George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 278 is a companion measure to a bill introduced by my colleague on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey land known as the Old Coyote Administrative Site to the county of Rio Arriba in New Mexico. The site, which is approximately 307 acres, was formerly used by the Forest Service, but was vacated in 1993 when the Forest Service moved to a new location. The legislation provides for the transfer of the property to the county at a reduced price. The land must be used for a public purpose, and will revert back to the Federal government if not used for these purposes. It is our understanding the county will continue to use the site for public purposes, including a community center and a fire substation. Mr. Speaker, S. 278 is a noncontroversial item which I support. I want to congratulate my colleagues who have offered this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 nature of self-governance is rooted in the inherent sovereignty of the American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. From the founding of this Nation, Indian tribes and Alaskan Native villages have been recognized as distinct, independent, political communities exercising powers of self-government, not by virtue of any delegation of powers from the Federal Government, but rather by virtue of their own innate sovereignty. The tribes' sovereignty predates the founding of the United States in its Constitution and forms the backdrop against which the United States has continually entered into relations with Indian tribes and native villages. H.R. 1167 is modeled on the existing permanent self-governance legislation for the Interior Department programs contained in Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and reflects years of planning and negotiating among Indian tribes, the Alaska Native villages, and the Department of Health and Human Services. This legislation continues the principle focus on self-governance programs to remove needless and sometimes harmful layers of Federal bureaucracy that dictate Indian affairs. By giving tribes direct control over Federal programs run for their benefit and making them directly accountable to their members, Congress has enabled Indian tribes to run programs more efficiently and more innovatively than the Federal officials have in the past. Allowing the tribes to run these programs furthers the congressional policy of strengthening and promoting tribal governments which began with passage of the First Self-Determination Act of 1975. The Indian tribes and the administration agree that it is now time to take the next logical step toward the self-governance process and make self-governance programs permanent within the Department of Health and Human Services. H.R. 1167 establishes a permanent self-government program within the Department of Health and Human Services under which the American Indian and Alaska Native tribes may enter into compacts with the Secretary for direct operation control and redesign of Indian health service activities. Tribes entering into self-governance programs have to meet four eligibility requirements. First, the tribe must, in the case of the consortium, be federally recognized. Second, the tribe must document with official action of the tribal governing body a formal request to enter into negotiations with the Department of Interior. Third, the tribe must demonstrate financial stability and financial management capabilities as evidenced through the administration of the prior 638 contracts. Fourth, the tribe must successfully have completed a planning phase requiring the submission of final planning report that demonstrates that the tribe has conducted legal and budgetary research in internal government and organizational planning. If we are to adhere and remain faithful to the principles that our founders set forth, the principles of good faith, consent, justice, humanity, we must continue to promote tribal self-governance as done in this legislation that I bring before the House today. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his assistance and support of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the nature of Self-Governance is rooted in the inherent sovereignty of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. From the founding of this nation, Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages have been recognized as ``distinct, independent, political communities'' exercising powers of self-government, not by virtue of any delegation of powers from the federal government, but rather by virtue of their own innate sovereignty. The tribes' sovereignty predates the founding of the United States and its Constitution and forms the backdrop against which the United States has continually entered into relations with Indian tribes and Native villages. The present model of tribal Self-Governance arose out of the federal policy of Indian Self-Determination. The modern Self-Determination era began as Congress and contemporary Administrations ended the dubious experiment of Termination which was intended to end the federal trust responsibility to Native Americans during the 1950s. The centerpiece of the Termination policy, House Concurrent Resolution 108 in 1953, stated that ``Indian tribes and individual members thereof, should be freed from Federal supervision and control and from all disabilities and limitations specially applicable to Indians.'' While the intent of this legislation was to free the Indians from federal rule, it also destroyed all protection and benefits received from the government. The same year, Congress enacted Public Law 28 which further eroded tribal sovereignty by transferring criminal jurisdiction from the federal government and the tribes to the various state governments. As a policy, Termination was a disaster. Recognizing that Termination as a policy was a disaster, President Kennedy campaigned in 1960 promising the Indian tribes no changes in treaty or contractual relationships without tribal consent, protection of Indian lands base, and assistance with credit and tribal economic development. Indeed, Indian reservations were included in many of the ``Great Society'' programs of the late 1960s, bringing a much-needed infusion of federal dollars onto many reservations. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a message to Congress which stated support for: [A] policy of maximum choice for the American Indian: a policy expressed in programs of self-help, self-development, self-determination. . . . The greatest hope for Indian progress lies in the emergence of Indian leadership and initiative in solving Indian problems. Indians must have a voice in making the plans and decisions in programs which are important to their daily life. In 1970, President Richard Nixon's ``Special Message on Indian Affairs'' also called for increased tribal self-determination as he stated: This, then, must be goal of any new national policy toward the Indian people: to strengthen the Indian's sense of autonomy without threatening his sense of community. We must assure the Indian that he can assume control of his own life without being separated involuntarily from the tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indians can become independent of Federal control without being cut off from Federal concern and Federal support. . . Together, these messages sparked Congress to work on legislation that laid the foundation of modern federal Indian policy for the remainder of this century. And so, five years later, Congress enacted one of the most profound and powerful pieces of Indian legislation in this Nation's history. In 1975, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Pub. L. 93-638. This legislation gave Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages the right to assume responsibility for the administration of federal programs which benefited Indians. In addition to assuming the authority to make operating and administrative decisions regarding the way these federal programs would be run, tribes that chose to enter into Indian Self-Determination Act contracts, which came to be known as ``638 contracts'' were given the right to receive the federal funds that the agencies--generally the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS)--would have ordinarily received for those programs. The Act did not, however, relieve the federal government of its trust responsibility to the tribes. Congress enacted the Indian Self-Determination Act with the expectation that the direct responsibility for running these programs would enhance and strengthen tribal governments. As a means of supervise the tribes' activities, ``638'' contracts required volumes of paperwork to be filed. If a tribe wanted to operate more than one program, it would have to exercise an additional 638 contract which required a separate approval process. Though the Act was intended to decrease Federal involvement in the daily lives of reservation Indians, its specific performance and reporting requirements kept BIA as a pervasive force in Indian affairs. At the time of its enactment, the 638 contract program did not allow tribes to move funds between programs to adapt to changing and unforeseen circumstances during a funding period. Thus, the tribes' powers to design or adapt programs according to tribal needs remained restricted. The inflexibility of 638 contracts also created problems with cash flow. Payments were made to tribes on a cost-reimbursement basis, often many months after the tribe might have incurred major expenses. The tribes' main complaint, however, was that the 638 contract process made tribal staff primarily accountable to and measured by, not their own tribal councils but BIA employees at the Agency, Area and Central Officers. They had to follow strict federal laws, rules and regulations that were often of little relevance to day-to-day existence on an Indian reservation. Furthermore, if trust assets were involved, the BIA had to concur in all decisions made. Thus, while the Indian Self-Determination Act was and is still acknowledged as a watershed moment in the history of tribal self- governance, by the mid-1980s many tribal leaders agreed that it was time for even greater change. They felt that the federal bureaucracy devoted to 638 program oversight had simply grown out of control and the percentage of federal dollars allocated for Indian programs actually spent on the reservations was still far too small. To address these concerns, the Indian tribes asked Congress to consider amendments to the Self-Determination Act. At the same time, a group of tribal representatives began meeting to discuss proposals for trimming the BIA bureaucracy and amending the Act as well. But during the fall of 1987, a series of articles appeared in the Arizona Republic entitled Fraud in Indian Country, that detailed an egregious history of waste and mismanagement within the BIA. These articles spurred House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Chairman Sidney Yates (D-IL) to conduct an oversight hearing on these alleged abuses. At the hearing, Department of Interior officials proposed that funds appropriated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs be turned over to the tribes to let them manage their own affairs in an attempt to address these charges. But, the officials testified, by accepting the federal funds, the tribes would release the federal government from its trust responsibility. Tribal leaders disagreed with this quid pro quo, but supported the concept of removing BIA middlemen from the funding process. With Chairman Yates' encouragement, tribal representatives met with the Secretary of the Interior and other Department officials the very next day to further hash out this concept. By mid-December of 1987, ten tribes had agreed to test the Department's proposal. Out of this proposal the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project was born. In 1988 Congress enacted Pub. L. No. 100-472 and established Title III of the Indian Self-Determination Act which authorized the Secretary of Interior to negotiate Self-Governance compacts with up to twenty tribes. These tribes, for the first time, would be able to ``Plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, and functions'' heretofore performed by Interior officials. The Act required that these programs be ``otherwise available to Indian tribes or Indians,'' but within these parameters the tribes were authorized to redesign programs and reallocated funding according to terms negotiated in the compacts. Tribes would be able to prioritize spending on a systemic level, dramatically reducing the Federal role in the tribal decision-making process. But perhaps the biggest difference between ``638'' contract process and the Self-Governance program is that instead of funds coming from multiple contracts there would be one compact with a single Annual Funding Agreement. The original ten tribes that agreed to participate in the demonstration project were the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Hoopa Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Lummi Nation, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Quinault Indian Nation, Red Lake Chippewa Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and Tlingit and Haida Central Council. In 1991 President Bush signed Pub. L. 102-184, which extended the Demonstration Project for three more years and increased the number of Tribes participating to thirty. The bill required the new tribes participating to complete a one-year planning period before they could negotiate a Compact and Annual Funding Agreement. The 1991 law also directed the Indian Health Service to conduct a feasibility study to examine the expansion of the Self-Governance project to IHS programs and services. In 1992, Congress amended section 314 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate Self-Governance compacts and annual funding agreements under Title III of the Indian Self-Determination Act with Indian tribes. The Self-Governance Demonstration Project proved to be a success both in the Interior Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. Thus, in 1994, Congress responded by passing the ``Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994'' and permanently established the Self- Governance program within the Department of Interior. This action solidified the Federal government's policy of negotiating with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages on a government-to- government basis while retaining the federal trust relationship. The Tribal Self-Governance Act allowed so called ``Self-Governance tribes'' to compact all programs and services that tribes could contract under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination Act. The Act required an ``orderly transition from Federal domination of programs and services to provide Indian tribes with meaningful authority to plan, conduct, redesign, and administer programs, services, functions, and activities that meet the needs of the individual tribal communities.'' Tribes entering the Self-Governance program had to meet four eligibility requirements. First, the tribe (or tribes in the case of a consortium) must be federally recognized. Second, the tribe must document, with an official action of the tribal governing body, a formal request to enter negotiations with the Department of Interior. Third, the tribe must demonstrate financial stability and financial management capability as evidenced through the administration of prior 638 contracts. Fourth, the tribe must have successfully completed a planning phase, requiring the submission of a final planning report which demonstrates that the tribe has conducted legal and budgetary research and internal tribal government and organizational planning. The 1994 Act, however, did not make changes to the demonstration project status of the Self-Governance program within the Indian Health Service. The IHS authority remained on a demonstration project basis within Title III of the Indian Self-Determination Act. The Indian tribes and the Administration agree that it is now time to take the next logical step forward in the Self-Governance process and make the Self-Governance program permanent within the Department of Health and Human Service. H.R. 1167 establishes a permanent Self- Governance Program within the Department of Health and Human Services under which American Indian and Alaska Native tribes may enter into compacts with the Secretary for the direct operation, control, and redesign of Indian Health Service (IHS) activities. A limited number of Indian tribes have had a similar right on a demonstration project basis since 1992 under Title III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. All Indian tribes have enjoyed a similar but lesser right to contract and operate individual IHS programs and functions under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination Act since 1975 (so-called ``638 contracting''). In brief, the legislation would expand the number of tribes eligible to participate in Self-Governance, make it a permanent authority within the IHS and authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a feasibility study for the execution of Self-Governance compacts with Indian tribes for programs outside of the IHS but still within HHS. This legislation is modeled on the existing permanent Self-Governance legislation for Interior Department programs contained in Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination Act and reflects years of planning and negotiation among Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, the Department of Health and Human Services. H.R. 1167 continues the principle focus of the Self-Governance program: to remove needless and sometimes harmful layers of federal bureaucracy that dictate Indian affairs. By giving tribes direct control over federal programs run for their benefit and making them directly accountable to their members, Congress had enabled Indian tribes to run programs more efficiently and more innovatively than federal officials have in the past. Allowing tribes to run these programs furthers the Congressional policy of strengthening and promoting tribal governments which began with passage of the first Self-Determination Act in 1975. Often we need to look to the past in order to understand our proper relationship with Indian tribes. More than two centuries ago, Congress set forth what should be our guiding principles. In 1789, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, a set of seven articles intended to govern the addition of new states to the Union. These articles served as a compact between the people and the States, and were ``to forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent.'' Article Three set forth the Nation's policy towards Indian tribes: The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their land and property shall never be taken away from them without their consent . . . but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them. . . . The Founders of this Nation carefully and wisely chose these principles to govern the conduct of our government in its dealings with American Indian tribes. Over the years, these principles have at times been forgotten. Two hundred years later, Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a unanimous Supreme Court in 1983 stating that, ``Moreover, both the tribes and the Federal Government are firmly committed to the goal of promoting tribal self- government, a goal embodied in numerous federal statutes. We have stressed that Congress' objective of furthering tribal self-government encompasses far more than encouraging tribal management of disputes between members, but includes Congress' overriding goal of encouraging `tribal self- sufficiency and economic development.'' If we are to adhere and remain faithful to the principles that our Founders set forth--the principles of good faith, consent, justice and humanity--then we must continue to promote tribal self-government as is done in the legislation I bring before the House today. Mr. Speaker, 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. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I very much appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and their staffs for working with us to shape this legislation. I am satisfied that the boundary changes authorized in this bill are legitimate technical corrections which will resolve the past mapping errors and boundary discrepancies, and I urge the passage of this legislation. The Coastal Barrier Resources System is critical to the long-term protection of the Nation's coastal resources, and we must remain vigilant to protect it from unwarranted encroachment. All this bill would do is substitute a final series of revised maps to replace an earlier series already approved by the House when it passed H.R. 1431 on September 21. This bill would authorize the final agreed upon maps. Let me say from the start, I very much appreciate the cooperation of Mr. Saxton and his staff in working with the minority in shaping this legislation. I am satisfied that the boundary changes authorized in this bill are legitimate technical corrections which would resolve past mapping errors and boundary discrepancies. Moreover, we have been assured by both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service that these new boundaries accurately depict the boundaries of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Hopefully this will eliminate any future confusion regarding this matter. We also have made sure that none of the coastal barrier units labeled as LO3 have been changed in any way to reduce their spatial areas. And importantly, we have also added approximately 2,300 acres of additional coastal barrier lands to the ``otherwise protected area'' labeled as NC03-P. I want to thank Mr. Saxton and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones, for agreeing to this addition. Experience has made me necessarily cautious when it comes to modifying any coastal barrier boundary. But in this case, I believe we have gotten it right. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I simply rise in support of the legislation that he and other Members of the delegation have supported and brought to the floor and commend them for their efforts on behalf of the Apache Reservation, due to the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has found these very serious violations. I think in fact that this legislation does do what is necessary, and that is, to redeem the trust responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure that this Federal water system supplies the tribe with water that is safe and adequate to meet the health, economic, and environmental needs of the Jicarilla Apaches. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this matter to the floor and urge support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3051 directs the Secretary of Interior to conduct a feasibility study to determine the most feasible method of developing a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water supply for the residents of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in New Mexico. The study is to be conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation and in consultation and cooperation with the tribe. Further, the bill provides a report be submitted to Congress 1 year after funds are appropriated to carry out the study and authorizes $200,000 to implement the provisions of the legislation. The Jicarilla Apache Reservation was established in 1887 by executive order and is located at the foot of the San Juan Mountains in north- central New Mexico. The reservation consists of 742,315 acres and ranges in elevation from 6,500 to 9,000 feet. The existing municipal water system was built by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) which continues to own the system. It is dilapidated and cannot safely and adequately address the current or future needs of the tribe. The system has been cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violations of Safe Drinking Water Act standards. It poses a severe health threat to the community and impedes economic development by the tribe. In addition, the system has been unable to meet the minimum Federal water requirements necessary for discharging wastewater into a public watercourse and has been operating without a Federal discharge permit. Over the last several years the tribe has spent over $4.5 million in tribal funds for repair and replacement of portions of the system. This patchwork process will not address the overall problems with the system as it need to be overhauled or replaced. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to ensure that the Federal water system it supplies to the tribe is safe and adequate to meet the health, economic and environmental needs of tribal members. I want to commend our colleague, Mr. Tom Udall from New Mexico, for his hard work in getting this bill before us today. It is an important first step toward ensuring future health and economic progress for the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

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 would say that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has quite properly explained the legislation. The tribe has requested this matter, and it is similar to legislation that we have passed in previous years. I recommend that we support this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who just spoke in the well for all the work that he did on this legislation, along with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). The gentleman has quite properly explained the impact of the legislation and we are in agreement with him and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, S. 416 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, after a public process, either 160 or 240 acres to the City of Sisters, Oregon for use as a sewage treatment facility. The City of Sisters is surrounded by federal land and is in dire need of a wastewater treatment plant. While I recognize that this is a worthy cause, I do not support the practice of giving away federal land. Nor do I support legislating land conveyances that circumvent the administrative process and fair market value requirements. Nevertheless, I no longer object to this bill because under my amendment which the Committee adopted, the Forest Service will be adequately compensated for the land it conveys to the city. The city has agreed to waive sewage treatment-related costs for the Forest Service in the facility's service area in an amount equal to the value of the federal land. The bill also provides that if the final federal appraisal deviates by ten percent or more from the city's preliminary appraisal, then the city and the Secretary would have to mutually agree on compensation to attain the higher appraised value. This provision ensures that the federal government gets a close approximation of fair market value for its land. I commend Mr. Walden for his hard work on this bill and his willingness to work with me to address my concerns, as well as those of the Forest Service. I urge my colleagues to support S. 416, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by 26 of our colleagues in introducing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization legislation. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act which provides for the delivery of health services of American Indians and Alaska Natives throughout the nation will expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Since its enactment in 1976, the act has resulted in a reduction in serious illnesses and healthier Native American births. The unmet health needs among American Indians and Alaska Natives continues to be staggering with their health status for below that of the rest of the United States population. When compared to all races in the United States, Indian people suffer a death rate that is: 627 percent higher from alcoholism; 533 percent higher from tuberculosis; 249 percent higher from diabetes; and 71 percent higher from pneumonia and influenza. The bill I introduce today represents, for the first time, Indian country's proposal, ``Speaking With One Voice.'' Throughout the past year the Indian Health Service held regional meetings across the United States gathering information and consulting with health care providers, Indian tribes, tribal organizations and urban Indian organizations on how best the unique needs faced by Indian health delivery systems could be addressed. Following these meetings a national steering committee made up of tribal leaders from each of the Indian Health Service (IHS) areas plus a representative of urban Indians was established. The national steering committee drafted legislation and held numerous meetings to receive additional tribal views and incorporate them into a consensus document. The legislation is focused on the national needs and includes very few tribal specific authorizations. Several of the programs normally administered by the Indian Health Service headquarters would be decentralized under this legislation with more funds distributed to IHS area offices to address local priorities. The bill also includes important health care training and recruitment provisions to assist with the chronic shortage of qualified health care providers. Additionally, the bill is designed to work cooperatively with contracting and compacting provisions under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act. I am introducing this important legislation at the request of the national steering committee on the Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. All the important component of Indian health care delivery are addressed in this bill including access to, and care for, diabetes, prenatal care, ambulatory care, alcohol and substance abuse, mental health, coronary care, and child sexual abuse. Certainly, there will be changes made to the bill as it proceeds through the legislative process, but this bill provides a solid basis for us to work from. I commend the hard work and dedication of all the members of the national steering committee and those within the Indian Health Service who helped produce this legislation. For far too long Native Americans have put up with inferior health care. I will push for swift consideration of this bill and ask all my colleagues to join me in passing legislation to ensure that our first Americans are afforded only the best health care this nation can offer. We have the responsibility to accept nothing less.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ted Radke on the occasion of his 20th year of service on the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors. We all owe Ted a debt of gratitude for his successful and tireless efforts to preserve and protect precious lands in the Bay Area for generations of Californians. Ted was originally elected to the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors in November, 1978 and has been re-elected every four years since that time. He served as Board President in 1986, 1987 and 1995. He ably and energetically represents the residents of Ward 7, which currently includes Antioch, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, Crockett, Discovery Bay, El Sobrante, Hercules, Martinez, Oakley, Pacheco, Pinole, Pittsburg, Port Costa and Rodeo. Ted has been a member of the Board's Executive, Finance and Workforce Diversity Committees, the Contra Costa Water District/EBRPD Liaison Committee, Contra Costa County Liaison Committee, Martinez JPA, North Contra Costa County Shoreline JPA and Pinole/Hercules JPA. His preferred Board Committee is the Legislative Committee over which he has expertly presided since 1983. He serves on intergovernmental Boards such as the Delta Science Center and the Carquinez Regional Land Trust, and is an active participant in the Pt. Molate Base Closure process, the Park District's East Contra Costa County Task Force, and the Concord Naval Weapons Station Joint Use Committee. An active supporter of local, state and federal efforts to raise funding for the acquisition of park and open space lands and the preservation of natural habitats and endangered species, Ted has worked on state bond acts, Proposition 70, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and Park District Measure AA (1988), Measures KK and LL (1996) and Measure W (1998). He has played a pivotal role in the acquisition of a number of key regional parks and trails, including Martinez Regional Shoreline, Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, Big Break Regional Shoreline and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, significantly contributing to the Park District's acreage increasing by 40,000 acres since 1978. Ted provided a leadership role in opposition to the development of solid waste landfills at future proposed parkland sites at Round Valley and Black Diamond in East Contra Costa County. Ted continues to seek opportunities for park and open space acquisition through partnerships with agencies such as the National Park Service (John Muir National Historic Site), Muir Regional Land Trust (Franklin Hills), and the Federal Government (Ozol Fuel Depot and Concord Naval Weapons Station). I know I speak for all the Members of this chamber when I congratulate Ted Radke for his 20 years of service to the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors, and when I thank him for the many contributions he has made to our community.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have supported the previous three continuing resolutions that we have previously approved to try and give time for the Committee on Appropriations to end their negotiations. Unfortunately, I do not belief that the negotiations are now done at the Committee on Appropriations level. I believe they are being orchestrated by the Republican leadership in this House, and I think the Republican leadership has proven itself to be dysfunctional with respect to those negotiations and with respect to doing the people's business. So now we are called upon to approve our fifth continuing resolution, a continuing resolution that does not assure that the work will get done. There is no evidence from approving the past three continuing resolutions that the work of this Nation has been done by this body. For that reason, I find myself very inclined to oppose this continuing resolution. Maybe we should stay in over the weekend. Maybe the people ought to work all night. Maybe the leadership ought to give the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others with expertise and experience in this field the ability to get the work of this Nation done. The side-bar tragedy to all of this is that, while 435 of us remain in town, while a couple of dozen committees remain in town, while the floor is in session periodically from time to time waiting for the Committee on Appropriations, the Republican leadership will not let the rest of the people's business go forward. So we are not able to have the consideration of a prescription drug benefit for our elderly population. Many of us now know what our grandparents and our parents struggle with in terms of pain for the prescription medicines they need. We know that we need to provide them some additional financial help. The President has made that proposal. But we cannot get consideration of that on the floor. Many of us know that we need to extend the fiscal solvency of Social Security, but nothing is before this Congress that would extend that solvency by a single day. And so, we do not attend to that business, the needs of the elderly, the needs of future generations to know that Social Security will both be secure and financially solvent when they need it. We passed HMO legislation, and then we see just a brutal force act of appointing conferees that are not inclined to support that legislation, that are not inclined to support progressive managed care protections for families that are denied care in many cases by HMO bureaucrats, by managed care employees, that have no medical expertise, that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. So that HMO legislation will not come forward in a form that it will help American families meet the medical needs of their children and of their family members. Why did they do that? Apparently, they could not stand to have two honest brokers on this committee so they could not appoint the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) or the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) who are proven to be honest brokers on behalf of real and sensible HMO reform. While we spent the first 9 months of this legislative year while the Republicans tried to sell to the American public a trillion-dollar tax bill, the vast majority of benefits that went for very large corporations and very, very wealthy individuals in this country, a tax bill and a tax cut that was repudiated by the American public overwhelmingly, especially when they compared it to their other priorities of protecting Social Security, making Social Security secure, improving the educational system of their children, reforming the HMO system, providing for a prescription benefit, America said they would like us to address those issues before they start addressing tax cuts for the wealthy, they would like to see us pay down the deficit if we are not going to do that before they want tax cuts for the very wealthy in this country. Having lost that battle, the Republicans are now here telling us that we after a trillion dollars that they apparently said that they had room for, given the deficit, given the long-term debt, given the Social Security problem, a trillion dollars, they now come back and say we do not have a dime for prescription drug benefits, we do not have a dime to improve our education system, we do not have a dime to try and help people out in the Social Security system, we do not have a dime to try to help people with minimum wage. In fact, minimum wage, designed to help people who are the working poor, people who get up and go to work every day of the year and at the end of the year they end up poor, rather than do that, they want to load up the minimum wage with 90 to 100 billion dollars in tax cuts, 75 or 80 percent of which goes to the top one percent of people in this country. So while we are trying to help what are low-income workers with increasing the minimum wage, they say the price of that is we have got to lather up the top one percent of this country with $100 billion in tax benefits. The fact of the matter is that this continuing resolution will do nothing to get the people's business done in this House of Representatives because the Republicans refuse to address this legislation. They refuse to do what America needs to have done, what American families wants, the education of the children, the protection of their elderly members, the protection of wages. Point of Order

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The issue before us, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not we are going to be given another 7 days to fail. They have failed. They have been given 5 weeks, and they have failed.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is the issue before us, Mr. Speaker, is the failure of the Republicans with the five continuing resolutions; and that is what I am speaking to.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will be more than happy to talk about the pending legislation and the failure the last three times that we have had this kind of legislation before us of the Republicans either to move and reach a budget agreement so this Nation will know where we stand with respect to Social Security, the debt and our obligations, both domestic and foreign, the failure of the Republicans to do that under this legislation the previous three times. I think it opens a legitimate question: Why are we now doing this for another 7 days? Why are we not staying here working over the weekend or whatever is necessary? These conference committees have been meeting time and again. But every time they sit down to meet, somebody walks into the room and hands somebody a piece of paper and the negotiations are off. If you are going to ask the American people to be patient for another 7 days, they have been patient for 5 weeks, while we have not had a budget. They ought to know that in fact there is going to be some chance, some chance of success that we will have a budget that meets the needs of this country and that while we are here, the other 430 Members of Congress that are not engaged in these negotiations, maybe we could get on with the rest of the people's business, the people's concerns about their education system, their Social Security system, the HMO system, the minimum wage that workers need in this country to try to provide for their families. That is why people ought to think long and hard before they just give carte blanche again to another 7 days when we have failed in the past 5 weeks to do the business of this country, the business of America's families, the business of America's elderly, the business of America's children.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Counties that are over $100,000, when they opt out, the 20 percent amounts to 7, 8, $9,000; so it is a relatively small amount of money. They ought to have the option to use the money as they see fit, which may mean they go into this program but also----

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. But over $100,000, they get $100,000 and 20 percent is $20,000. The list of set-asides is here, and some of it is as low as $8,000. So they could put that into their schools in a more efficient fashion. That is the argument here.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Let me just say that I rise in strong support of the Udall amendment because I think it is an important amendment. There will be varying amounts of money that will be available if one has the 20 percent set-aside, a 20 percent that is mandated within this legislation. This is supposedly an argument, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) said and as has been said over the last several years as timber policy in this country has changed, that this is an argument about sustaining the rural schools and county roads and other obligations of county governments where one has high ownership of Federal lands and timber based economies. If this is about maintaining those schools, schools that are in dire straits, I sit on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we listen to these schools every day in that committee talk about the problems of rural schools, talk about the problems of the western United States, of rural schools. We just had a bipartisan effort to try to get additional money to those schools under ESEA to provide them additional flexibility. We understand that problem. It is a very real problem. The administration, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) pointed out, offered legislation to make whole these schools without coupling it to forest policy. Why is this amendment important? This amendment is important, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), because it recognizes what this 20 percent set-aside is. This 20 percent set- aside is the last gasping of the forest industry in these areas to try to see whether or not they can bootstrap themselves into additional logging in these areas, to try to tell the communities that they can bring in additional monies even if it is contrary to the national interest of the National Forests and the people of this country. That is what this 20 percent set-aside is. That is why they fought so hard about it. I do not know how they got the school districts to do it. I do not know how they got the NEA and the School Boards Association and others, because supposedly the school boards are in such terrible trouble, that is why we need this legislation, but they took 20 percent of the money off the top on a mandatory mandate by the Congress. Now, we are told that, if one wants local flexibility, it is a poison pill. Six weeks ago, we are out here arguing that we had to give absolute flexibility to local governments, we had to give absolute flexibility to local schools. My, how far we have come from the Contract on America when local flexibility is a poison pill. But we are going to go ahead, if this legislation is passed without the Udall amendment, we are going to set up 150 Federal advisory committees. They are going to try to see whether or not they can come up with projects on the forests. That is not a problem. But do my colleagues know what? If the local community decides that 100 percent of these receipts should go into the schools, why should not they be able to make that determination? They are prohibited from making that determination because there is a Federal mandate in this legislation that says the local community cannot make that decision. So even if they decide what is in their best interest, they do not get to make that decision. They do not get to make that decision. That is why the Udall amendment is important. Because the fact of the matter is, what we are trying to do here and what this formula tries to do, is we take the highest users of forest policy when maybe, perhaps, the poorest policy was at its most irresponsible level, where we were timbering lands far beyond their sustained yield, far beyond their sustained productivity. That is why we are in the fix we are in today, because those lands have been butchered in such a fashion that they no longer will yield, because the people 10 years ago decided they would take everything they could get and they would rip and run. Now these communities are left without the resources to educate the children. We happen to believe, I think most people, that those communities can be made whole still, and the administration proposed that. But the timber industry said that is not good enough. That is not good enough. We have got to have the means to try to come in the back door and see whether or not we can, again, drive the timber harvest. So, therefore, one has a mandatory 20 percent set-aside, a 20 percent set-aside against the best interest of the community if the community decides that its roads and its school children are important. Plus in some cases, as I tried to point out earlier, the amount of money is so small that it is hard to believe that one can efficiently use it. But we will set up these committees, we will have 150 of them on every unit of the Forest, and they can decide what to do with $8,000 or $10,000. But if the community said we want to buy 10 computers or we want to buy software or we want to buy books or we want to contribute to the payment of one of the 100,000 teachers the President is trying to get passed, they will not be able to do that, because they will have to spend this 20 percent in a mandated set-aside to try to come up with some project on the Forest that the community, in fact, may not agree with. That is the wisdom of the Udall amendment. It is about understand what this 20 percent set-aside does.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, it is about understanding the need for communities to be able to make the full range of decisions that affect them. Because apparently from the debate and from the remarks of most of my colleagues in the affected areas, it becomes very clear that the money for schools today is insufficient. The money for schools in 1984 was insufficient. So now, out of an insufficient amount of money, the Federal Government is going to mandate that one has got to set aside 20 percent, so the schools cannot have it, the county roads cannot have it, even if the community decides that is what is important. I suggest what we do is make a bad bill better, we vote for the Udall amendment, and we give these local communities the controls that they need and they desire and that are most beneficial for their local communities and for the school children in those areas.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I will be brief on this amendment. Under this legislation, which many of my colleagues are supporting, and in their efforts to try and address a real problem about support for school finance in a number of rural areas and resource dependent areas, they have provided for a set-aside of some 20 percent of the money to be used in local projects. And in the consideration of that, in the secretarial approval of those projects, they state that ``the Secretary concerned shall carry out all projects in compliance with all Federal laws, rules, and Federal regulations.'' I would add to that including the law known as the Davis-Bacon Act. The reason for doing this is it is not quite clear after discussing with a number of people, including some of the staff on the committee, exactly the impact of the stewardship contracts under which these would be let, which I think is an effort to try to make sure that the Government, in fact, gets both the best quality work and gets the best price for that work and provides some flexibility in making that determination. I just want to make sure that, in that process, since this will be done with Federal dollars, that we do not undermine the prevailing wage provisions of the existing law. So that is why I am offering this amendment. I understand it may be acceptable to the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just say, following on to what the gentleman from Colorado has just said about his amendment, as you look through even in the cases of the counties that get more than $100,000 so the set-aside kicks in, in a number of instances the set- aside is $8,000, $15,000, $10,000, it is a very small amount of money. To believe that you are going to somehow initiate a big comprehensive planning operation on the forest for $8,000, while $8,000 would buy you a lot of textbooks or contribute to one of 100,000 teachers----