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Alaska. As Members of this body know, the chairman of the Committee on Resources is a forceful advocate for his Alaska constituents. The bill before the House today is improved in numerous respects from the version reported by the committee last April. As a result of the changes made to accommodate NOAA's concerns, it is my understanding the administration now supports the bill as amended. There is also an attempt here to strike a responsible balance in this bill. There are now caps in the amounts authorized for the economic assistance grants to the Aleut Natives and to local governments, and I urge the Members of the House to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave