George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the recent rise in energy prices should serve as a wake-up call for the Republican leadership in Congress. From legislative obstruction that prevents improved auto fuel efficiency to gutting the budgets for energy conservation and efficiency programs, the Republicans in Congress have set the American people up to be exploited by OPEC. Now, as the predicted crisis hits, the Republicans offer solutions that are as bankrupt and empty as their legislative record over the past five years: Republicans vote for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. The Republican Whip declares that ``the cleanest thing you could do is to drill [for oil] off the coast of California and Florida,'' repealing the moratoria on offshore oil drilling. Republicans want to repeal the gas taxes that are paying for urgently needed transportation improvements throughout America. These are the same leaders who have repeatedly advocated the abolition of the Department of Energy and promoted the export to Asia of domestic oil from Alaska, all the while slashing programs designed to make America less dependent on foreign fuels. As the Nation prepares for the celebration of Earth Day, these vigorously anti-environmental initiatives by the Republican leadership are extraordinarily ill-timed. But that should not come as a great surprise from a party whose third-ranking leader in the House of Representatives has been quoted as likening the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo. There is no easy or instant solution to make us more energy independent. Thanks to the budget cuts embraced by the Republican leadership, we have lost years of critical research and development in energy conservation and efficiency programs that were requested by the Clinton administration. Instead of anti-environmental Republican policies, we should be working together to make the daily activities of Americans more energy- friendly. Who wouldn't want to drive a more fuel efficient car, live in a home that is better insulated, or have utilities which use less water and electricity? These kinds of measures can save much more oil than would ever be produced from the Arctic Refuge and without environmental destruction. The Republican strategy is to trade energy efficiency for environmental catastrophe. That is not a sane national energy policy. That is a choice the American people should not have to make, and it is a choice they rightly reject.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In just 3 weeks, we will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of the first Earth Day. And just like the return of spring, the coming Earth Day has spurred the majority to renew their annual migration to the House floor with legislation to supposedly demonstrate their concern and support for the environment. This is legislation that does both of those things, it tries to express their concern for the environment and also to clean up some problems within the sport fish restoration program. But I am afraid this legislation goes too far. In its desire to seek out waste, fraud, and abuse, I believe that this legislation, in fact, will end up, if kept in its current form, undermining the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer an account for roughly $450 million to support wildlife and sport fish conservation activities in the States. As we sat through the hearings, I must say that I share some of the concerns that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has outlined in his desire to improve the performance of this program within the agency. But unfortunately, the legislation, as it stands before the House today, I think makes cuts that are far too severe and imperil the ability of this agency to administer the programs to the States or, in fact, even put additional burdens on the States for which they will not have resources to do; and I will elaborate on that point later in the debate in this legislation. I think it is important to remind our colleagues that the Fish and Wildlife Service is recognized and admitted substantial errors that have been made. Serious reforms have been initiated by Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Clark to improve the enforcement of financial policies and procedures, including the termination of discretionary grant programs, the hiring of a new Federal Aid expert to closely oversee the Federal Aid Office, the establishment of strict new policies for travel and expenses, and the initiation of new training programs for Federal and States employees. These moves indicate to me that the Service is aggressively taking action to clean up this mess. Has the Service acted quickly enough to address these problems? Certainly not. But is the Fish and Wildlife Service now making a serious effort to clean up the administration of these programs? I believe they are. It is unfortunate the majority has decided to ignore these internal reforms. Which brings us to where we are today. When the majority concluded its investigation, I hoped that we might be able to work to draft legislation sufficiently tailored to ensure long-term financial accountability of this program. But so far we have been unable to do that. I have several concerns about this legislation. Foremost is my concern that the bill would severely cut the amount of allowable funding for the Service to administer the program. As reported by the Committee on Resources, the bill would have established a $10 million per-year cap to fund administrative activities which the majority claims would track existing costs for legitimate administrative functions. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the personnel costs alone amount to $9.5 million annually. Furthermore, when the service analyzed past spending, organized by the majority's own 12 expense categories, and when the Service backed out the illegitimate expenses, the costs for administration consistently ranged between $20 million to $25 million. Clearly, $10 million is simply not sufficient to engage in the proper practices. It is my understanding that the funding levels imposed by this cap would force the Service to terminate anywhere between 40 to 60 Federal Aid employees. In addition, the caps would also force the Service to cut back on important administrative activities, including State grant audits, budget oversight, and procedural training for Federal and State personnel. How is the Service supposed to provide increased oversight, accountability, and services to the States under this scenario? I ask if my colleagues' offices would be able to provide the same level of services to their constituents if they were forced to cut their office staff and operating budgets by 30, 40 or 50 percent? Of course not. But that is what this legislation would impose on the Service. I am also concerned the bill does not provide any administrative flexibility for the Fish and Wildlife Service to respond to unknown future expenses that could be imposed on the Service. For example, if the CARA legislation should pass, it would allocate an additional $350 million to the Pittman-Robinson programs, but it would not allow any additional funding for that program. I hope we can either address that problem in this legislation or in the follow-along CARA legislation. I find it remarkable that the majority insists that the workload of the program could virtually double overnight but would not provide additional administrative funds to the program. I am also concerned that the bill does nothing to ensure the States who receive Federal funds are held accountable on how they spend their grants. After all, the States receive 93 percent of all the Federal Aid funds, roughly $450 annually. Yet the audit of State programs has uncovered many troubling examples of financial abuse, very similar, if not identical, to the problems uncovered in the Federal investigation of the Federal agency. I find it interesting that the committee would focus its attention exclusively on how the Fish and Wildlife Service spends its funds, which total about $31 million, but fail to address the credible evidence of similar financial mismanagement among the States that spend more than 10 times that amount of money. Perhaps this indifference reveals the true nature about this legislation. It is less about the avoidance of spending money unlawfully than it is about punishing the Service. I am disappointed that we have been unable to resolve these substantial concerns and other problems that I have raised with this legislation. I would have preferred to resolve these matters before bringing the bill to the floor. Hopefully, they will be resolved before this legislation is reported from the Senate. I would hope that the majority would understand that to seek signature on this legislation some of these concerns, that are legitimately raised by the Fish and Wildlife Service, by some of the State agencies, and by supporters of this program, will have to be changed if the agency is, in fact, going to effectively administer the Office of Federal Aid; and if they are going to be able to administer the programs as we on the committee now agree they should be, which resulted from the hearings and the investigations that the majority led into this agency. I guess, in short, I would simply say this: I believe this legislation is on the right track, but I believe it is overkill. I believe it is overkill, to the extent to which it can render the agency ineffective to do exactly the mission that is outlined in this reform legislation. I would hope that the principals of this legislation could work out so there could be sufficient funding that would allow the agency to do its job properly, there would be the reforms that the legislation speaks to to make sure that, in fact, monies are spent properly for the purposes for which people pay into this fund and for which those of us who make the policy on this matter expect them to be paid. The agency must be allowed to function, and I would hope that those needs could be addressed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, several Members have come to the floor to tout the findings of the General Accounting Office as necessary proof of the proposed reforms in this legislation. In most instances, I believe that GAO provides an important and impartial perspective to enable the Congress to assess the circumstances underlying any policy issue. I believe we all share this view. But I have had time to reassess the information provided last year by the GAO. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the more I have read and learned, the more concerned I have become about GAO's performance during the conduct of this investigation. Contrary to the assertions made by the majority, I am sure that many Members of this House would be surprised to learn that GAO never filed a final report for their investigation. In fact, all of the assertions attributed to GAO were based upon preliminary findings, findings that in many instances were partial and failed to include important information. Rarely have I seen such an example of cut and run analysis. I want to take just a few minutes to share some examples for the benefit of Members unfamiliar with this investigation. For example, the Committee on Resources heard from GAO that the Fish and Wildlife Service had lost roughly $85 million in Federal aid funds. But upon closer inspection of the Fish and Wildlife Service's own internal account reconciliation process, it was revealed that only about $7 million was unreconciled at the time that GAO made that claim. GAO did not provide any reason for this oversight in their analysis. To clarify this matter further, I am pleased to report to my colleagues that it is my understanding that the Service's reconciliation process has now reduced the outstanding total to around $700,000. A full accounting for all funds is expected soon. More importantly, it appears that these funds were never lost in the first place. Had GAO's investigators gone to the Service's own Division of Finance, they would have found corresponding account information to fill in the gaps between the incomplete financial records kept in the Federal Aid Office. But GAO investigators never bothered to make a trip to Denver to look into this matter. We also heard from GAO that the Fish and Wildlife Service was negligent in implementing GAO's recommendations after GAO's 1993 investigation into the Sports Fish Restoration Program. But in fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented almost all of GAO's previous recommendations. However, again, GAO failed to include in its preliminary findings any recognition that the Service had, in fact, implemented its recommendations. Normally, these types of errors are corrected during the close-out review of the Federal agency under scrutiny. But because the GAO declined to file a final report, these errors were allowed to stand uncontested. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record this table of reforms that have been initiated by the Fish and Wildlife Service to address concerns raised by the GAO and by other critics of the financial management practices of the Office of Federal Aid. They speak for themselves. These are just a few of the glaring examples of the flaws in the GAO's analysis; and I am left to wonder whether GAO really has, in fact, provided an objective analysis has in fact provided an objective analysis or has been more motivated to justify the preconceptions raised by the majority or the GAO itself. The gentleman from Alaska has repeatedly referred to the statement made by the GAO asserting that the Office of Federal Aid was one of the worst-managed programs GAO has ever investigated. While I make absolutely no apologies for the shoddy past financial management at the Office of Federal Aid, I find GAO's performance lacking and disappointing. The Congress relies on GAO to make these kinds of objective analyses, and they should be beyond reproach. In this case, I do not think that is the case. I will get into more detail in general debate about some of the corrective actions that the committee has taken, some of which are justified and others that I think are going to keep this agency from doing the type of proper job it should do in administering these programs. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the table of reforms I referred to earlier. Corrective Actions Taken by the Service on Federal Aid Issues 1993 Initiated a new budget review process to ensure that all requests for Federal Aid funds are adequately justified. Began maintaining files of all direct charges to the Sport Fish program. Transferred Take Pride position out of Federal Aid Office. Required Management Assistance Team (MAT) and others in Federal Aid to charge for their services. 1994 Reduced amount of Federal Aid Administrative funds used for General Administrative Service account. Required that calculations be reviewed annually. Ended the practice of charging overhead costs to the state grants portion of the account. Implemented the practice of describing cross program initiatives involving Federal Aid in the FWS Budget submission. Instituted a new cost recovery policy which established a minimum standard rate to be charged for administrative costs. Published in the Federal Register the policy and procedures for funding Administrative Grants projects. Published annually from 1994-1998. 1996 Initiated a new program to audit the State's use of funds apportioned under Wallop-Breaux/Dingell-Johnson and Pittman- Robertson Programs. Began to design a new grant management information and tracking system. 1997 Issued guidance to Regional Directors stating that all charges against Federal Aid must be approved by Appropriations Committee. Issued during September of 1997 and again on August 16, 1998. 1998 Began the process of reconciling differences between Federal Aid Office grant records and the Service's Division of Finance's records. Requested Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to develop an audit program for administrative funds; DCAA advised that they were unable to do so. Developed National Training program for Federal & State employees involved in grant activities. Began working with Customs, IRS, BATF, IAFWA, Wildlife Management Institute, industry and staff from Sen. Breaux and Rep. Tanner to review excise tax collections in Treasury. Eventually recovered more than $20 million in excise taxes not credited to the Federal Aid programs, and another $20 million for the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Published Notice in the Federal Register soliciting public input on alternative methods to fund administrative grants program. Also stated in that Notice that the present program needs to be eliminated or improved. (9/16/98) 1999 Implemented FAIMS (Federal Aid Information Management System), the grant management and tracking system. (1/99) Announced decision to terminate the Director's Conservation Fund. (3/99) Established a State/Federal Review Team to evaluate Washington and Regional office administration of Federal Aid program. (3/99) Team met formally during July and August. Announced in a letter to the IAFWA (International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) plans to terminate Administrative Grants Program. (5/12/99) Announced in the Federal Register the termination of the Administrative Grants Program. (7/26/99) Reviewed contract under which GAO says it is unclear whether the Service or contractor should receive over $100,000 collected. Determined that money was reimbursement of contractor copying costs, not profits. (7/99) Established an inter-office Financial Management Team to address financial management weaknesses in the Federal Aid Program.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, ten and a half million tons of toxic mine wastes generated by the now-defunct Atlas Mine are stored in a tailings pond located immediately adjacent to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. The tailings pond, built in the 1950's is not lined, and as a result, these radioactive and toxic wastes are seeping down through the aquifer into the Colorado River. Water from the Colorado River makes up a significant part of the drinking water supply for Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson, and is used additionally to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural lands. Moreover, the tailings pond, which has been designated as critical habitat for four endangered species, is situated between Canyonlands and Arches National Parks. Leaving a huge, leaking tailings pile right next to the Colorado River does not make sense. In the event of flood, the river could easily be contaminated. Yet, until recently, the federal government was willing to allow the Atlas Corporation to reclaim the site by simply placing a dirt cap over the top of the pile. This plan will not stop contamination of the Colorado River, which is expected to continue for hundreds of years. To address this problem, on January 19, 1999, Representatives Pelosi, Gutierrez, Filner and I introduced H.R. 393, a bill to require the Department of Energy to move the tailings to a safe location and then direct the Attorney General to ascertain the liability of the Atlas Corporation, and its parent companies, to secure reimbursement as appropriate. This bill was referred to the Commerce Committee where it has languished. I introduced this bill after years of advocating removal of these toxic wastes from the banks of the Colorado River. But, until now the Executive Branch has refused to take responsibility for cleaning up this site. Thankfully, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has recognized the foolishness of this approach and, earlier this year, proposed an ``agreement-in-principle'' that will enable the abandoned Atlas uranium mill tailings site to be moved away from the Colorado River to a safer location. The Administration has also requested $10 million for fiscal year 2001 to undertake the studies and data collection necessary to reclaim the Atlas site. In addition to moving the toxic tailings away from the Colorado River, Secretary Richardson's proposal also includes solutions to several other public lands issues in Utah: the return of certain federal lands to the Northern Ute Indian Tribe; reservation of a production royalty on future oil and gas development of those lands; and protection of a quarter-mile corridor along 75-miles of the Green River adjacent to Ute tribal lands. This week, I joined Representatives Cannon, Filner, Napolitano, and 47 other House colleagues in sponsoring H.R. 4165--a revised bi- partisan bill that will accomplish the full range of goals outlined by the Department of Energy and Interior--and most importantly, will assure that the toxic mill tailings are moved away from the Colorado River to a safe location.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say, this is not about whether or not we support or agree with the waste of money, because obviously nobody in this Chamber does and nobody in the Congress does; and the hearings that we had in the Committee on Resources were for the purposes of stopping those practices that were unacceptable. But the fact of the matter is the numbers that the GAO threw around have never been substantiated. The suggestion that somehow these individuals were engaged in illegal or criminal behavior has never been substantiated, was never found to be true; and we ought to set the record straight. The fact that that did not happen does not mean this was the best-run program, but it also certainly means this was not the worst-run program. We can show you many unfortunately tragically that are far worse than this that do not deal with several million dollars, but deal to the tune of billions of dollars of waste. That is a tragic fact. But the point is the record ought to be straight on this one so that the remedy fits the problem, and the concern about this legislation at this moment is that this legislation overreaches and in fact will keep the agency from doing what all of us in this Chamber want them to do. Speaker after speaker has gotten up here and made the point that this is a highly successful program; they have had great results in States building local programs for hunters and for fishers, and it is working. We have all had testimony to it in our States and in many of our districts where these programs have been utilized in conjunction with many local organizations. This is a successful program. We ought not in terms of being a little overzealous here then cripple the agency from doing what it is doing very well apparently. We ought to address ourselves to those problems that are in fact real and ought not to be allowed to continue, but we ought not to overreach and do as many who are strong supporters of both this legislation and this program suggest may very well happen if some of these numbers are not moved up so the agency has the money necessary to properly administer the program which brought us to this point originally. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may assume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who has been obviously a very strong supporter of this program and a strong voice for reform. (Mr. Dingell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we finish this debate, I would hope that we would be able to hold this in perspective, because I do not think that this bill is finished yet; I think, in fact, it is a work in progress. I hope that Members who are interested and concerned about this would just look at the letter from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies who are expressing some of the very same concerns that I am expressing about the funding levels in this legislation. We agree, they agree, and almost everybody in this Chamber agrees that many of these reforms are fine and should be made. But, when we get done, we have to leave this agency in a position to properly deal with the charge that we have given them. As for those who want to keep coming here and saying that they want to slaughter this agency because GAO said this is the worst managed program they have ever seen, I think maybe that statement in and of itself would call into question the GAO audit. I wonder if the GAO ever took a look at the oil shale program. I bet that was a beaut. That was billions of dollars. Or, how about that coal fusion program where we were spending that money, those guys out in Utah still trying to bring it in on time. How about the uranium reprocessing program, the space station, the big dig going on up there in Boston, the Resolution Trust Corporation. Now, there is one that cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. This was the worst managed program these GAO auditors ever saw? I have to tell my colleagues that these GAO auditors maybe just did not have the right experience, because as it turns out, as we reconcile all of the concerns that they raised and the issues that they raised, we are now down to about $700,000 of seriously questioned expenses that should not have been allowed. So to suggest that somehow this agency has run amok, and I find it interesting that as we say that, we are now giving this agency in this legislation the exact duties that supposedly we criticized them for, but we know are essential and must be done if, in fact, the State programs are going to work. So this is not the worst. Tragically to say for the taxpayers of this country, this is not the worst program GAO has ever encountered. Maybe this GAO auditor, but he probably was not around for that C-121 when the wings broke off. That was a hell of a program we had going there. How about that one where we sent subsidized water so people will grow more cotton, but we have a cotton retirement program, so we buy the cotton back from them? That is going on today. There is a good program. How about those KV funds, where the Forest Service could not tell us where any of the funds were? We still do not know today. Fortunately, the Committee on Appropriations started to put a stop to that. That mining law has worked out well for the taxpayers of this country. We have lost billions and billions of dollars. This is not the worst program. This is a program that has gotten off track. This is a program that has abused, has abused the authority that is given to it. We ought to put it back in line. I think the Chairman's legislation goes a long way toward that. I still want to say that we have to leave this agency there, because those same sportsmen, hunters and fisherpersons that like this program, that use this program, have seen it improve. Their experience out there in the countryside recognizes the need of this agency to get that done in cooperation with the States. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I raise the questions I raised earlier about those amendments, whether or not this goes far enough. I appreciate that the gentleman has added some money back. As I understand it, the $5 million is money that will go directly to the States as part of the national program, so I think where we are left is about $14 million for administration. As I read the letters, again, from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the National Wildlife Federation, again, who are strong supporters of this legislation and of the program, they indicate that they think that the figure is somewhat higher than that. Originally we had talked about 18. That did not happen. They mentioned 16. Their formula figure may take it above that. We are obviously not going to solve that issue here today, but I would hope that the gentleman would continue to consult with these supporters of the programs and certainly with the State wildlife agencies that are administering the State side of that program, because I think they do raise the concerns about that. I do not know that exact figure yet, however. I believe it is higher than the figure the gentleman has in his budget. I would just hope that that could be done certainly before we contemplate sending this legislation to the White House.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have talked long, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others who have been long involved in the program. We want to see this program come out whole at the end of this process with these changes and with this accountability. That is very important, I think, to all of our constituents. I am not happy raising these issues, but I think they have to be raised so that we can arrive at a point where we are comfortable and we can tell the State agencies and the other organizations that work with them in cooperation that we have made this program whole and it is doing the things for which it was designed and which are appropriate for it to do. I raise this at this time in conjunction with the manager's amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. Kind asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 2077, a bill originally introduced by Representative Brown of California, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprints pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out, if you really want to effectively deal with this problem, you would go the treatment route. It is not because we say it. It is not because she says it. It is because the Rand Corporation who has spent a lot of our government money studying this to try to help us find a path to treat this says this is where you would go if you really want a bang for your dollar. It is not about giving up on the drug lords. It is not about prosecuting, but it is about once and for all deciding what is effective and is not. We now have 20 years of experience and $250 billion of effort that tell us this does not work. Yet this is our approach. We can also scrutinize some of the drug treatment programs because some of them do not work, but we are so addicted to those because they look good when you are standing there with the school children and the police but we are not getting the results so maybe we can score that one. So if we really want to deal with this, we have got to think about whether or not we have got the commitment and the courage to deal with the demand and whether we can stay with it and start to offer people treatment instead of a waiting list, start to offer people hope that treatment will be there should they make that decision. There are others who will not make that decision. That is almost something that is almost impossible to deal with. But for those who are willing and have the courage to walk in and say I need help, I need treatment, what the gentlewoman from California was saying is we are here to help you and we can start to reduce that. We can start to reduce the market. We are throwing thousands and tens of thousands of people in jail for minor drug infractions and even when they are in jail we will not give them treatment. Where we have them 24 hours a day, we cannot find to give them treatment. We talk about triangulation. We are in between the left and the right, both of which are fostering the drug trade in Colombia, between the military and the guerrillas, between the paramilitary and the police. We are going to insert ourselves for $1.7 billion. Do we think we are going to bring home a solution for America? I do not think so.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Pelosi amendment. I also want to thank her for offering this amendment so we would have an opportunity to discuss the entire drug problem in our country. I am very disturbed that we have seen fit that we would address this problem by sending $1.7 billion to Colombia along with the helicopters and along with the advisers in a country the size almost of California and believe that we are going to have an impact. We have been on this interdiction bandwagon now for over 20 years. We have spent $250 billion. We have spent it in Panama. We have spent it spraying paraquat on drugs in Mexico. We had the Florida interdiction program. We had the Andean strategy program. We had the invasion of Panama. We got rid of Noriega, but we did not get rid of the drug dealers or the drug problem. We had the Peruvian shootdown policy, and now we have President Clinton's eradication program which is the largest herbicide spraying program in the world. What is the result? The heroin and cocaine on the streets of America is purer and in more plentiful supply, and the price continues to drop. What does that tell us? That these programs have not been effective. And the price has continued to drop in spite of the fact that they now have to avoid being shot down, in spite of the fact that they have to buy bigger and faster boats, in spite of the fact that they buy disposable airplanes and disposable boats. The cost keeps dropping. It says something about the effectiveness of people trying to drive up the cost of doing business. What the drug lords understand is this is simply the cost of doing business. Whether you are corrupting a border guard, whether you are corrupting a Colombian police member, whether you are throwing in with the Colombian police to create a paramilitary to fight the guerillas, or you are throwing in with the guerillas that is just the cost of doing business. If you really want to stick it to the guerillas, if you really want to stick it to the drug lords, what you do is you dry up their market. You take away the market. You take away the market by treatment and education. We have conquered some of the most serious problems in this country, intractable problems we thought, with education. But on this one, we fall faint, because we do not think we are being strong if we deal with education. We know that when women come into the women, infants, and children program if they are smoking or they are taking drugs, after they talk to a doctor about their pregnancy and they get the connection between their body and the fetus's body and the birth of a healthy baby, we know that we have a tremendous success in getting women to stop smoking, to stop taking drugs. What the gentlewoman from California is talking about is treatment on demand. You know how hard it is to get somebody to ask for treatment when they are addicted, those of us who have worked with addicts, those of us who have friends who have become addicts, those of us who have had family members? You know how hard it is to get them to turn around their life? You think you say, ``Come on, I want to take you to treatment,'' it does not work. You can take them over and over. But very often, fortunately, thank God, every now and then, somebody says, ``I'm ready for treatment.'' You know what happens in most cities when you say I am ready for treatment? You do not get treatment, you get a waiting list. You get a waiting list. Now we are telling a very sick person, who is deeply addicted, come back in 6 months, hang in there but come back in 6 months. Addiction. Do you know what addiction means? We see it played out every day. We used to see it played out in the criminal reporters because addicts died in the streets. But now we can read about it in the sports page. Athletes who have brilliant careers, millions of dollars, lose it because of addiction. We see a brilliant ballplayer like Darryl Strawberry who goes to treatment, works hard at it and for some reason has a moment of weakness that he cannot even explain, and he may have now finished out his baseball career. We see CEOs of companies who lose their companies because of addiction. They have beautiful families. They have a beautiful career, a beautiful future; they lose it. This is about addiction. This is about a terrible, terrible problem that confronts our entire society. We see people, performers, brilliant people, stage, music, pictures, great careers gone, die, overdose, take their lives. That is addiction. You are not going to solve that problem of addiction by going down into the Andean jungle and believe that by spending another $1.7 billion, $250 billion, and no results. In fact, all of the evidence is that it is getting worse. It is getting worse. The market is better for them. They have shifted to where they go to do business. They go from one country to another. They shift the mode of transportation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight an ongoing injustice: state taxation of the income of Native American servicemen and women. The law is clear that a state may not tax the income of tribal members who live on and derive their income from activity within the reservation. Similarly, a state may not tax the income of tribal members who serve in the military and claim their reservation as their home. Nevertheless, these tribal members continue to be taxed by several states. This practice has likely deprived thousands of Native Americans of millions of dollars. By withholding federal wages of these Native American service personnel for state income taxes, the Department of Defense may unwittingly be assisting this improper taxation. To date, the burden has fallen on individual servicemen and women to press their claims and seek recovery of their federal wages from the states. To redress this wrong on a systemic basis. Mr. Young of Alaska, Chairman of the Committee on Resources, Mr. Skelton, Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on Armed Services, and I have asked the Secretary of Defense to ensure that federal withholding procedures do not abet or perpetuate this practice. I submit for the Record the letter to the Secretary of Defense: House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, March 7, 2000. Hon. William S. Cohen, Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Cohen: We are writing on behalf of Native American servicemen and women who, with the Department of Defense's (DOD's) aid, are subject to improper taxation by the states. As you know, Native Americans have a strong tradition of military service and have served their country in proportions greater than that of the general population. Nearly 16% of the Indian population 16 years and older--over 150,000 people--are veterans. It is well-established that a state may not tax the income of tribal members who live on and derive their income from activity within the reservation. See, e.g., Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw, 515 U.S. 450 (1995); McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 574, provides that service members do not lose their domicile for taxation purposes when on military assignment. Accordingly, tribal members who claim their reservation as their home when serving in the military are not subject to state income taxation. See Fatt v. Utah State Tax Commissioner, 884 P.2d 1233 (Utah 1994); Turner v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Tax Appeals Commission, No. I-9755 (June 19, 1986); Beck v. North Carolina Department of Revenue, Opinion of the Tax Commissioner, No. 99-386 (January 25, 2000). Although the law is clear, tribal members domiciled on the reservation who are serving their country continue to be taxed by several states. DOD is instrumental in facilitating this improper taxation by withholding federal wages for state income taxes pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5517. That statute authorizes federal agencies to enter into agreements with states to withhold state income tax from the wages of federal employees. We are writing to request that DOD review and revise the records of Native American service personnel to ensure that this practice of withholding federal wages for state income tax cease for those claiming the reservation as their home. Over the years, this practice has likely deprived thousands of Native American servicemen and women of millions of dollars. We note that while immediate action on your part will stop this unjust practice and inform states and tribal members of the law, it will not provide retroactive relief for tribal members. Please let us know of the steps you plan to take to redress this wrong and your progress towards that goal. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, Ike Skelton, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Armed Services. Don Young, Chairman.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget returns to its old ways. The budget that is being offered to us ignores the wishes of the American public and caters to special interests. I would have thought the Republicans would have learned; but they did not, and they are back at it again. The Republican leadership is offering a budget that fails to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare, that recklessly cuts taxes and squanders the surplus we have worked so hard to gain for the American public. At the same time, they are cutting Head Start and telling 40,000 children and their parents that they cannot participate in this very valuable program. They cut millions of funding from child care, even though families are having a more difficult time finding quality care for their children as more and more Americans find a place in the American work force for the sustainability of their families. They make empty promises about fully funding special education, but they do so without providing the necessary funds to achieve that goal. They freeze higher education and training funds and cut the purchasing power by 9 percent over 5 years. That means that they deny Pell Grants to 316,000 students who desperately need that assistance to go on to higher education so they can participate in the American economy. They fail to make the needed investments to fix crumbling and overcrowded schools. They fail to invest in boosting the skills and the knowledge of teachers while continuing to funnel money into scores of wasteful programs and dozens of tax loopholes that benefit those who least need it. We, on the other hand, are offering a substitute and a clear alternative, a budget that supports millions of hard-working families; that protects Social Security and Medicare; that provides better care and real prescription drug coverage for all of our Nation's seniors with dedicated funds to do so; and that would direct sorely needed support to our schools, provide the resources necessary to help our children reach their highest academic potential. When it comes to special education, we put our money where the Republicans' mouths are because we provide $4.8 billion more in our plan. We should support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank him for introducing the progressive budget substitute. There are many reasons to support this budget substitute: education, Head Start, the commitment to working people. But I would like to comment on fulfilling the long overdue commitment on public lands resources in this country. Over 300 Members of the House have cosponsored legislation in this session which would reverse the shameful record of recent Congresses in severely underfunding programs to protect the public lands to promote recreation and resource protection. The House Committee on Resources has reported out the Conservation Reinvestment Act by a 3-1 margin, and we are waiting for the Republican leadership to allow the full House to work its will on this historic bill. In the meantime, the Republican budget perpetuates the failure of recent Congresses to protect threatened resources on behalf of future generations. Congress made a promise to the American people 35 years ago: when we develop our offshore energy reserves, we will dedicate a small portion of the proceeds to the permanent protection of America's parks, wilderness, forests and other public lands. So what happened? The leasing, exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf has proceeded for four decades, but the taxpayers and the Lands and Water Conservation Fund have been cheated. The money has been credited to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but the Congress has refused to spend it year after year. And now the leaders of the Republican Party in this House are telling the American people that they want more offshore oil drilling off of California, off of New Jersey, off of Alaska, off of Florida, but still no willingness to live up to the promise they made in 1965 to protect our natural resources. The Republican budget resolution that is before this House today perpetuates this larceny against the American public and American environment. Because the Republican budget ignores the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it ignores the current bill and it ignores what the American people said they want. Eighty to 90 percent of the American people want the full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They want it in the North and the South, in the East and the West, and even in the Rocky Mountain West. These people want their resources protected, and the way that can be done is by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The substitute introduced by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on behalf of the Progressive Caucus is a substitute that does that, and this Congress ought to support that effort tonight.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, somebody ought to call the police. Something ought to call the police because this bill is simply a fraud on the public. This bill does nothing about the current gas price crisis in our country. It does nothing about America's future energy problems. This bill is simply to try to make the Republicans look good while they do nothing. It is a fraud. It is a fraud on the American public. Let us understand what the Republicans have done. When oil was $10 a barrel, they would not allow us to buy it for the strategic oil reserve. Now, when oil is $35 a barrel, they will not let us use the reserve to help the American people. They cut $1.3 billion out of energy conservation efficiency and research and development. They put a rider on the transportation appropriations bill so we cannot even investigate getting better mileage in people's automobiles. Between the 1970s and the 1980s, we doubled the mileage on automobiles. But we have not been able to do anything since then because of the Republican Presidents and Republican Congress. So now people have to sit in automobiles that are not fit and pay $2 for gasoline. No, we need the Republicans to stop their actions, to stop their actions against conservation, to stop their actions against home heating oil. They cut home heating oil; and 250,000 people who have homes in the Northeast that could have been weatherized were not weatherized, so 250,000 people this year had to go out and be gouged in the home heating oil market. Obviously, the Republicans now are trying to cover their tracks. Obviously, now they want to pretend like they had nothing to do with the energy problem that we have. But in appropriations bill after appropriations bill, we see the cuts on kinds of programs that can lead to new energy efficiencies, can lead to automobile mileage standards, that can bring about the kind of technology that can save this country millions and millions and millions of barrels every day. Because that is what we did during the 1970s, but we cannot do that with the Republicans. Call the police and get these frauds out of here.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to create the ``Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historic Park'' in Richmond, California--a feature of our National Park system that will recognize and salute the role of the homefront during World War II and particularly the significant changes in the lives of women and minorities and the major social changes that resulted from this era. The images of Rosie the Riveter and Wendy the Welder, and the films of giant Liberty and Victory ships sliding into the water are all familiar to millions of Americans. These features of home front life during the war, and the demographic changes and social institutions that evolved during the 1940s, significantly shaped the nature of post- war American life for the remainder of the 20th century. Richmond was ground zero for the dizzying home front innovations and stresses that marked the period, and is a perfect place to educate future generations of Americans about the experiences of our people during World War II. The House passed my legislation in the last Congress (H.R. 3910, section 505) to authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a feasibility study to determine if Richmond was a suitable place for designation as an NPS affiliated site and whether to provide technical assistance to the City of Richmond for interpretive functions related to the park, including oral histories from former workers. That report has now been completed and finds, as we had hoped, that Richmond ``played a significant role during the Home Front years.'' In fact, many of the dry docks, buildings and related infrastructure constructed and operated during the war remains in place, evoking even today a sense of the enormous commitment of the nation to industrial war production. In 1941-42, four shipyards were built in Richmond with a total employment eventually reaching 98,000. Overall, Richmond housed 56 war-related industries, more than any other city in the United States, producing everything from ships to uniforms and vegetable oil for the war effort. The four Kaiser Yards in Richmond were the largest shipyard construction site on the West Coast and produced 747 ships, more than any other facility in America, including the S.S. Robert E. Peary which was constructed in 4 days, 15 hours, and 30 minutes. Tens of thousands of men, women and children poured into this city on San Francisco Bay and the population of Richmond grew from 24,000 to over 100,000 in just a few short years. These immigrants imposed enormous demands for housing, education, child care, health care and other vital services, and in response, local officials and employers developed innovative approaches for meeting Large numbers of women and minorities sought jobs in the yards in positions formerly occupied by skilled craftsmen, creating both new employment opportunities and labor tensions. By 1944, over a quarter of all those working at the Kaiser yard were women, including over 40 percent of welders and 24 percent of all other craft employees. The racial composition of the area was significantly altered by the wartime economy, with the black population in Richmond rising from about 1 percent to over 13 percent during the decade of the 1940s. Southern whites encountered often for the first time black men and women who demanded equal treatment and equal rights. The effort to preserve the remaining structures and to build a memorial to the Rosies and Wendys who labored on behalf of the war effort has very much been promoted by local leaders including Mayor Rosemary Corbin, Councilman Tom Butt, Donna Powers, Donna Graves, Sy Zell and many others. Significant local funds have been raised and the city has committed more than $600,000 for the memorial. I want to recognize the contributions already made by the City of Richmond, as well as Kaiser Pemanente, Ford Motor Corporation, Chevron, and others who are strongly committed to this project. My bill builds on these local efforts by providing assistance both for Richmond and to coordinate Home Front sites throughout the country, but we do not acquire property or assume the major responsibility for restoring or managing the exhibits. Under this legislation, Richmond will not alone be selected to represent the Home Front during World War II/Instead, the major facilities still existing will be preserved and staffed to serve as a means of linking other sites including the Charlestown Navy Yard (Boston) and Springfield Armory National Historic site to assist help historians, interpreters, caretakers and the public to more fully appreciate the role this and other communities played in winning the war and in transforming the nature of post-war America. We must act now to save the remaining buildings, drydocks, and other facilities that bring this picture to life for future generations of America. Many of these artifacts are aging, in need of restoration, and threatened by sale or deterioration which will obliterate their historical value. I am hopeful the Committee on Resources will act swiftly to review the Rosie the Riveter Feasibility Study that we commissioned by law in 1998 and then holding hearings on this legislation so that it can be enacted by the Congress this year.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time and thank him for his involvement with this legislation as I do the gentleman from Pennsylvania, apparently everybody from Pennsylvania is involved, and commend them for this resolution. I would, however, say this, that I would hope that as we count down the number of legislative days remaining in this session that we keep the purpose and the intent of this resolution in mind and that is about strengthening families and giving families the tools by which they can strengthen the relationship among the members of that family, especially with their children, recognizing the complexities and the pressures of contemporary American society. But I would hope also that the Congress would take this resolution to heart and would understand that there is a family agenda that yet needs to be met within this Congress. It deals with the issues of education, it deals with the issue of the safety of our children, it deals with the issue of the health care available to our families, housing available to our families and the kind of child care that is now needed by families as they find the pressures of the workplace encroaching more and more on the time that they used to have for their families and to take care of the mentoring of their children. And to fix our crumbling schools. We see there is some $112 to $115 billion backlog in school facilities, recognizing the need to do this so children can go to a decent facility where they can engage in the learning experience and acquire the tools that will befit them as they take their place in our society. I am worried that this resolution becomes a substitute for addressing that agenda, because that would not be fair to America's families. Clearly America's families, those who toil at the minimum wage, need an increase in the minimum wage. We know that those who toil at the minimum wage continue to toil and at the end of the year if they work all year long, they are below the poverty rate in this country. We now see where the biggest growth in homeless, certainly in my State in California but in many other areas of the Nation, is working families with children. They simply have been priced out of the market. It does not mean they are not working. It does not mean they are not caring for their children. It does not mean they do not love their children. They simply now are unable to find housing for their children. That is the biggest new growth rate in homeless in the State of California which is having an economic resurgence unparalleled anywhere else in the country. At a time when we are creating over 100 millionaires a week, we find out that the very same people who are working for many of those millionaires in their factories are unable to live near their work or to find a house at all for them and for their children. In many instances those workers are temporary workers, they work essentially what we would call full time but they are characterized as temporary workers, which means they do not get the benefits. So they do not have health care for them or their children. In many instances the companies fail to provide it or are unable to provide it. And so clearly there are these kinds of efforts that we can make on behalf of America's families and on behalf of America's children. Because in many instances there is no other place for these families to go to get help while they work and they struggle and they work full time. They do not have the means to provide health insurance. They do not have the means to provide housing. They are going to have to turn for assistance to the other, the great American family, if you will, that sees that plight and understands that struggle. So hopefully this resolution will not only recognize the needs of families and our commitments to them, it will also provide them some additional empathy by Members of Congress of the plight of many millions of American families who are working very hard and struggling and still not able to make ends meet that we have an obligation to see what we can do to make sure that they can do that so they can provide a healthy environment and a sustainable environment for their children.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sylvia McLaughlin on the occasion of her retirement after thirty-eight years of service to The Save San Francisco Bay Association and its Board of Directors, and recognizing her for her many years of dedicated public service. In 1962 Sylvia McLaughlin was one of three founders of The Save San Francisco Bay Association, now called Save the Bay, which has worked for nearly four decades to protect and restore the Bay and Delta and to improve public access along its shoreline. The San Francisco Bay is one of the natural wonders of the world, where saltwater meets freshwater from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to form the largest estuarine system on the West Coast of North America. The Bay and Delta have suffered from 150 years of hydraulic mining, fresh water diversion, pollution, fill and shoreline development. For four decades Save the Bay has worked to reverse this trend, to keep the Bay alive and make it healthier. The Bay-Delta defines our region and contributes greatly to the San Francisco Bay's high quality of life, providing economic benefits as well as drinking water for more than two-thirds of California's population and irrigation for hundreds of crops. Sylvia's work led to the creation of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1965 and the adoption of the Bay Plan in 1969, inspiring several generations of grassroots conservationists. Sylvia has received international recognition for her efforts to protect and restore the San Francisco-Bay Delta and its shoreline--a rich web of natural life where hundreds of species of fish, birds, and other animals make their homes. Save the Bay is rededicating itself to a Century of Renewal as the year 2000 begins, restoring water quality, habitat, fisheries and public enjoyment of the Bay for generations to come. Sylvia is retiring after thirty-eight years of service to Save the Bay and its Board of Directors. I know I speak for all the Members when I wish Sylvia McLaughlin a very happy and healthy retirement, and when I thank her for her unparalleled contributions to environmental protection and for her tireless efforts on behalf of the Bay and its residents.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Utah, the gentleman from Nevada, and the gentlewoman from Nevada for working out this amendment to make the bill acceptable to both sides of the aisle. I urge Members to support the amendment.