George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her remarks. She raises a number of very important points. We have talked about what the Vice President has done in the past, but also the fact that the Vice President has vision in talking about the future and clearly talking about issues in terms of livable communities that all of our constituencies struggle with on a daily basis. I represent a district on the east side of San Francisco Bay where people find themselves locked in on the Interstate 80, which runs through my district, at 15 miles an hour on a good morning. People have to get up at 4:00 in the morning to commute long distances to their work. The Vice President has asked that we start to address these issues and start to use his influence to get people to address these issues so that people can have a more livable community. That shows the kind of vision he has. I think also when we read in the newspaper that there is going to be an attack by the leadership, the Republican leadership, on the Vice President, maybe it is a compliment. Maybe we know a man by his enemies, because if we look at the Republican leadership it is rather shocking. Senator Lott has a zero rating with the League of Conservation Voters. Senator Nickles has a zero rating with the League of Conservation Voters. Our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) has 17 percent; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader Armey, 17 percent; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 10 percent; Senator Murkowski, Chairman Young, 3 percent. Maybe we know the Vice President's effectiveness. Maybe we know his vision and maybe we know his record by those who would seek now to attack him and somehow try to diminish his stature in the environmental movement, not only in this country but around the world. We have to understand that just in the last session, when we had the McGovern amendment to restore State park funding, 78 percent of the Republicans voted against it. The Waxman global climate change amendment, 88 percent of the Republicans voted no. The amendment I offered to stop subsidized road construction in the Tongass National Forest, 93 percent of the Republicans voted no. We used to have a coalition here, Conservation in the United States. It was a bipartisan coalition. Many people go back and properly give Teddy Roosevelt credit for starting that. It is interesting that Business Week, hardly a voice of environmental activism, laments that the Republican Party tradition under Teddy Roosevelt of protecting land is being trashed, and it is shameful. It is the leaders of that effort who are now somehow going to attack the environmental credentials of the Vice President or say that he is wrong-headed. The fact is, through his efforts both in the House and in the Senate, and as the Vice President of the United States, he has led the efforts to clean up our air, to clean up our water, to clean up the toxic sites in this Nation; to clean up the Superfund sites that plague our communities, the brownfields campaign that he started that allows us to take these toxic sites and turn them into economic opportunities, and as we have seen now in Palo Alto, California, in Richmond, California, in communities that now have economic opportunities that did not exist there before that kind of program under the leadership of this administration. So we know what the Republicans have been doing, and we know certainly what the Republican leadership has been doing, and that is that they have launched, the minute the Gingrich revolution came to town, their first effort was to launch an attack on the basic and fundamental environmental laws of this Nation. Now let us look at what the Vice President has been doing. He has been going out to communities that have great environmental strife, that have had all kinds of controversy, and he has brought people together to try to sit down and work those things out. Most recently in California where we had the headwaters forest deal, where we were going to lose some of the last of the ancient grand redwoods in this Nation on the face of this Earth, it was the involvement of the Vice President and this administration that finally secured a deal. I do not like all of it, but I will tell my colleagues, it secured a deal by which we can protect those redwoods, we can allow some timber activity to continue, and the economy in that area can continue. That had been years of controversy before the administration got involved. The same is true in California water, where the administration has brought people together to solve one of the most difficult problems, the survivability of San Francisco Bay, the survivability of the San Francisco Bay delta. In our huge, complex Federal and State water systems that are the cornerstone of our future economic growth in California, there has been the involvement and the leadership of the Vice President. The Everglades speaks for itself. The Everglades speaks for itself. Working with the Florida delegation, making sure that the Corps of Engineers thought about the future as opposed to the past, changed the manner in which the Kissimmee River flowed, the flow of the water through the Everglades, the cleaning up of the marine resources, all with the leadership of the Vice President working with local communities. That has been the hallmark. Finally today let me say, I know that there are many on the other side that want to attack the Vice President for his positions on global warming. Today I sat in my office with the CEO of an energy company that is building a new generation of gas-fired turbines to replace the old that will clean up the air, will provide new jobs that did not exist before, will provide a lower rate of energy because of the efficiency of these new generators, and will allow us in California, he is one part of a large industry that will allow us to start trading in the old polluting industries, get higher efficiency, lower cost out of a new generation, because of the concern. And they are willingly doing this. They have investors, they are putting venture capital into this, putting money at risk to clean up the air, recognizing and responding to the concerns about global warming. So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this special order. I agree with the gentleman from Washington that it is sad that we have to do this; it is sad that somehow some on the Republican side would believe that Earth Day should be celebrated by attacking the vice presidential environmental credentials, his motives and his actions and his work that has been so sterling and has meant so much for this Nation, for the health of our water, the health of our air and the health of our families and our communities. It is unfortunate. I believe we are in the process of restoring that bipartisan environmental coalition. More and more we see Democrats and Republicans working together. But the Republican leadership apparently still has not gotten the message, and somehow they want to try to make mileage by attacking the Vice President. It is a horrible mistake for them, and the biggest problem of it is it simply has no credibility, it is not true, and their record does not allow them to speak with any credibility about the environmental record of the Vice President or anyone else in this Nation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1184, a bill to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program--a multi-agency effort to reduce the terrible effects of earthquakes on life and property. Of particular interest to the Resources Committee, the bill would authorize appropriations for FY 2000 and 2001 to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to carry out its responsibilities under the Act, including a related USGS grant program and another program to develop a prototype real-time seismic warning system. Finally the bill would require the USGS Director to establish a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee. The Clinton Administration has testified in strong support of reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. This program has made significant progress and contributions in the reduction of earthquake risks during its 23-year history. While the Resources Committee's jurisdiction in this matter is limited to activities of the USGS, the effort to reduce earthquake risks is shared among other federal agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As a native Californian, I am grateful to the fine work done by all of these agencies. Under this critical program, USGS produces earthquake hazard assessments and national seismic hazard maps for earthquake loss reduction; provides timely and accurate notifications of earthquakes and information on their location, size, and damage potential, and carries out studies and research on earthquake occurrence and effects. For example, during 1999-2001, USGS will develop more detailed, larger scale products that depict variations in the expected ground shaking across the San Francisco Bay urban area. The data compiled will enable local officials and planners to see probabilities of earthquake occurrence, amplification or extension of shaking caused by geologic deposits and structures, and susceptibility of these deposits to liquefy and slide during an earthquake. In another major partnership authorized by this program, the USGS, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Southern California Earthquake Center are installing a state-of-the-art geodetic network to monitor fault movements and Earth strain in Southern California. Utilizing a satellite navigation system operated by the Department of Defense, which permits points on the Earth's surface to be located to a precision of a millimeter, the network will track the movement of 250 stations concentrated along a corridor through the Los Angeles basin, but also extending south to the Mexican border and east to the Colorado River. Basically, the data derived from this effort will not only improve general understanding of large-scale tectonic processes responsible for earthquakes but will also provide indications where earthquakes might occur in the near future. Earthquakes are one of the most devastating natural hazards known to man and pose a severe threat to life and property in many regions of our Nation and around the world--and in particular in my home state of California. The United States has a fundamental responsibility and self-interest in reducing the risks associated with earthquakes. Mitigation and finding new applications should continue to be an integral factor in efforts to lessen the terrible consequences of earthquakes on our populace. At the same time, we must continue to develop a strong scientific understanding of where earthquakes will occur, why they occur, how big they can be, and to learn more about the effects that they will generate. Basic research and monitoring have contributed significantly to our improved mitigation capacity. Good science has also led to application and informed decision-making. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program addresses many of the more serious earthquake risks, and I am pleased to support its reauthorization. I recommend an ``aye'' vote on its passage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it comes down to this: We ran a pilot project on educational flexibility with 12 different States and when we got back the results of that pilot project, what we found was that essentially 9 or 10 of those States gave us back educational babble about what they were going to do with this money and how they were going to be accountable for the money in terms of the performance of their students, in terms of how well their students were able to improve their mathematics scores, their reading capabilities and their critical thinking. We got back educational babble about realizing the potential of the educational atmosphere to enhance the environment, to improve the capabilities of the students to perform better. Babble. One State, the State of Texas, came back to us and said, in exchange for flexibility our goal in the State of Texas over the next 5 years, in a numerical sense, is to have 90 percent of our students pass the Texas State Assessment, and to go beyond that, to have 90 percent of our Hispanic students, 90 percent of our African-American students, 90 percent of our poor students, pass the Texas State Assessment. That is how we wish to be measured, and we put into the State law and into our agreement with the Federal Government that that is our goal. I do not know whether Texas will make it or not, and I am not here to micromanage the system to tell them how to make it, but at least they came forward and set down on the table a numerical means by which they were prepared to be measured. They also told us that they would be using the same assessment from year-to-year. This bill does not require the same assessment from year-to-year. Numerical goals, this bill does not require numerical goals. There is no requirement here that States make the effort to close the gap between minority students and majority students, and yet in the most recent assessment we have received, after pouring billions of dollars into this program, the gap between Hispanic and white students, the gap between African-American and white students, continues to increase, continues to increase, but there is no requirement here or accountability for school districts to try and to close that gap. There is no accountability here that we have an assessment system so we can measure that over the life of this program. I think it is important to understand that that is the difference about why we support or oppose this legislation, that this legislation continues to put the Federal Government in the position of being the enabler, being the enabler of States not having to be accountable, not having to be accountable for the performance of all students, not the average student, not some students but all students, so then we can measure whether or not we as the investors of the public money, some $60 billion to $70 billion over the next 5 years, whether or not we are getting a return on our investment that the public is in fact entitled to. We cannot assure the public that we can get that return on the investment and therefore I will vote ``no" on this conference report.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my colleague Congressman Wicker in introducing legislation to extend and improve the National Writing Project. The knowledge and skill of a child's teacher is the single most important factor in the quality of his or her education. The National Writing Project is a nationwide program that works to improve student writing abilities by improving the teaching of writing in the nation's schools. The National Writing Project serves a remarkable number of teachers and students on an exceptionally small budget. In academic year 1997-98, the National Writing Project trained 181,402 teachers and administrators nationwide through 157 writing project sites in 46 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. It has served two million teachers and administrators over the last 25 years. For every federal dollar received, the National Writing Project raises $6.93 in matching grants. This makes the National Writing Project one of the most cost-effective educational programs in the country. Furthermore, a national staff of only two people administers the National Writing Project. The use of limited federal funds to leverage large private investments is the most efficient way to use the budgeted funds available for the greatest possible return. The National Writing Project works. For example, in Chicago, students of National Writing Project teachers have shown significantly higher gains on the Illinois Goals Assessment Program writing tests when compared to student performance citywide. In an urban Sacramento, California high school, student performance on local writing assessments rose from lowest to highest in the district after an influx of National Writing Project teachers to the school, and college enrollment among this school's senior class rose 400%. The National Writing Project has received similarly impressive results all across this country. In fact, the National Writing Project has received glowing reviews from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the National Council of Teacher Education, the Council for Basic Education, and independent evaluators. The national Writing Project is efficient, cost-effective and successful. I look forward to working with my colleagues in enacting this important legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the chairman of the Committee on the Budget got up and said that this was about risk taking, this was about a budget that would allow people to take risks to keep more of their money and to take risk. Unfortunately, the people that are at risk in this budget are the people who seek a better education for their children, veterans who seek better health care, communities that seek to lower class sizes, the elderly that want to make sure that Medicare is secure. Those are the people who are taking the risk in the Republican budget. They want to pretend as though, if they give back a tax cut, that everything will happen and everything will turn out all right, and that is the risk, is giving back the tax cut. No, the risk for America is in paying for that tax cut because, as we see in this budget, student loans for higher education, Pell grants for higher education all need to be cut to make room for that. The hundred thousand teachers to try to lower class sizes needs to be cut to make room for that. In fact, what we see is an across-the-board cut in education at a time when the people in this country are telling us that they recognize the kind of reinvestment that this Nation, our States, our local communities need to make in education so that our young people can compete in a worldwide economy. Those are the people at risk. Once again what the Republicans have done is shifted the risk of their budget priorities to those who can least afford it, those who have the least ability to make up for their mistakes, those who are trying to the best of their ability to move forward in American society, in American economy. That is where the risk is in their budget, those are the programs that are targeted, those are the programs that are cut, those are the programs that are reduced, all to make way for a tax cut that they hope for people who have simply none of the worries, none of these everyday worries, that American families have on a daily basis about themselves, their jobs and their children's education.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers are being systematically cheated out of hundreds of millions of dollars by oil companies that do not pay the correct amount of royalties on the oil and gas they produce from public lands. We can see evidence of this fraudulent behavior in several Congressional investigations, the Department of Justice litigation and a Clinton Administration Interagency Task Force report. Additionally, the Justice Department intervened in 8 of 19 qui tam cases filed by private individuals alleging hundreds of millions of dollars underpaid to the federal government. One company (Mobil) has settled with the federal government for $45 million. In addition, States (including Alaska, California, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas) have brought similar lawsuits that have been settled for almost $3 billion. The Interior Department is collecting more than $275 million on underpayments. To correct the underlying problem, the Department of the Interior has tried--unsuccessfully--for the past three years to revise its rules to make it more difficult for oil producers to avoid paying accurate royalties. The proposed regulations would clarify long standing legal requirements requiring the industry's responsibility to pay the cost of marketing the public's oil and gas. But some oil producers have been systematically deducting those costs from the amounts they owe taxpayers. Under the new rules, these producers would be required to pay the correct amount--based on real-market sales--to the American people who own the oil and gas. Instead of supporting this necessary corrective action, however, Congress has enacted legislative riders preventing the implementation of the new rules at a cost of more than $60 million a year, most of which would go to fund public education. The Senate is poised to extend this travesty on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, and the House is expected to go along in Conference Committee. Taxpayers should be distressed that Congress would rather side with industry rather than assure fair market value on the public's natural resources. This larceny has gone on too long. It is time for the Congress to consider legislation that will assure prompt and accurate payment of royalties instead of providing cover to that portion of the industry that wants to shortchange taxpayers on their resources we all own. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will impose a penalty of treble damages on any producer who chronically undervalues royalty payments. If industry will not pay the correct amount voluntarily and fights efforts to issue legitimate rules to safeguard the public, then industry must know that abusers, when caught, will be punished. For those in the industry who abide by the rules and pay the correct amount, this legislation has no effect. But on those who deceive and delay, this legislation will mean serious punishment. This bill will require under payors to pay three times the amount they should have paid plus a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation. In addition, lessees found guilty of chronic repeated failure to pay correctly would be subject to an additional civil penalty three times the amount owed for a single violation. Finally, the bill would require the federal government to share such sums collected under the penalty provisions with the State in which the violation occurred, as happens with royalty payments overall. This bill will not affect responsible companies in the oil and gas sector. Nevertheless, we must draw a bright line for companies that deliberately and repeatedly withhold revenues to the taxpaying public. Unfortunately, there is a history of underpayments in this field that requires a strong legislative response. I would hope the Congress ends its practice of ignoring these underpayments and instead takes actions on this legislation to assure that taxpayers receive the royalties they are due.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1150.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, water supplies for California cities are extremely limited. Whenever possible, cities attempt to use their water storage and conveyance systems in the most efficient ways they can. The city of Vallejo has tried to use its water supply facilities more efficiently, but has been frustrated by a limitation in Federal law that prohibits the city from sharing space in an existing Federal water delivery canal. The city of Vallejo simply desires to ``wheel'' some of its drinking water through part of the canal serving California's Solano Project, a water project built by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 1950s. Vallejo is prepared to pay any appropriate charges for the use of this facility. Allowing Vallejo to use the Solano Project should be a simple matter, but it is not. Legislation is required to allow the city to use the Federal water project for carriage of municipal and industrial water. Congress in recent years has expanded the scope of the ``Warren Act'' to apply to other communities in California and Utah where there existed a need for more water management flexibility. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress. It will simply extend similar flexibility to the Solano Project and to the city of Vallejo.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct, and I appreciate what people have said on the other side. But the fact of the matter is that the program to provide for 100,000 teachers over the next several years in the classrooms of this country is a program that was passed by this Congress. It is a high priority for the President of the United States. Now what we see is an attempt in the Senate to try and renege on that promise, to torpedo that program because the other side does not like the idea of using this money to reduce class sizes. Now what they have decided to do is they are going to pit disabled children's education against the reduction in class sizes. This is a program for the purposes of reducing class sizes. Already one of the criticisms is that there is not enough money to do it properly. So if some States do not want to use it for that purpose, then the money can be reallocated to the States who have a crying need to lower their class sizes, and they can get about that business. This is not a mandatory program. It is not required that one takes money from the Federal Government. The notion that somehow that this is really about helping with IDEA, it is interesting that, in the budget resolution that the Republicans are going to bring to the floor, there was an attempt there to fully fund IDEA, and all of the Republicans voted against it. So they say they are all upset that we have only funded 10 percent or 12 percent since we made the promise to fully fund the excess cost, and yet when they had the chance in the budget resolution to vote it for it, they voted against it. So let us understand what is going on here. There is an attempt here to derail and deny a President a program that is very popular among parents, among school administrators and others to try and reduce class size, because reduced class size does appear to be having an impact. I appreciate what the gentleman said, it is about the quality of teacher. Nobody has fought harder for the quality of teacher. But I have met an awful lot of good teachers, an awful lot of very good teachers who will tell my colleagues that it is very difficult to do their job when they are teaching 35 and 40 students at different grade levels. The point is this, that the Senate can try and derail that presidential program, or we can deal with Ed-Flex straight up, which we ought to do. So let us just understand that that is what is taking place here. This is not about IDEA other than to use it as a battering ram against the presidential program that many, many school districts are waiting to be able to take advantage of. Schools do not want to do it, then do not do it. But the fact of the matter is that we should do full funding of IDEA. But when my colleagues had their opportunity to do it, they did not do it. We could have it in the budget resolution on the floor this week, but the choice was not to do that. The choice was to go off and fund star wars or whatever else they are doing with the money that they have. So let us keep the two things separate and understand that this is about Ed-Flex. We ought to pass an Ed-Flex bill. We ought to send that Ed-Flex bill to the President of the United States, and we can come back, and we can keep our promise on the 100,000 teachers. Then we can deal with IDEA when the time comes for us to deal with that in the appropriations bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 130, to designate the court house on Centre Street in New York City as the ``Thurgood Marshall United States Court House.'' It is particularly auspicious that this legislation appears before the House of Representatives this week when much of the nation will learn, for the first time, of one of Justice Marshall's early cases on behalf of oppressed members of our society. As a young attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Thurgood Marshall went to Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay in September 1944 to observe the largest mutiny trial in the history of our nation. The accused men were sailors who had refused to continue loading highly explosive munitions at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine because a terrific explosion just a few weeks earlier had, without warning or explanation, killed 320 of their colleagues and destroyed this important naval facility. It was the largest home front loss of life of the war. Marshall was concerned about the Port Chicago courts martial because all the accused men were blacks, men relegated to loading munitions on ships rather than firing them at the enemy solely because they were black. Men who lived in segregated housing, ate in segregated mess halls; men denied the post-traumatic leave typically granted. Indeed, benefits to the survivors of those black men killed in the explosion were reduced from $5,000 to $3,000 when southern senators learned the victims were blacks. The Navy, dismissing the protests of the NAACP and others over the hypocrisy of asking segregated blacks to fight fascism abroad, denounced their sailors as having ``exhibited the normal characteristics of negroes,'' and prosecuted them for mutiny. Fifty stood their ground and were sentenced to long jail terms, later reduced in the aftermath of the war. Following their convictions, Thurgood Marshall launched an impassioned effort to force the government to rescind the convictions, and he won some concessions: two dozen pieces of evidence were thrown out as tainted, but the convictions stood, and continue to stand today. The Navy of the 1990s has proved equally resistant to revisiting the Port Chicago convictions. Directed by Congress to re-examine the case in 1992, Secretary of the Navy John Dalton admitted that there was ``no doubt that racial prejudice was responsible for the posting of African- American enlisted personnel to the loading at Port Chicago.'' Then Secretary of Defense William Perry agreed that ``prejudice in the first instance resulted in the assignment of African-American sailors to hard, dangerous work, but segregated them and denied them the dignity accorded to others in uniform.'' Like Dalton, however, Perry refused to overturn the convictions because, they asserted, the pervasive racism in the Navy and at Port Chicago was not documented in the actual trial proceedings. I wonder how the courts ultimately would have treated Rosa Parks if they had refused to consider the context in which she defied the law and launched the civil rights campaigns of the 1950s. I wonder how history might be different if judicial officers reviewing records of sit-ins at lunch counters did not consider the environment in which those acts of defiance occurred. The same is true of the Port Chicago case, and Thurgood Marshall knew it over a half century ago. Men who battled to enlist in the Navy to defend their country against fascism and racism were treated like second class citizens because of their race. They got second class jobs, second class training, and they got second class justice. For decades, virtually all of the surviving Port Chicago ``mutineers'' have suffered their unjustified humiliation in silence, much as they suffered the anguish of official segregation and Navy policies that placed them in extreme risk without even a modicum of training. Bolstered by books and news coverage a decade ago, a few of these men--several now deceased--worked with Members of Congress to secure the Navy reviews and to successfully pass legislation in 1992 creating the Port Chicago National Memorial in California that honors the men who served and died at that facility. A decade-long effort to secure the exoneration of over 250 black sailors who refused to resume loading the ships is gaining steam. A national law firm, Morrison and Foerster, has taken up the pardon appeal of Mr. Freddie Meeks of Los Angeles, and will hopefully be able to represent additional survivors and the families of those men who passed away without ever knowing that this day of reconsideration was coming. The media also is finally paying attention to the travesty that followed the tragedy. The History Channel recently broadcast an hour- long show, produced by CBS, and the Learning Channel is set to air its own account on March 30th. NBC will nationally broadcast a made-for-TV movie, produced by actor Morgan Freeman, on March 28 that tells a fictionalized account of the Port Chicago story. So it is fitting that, as the nation studies the Port Chicago case and the important role Thurgood Marshall played in challenging these unjust convictions, we meet here today to dedicate this building in his memory. Port Chicago was an early, and largely unknown, item in a distinguished legal and judicial career, and Justice Marshall surely deserves the honor we are about to confer on him.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself, and Representatives Johnson (of Connecticut), Matsui, and English, to expand the student loan interest payment tax deduction. As a college education becomes both increasingly expensive and increasingly important in getting a job and being a productive and active participant in our democratic society, we must continue to look for ways to help students pay for tuition and related educational expenses. As a part of the Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997, the interest paid on student loans became eligible for an ``above-the-line'' deduction on Federal income taxes. This tax provision is just beginning to provide needed relief to many student borrowers. However, under current law, only the first 60 loan payments are eligible for the deduction. Because student loan payments are typically made monthly, this means that students can deduct interest payments on their taxes for only 5 years of repayment, not including time periods spent in either forbearance or deferment. Our legislation would simply lift the 60-payment restriction and allow borrowers to deduct interest payments for the entire period of repayment. Extending the time limit on the tax deduction is one of the most direct and straightforward changes we can make in current law to relieve the increasing burden of student loan debt. Loans now comprise 60 percent of all postsecondary student aid, compared to just 45 percent 10 years ago. Our legislation will be particularly helpful to students with high loan debt and those who choose to pay over longer periods. The latter group includes those who choose ``income contingent repayment,'' that is those who make smaller payments over a longer period of time, especially those who maintain a commitment to lower-paying public service occupations. Eliminating the 60 payment period also will ease difficult, confusing, and costly reporting requirements currently required for both borrowers and lenders. Thus far, these reporting requirements have proved so difficult that the IRS has already relaxed the rules for reporting during the 1998 tax year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1999'' and am pleased that 22 of our colleagues have cosponsored the legislation. My bill makes permanent a demonstration project that exists under current law which gives Indian tribes who meet certain criteria, such as experience in government contracting, accounting, and management capability, the right to take over the operation of Indian Heal Service (IHS) hospital, clinics, and other health programs. The demonstration program, called Self-Governance, already is permanent for programs in the Interior Department and is an outgrowth of the original Self-Determination Act contracting authority. The aim of the Self-Governance program is to pare down the layers of federal bureaucracy governing Indian affairs. Giving Indian tribes direct control over IHS programs has made the tribes more accountable to their members, and has resulted in a more efficient and innovative operation of health programs than had been administered by federal officials in the past. The Self-Governance program allows tribes with two or more existing contracts with the IHS to combine them into one ``compact'', redistribute funds among programs where justified by need, and tailor or redesign various health programs to fit specific tribal needs. This legislation truly helps further tribal sovereignty. I believe it is one thing to talk about legal theories contained in law books but it is quite another to see how tribal control and operation of these health programs have resulted in improvement of health care to Indian people. This legislation provides Indian Tribes with the opportunity to provide services and care for their own people. Further, this legislation will help reduce federal bureaucracy and give more local control over federal programs. Similar legislation passed the House last Congress but was not acted on in the Senate. I urge speedy consideration of this important legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 975 to protect American jobs from unfair trade and ensure that the U.S. steel industry remains strong. I would like to thank the Congressional Steel Caucus, the Steelworkers union, and leaders of the steel industry for the hard work they have done to bring this bill to the House floor for a vote. The U.S. steel industry, which underwent a painful restructuring and reinvestment process in the 1980s to reemerge as a world leader, has been severely harmed by unfairly dumped steel. During the first 10 months of 1998, United States imports of steel grew to record levels as the global financial crisis led Japan, Russia, Brazil and other countries to dump their steel on the United States market. As a result of the flood of imports, three U.S. steel companies flied for bankruptcy, and nearly 10,000 steelworkers lost their jobs. In my district, USS POSCO has lost millions of dollars in revenue and has imposed a hiring freeze. In December, USS POSCO was forced to furlough its employees for one week because of the import surge. Steelworkers and steel companies are suffering not because they can't compete, but because of unfair foreign trade tactics. H.R. 975, the Steel Import Reduction Act, is an important step to ensure that American workers and companies do not continue to bear the brunt of unfair trade practices. The bill directs the president to take the necessary steps, including imposing quotas, to cap steel imports at precrisis levels. The bill also requires the administration to establish a steel import notification and monitoring program, so that we can quickly respond to any dumping in the future. The administration has begun to take some small steps in the right direction, but more needs to be done. The Commerce Department recently issued trade case rulings against Japan, Brazil, and Russia and found that all three had dumped steel. Steel imports have now slowed, but not nearly enough. We need a global, comprehensive approach to end the crisis, one that addresses all nations and all steel product lines. The administration's piecemeal, one-nation-at-a-time approach forces us to spend our time putting out one fire after another and simply will not work. For these reasons I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in voting for this bill and challenge the administration to protect U.S. steelworkers and support H.R. 975.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Roger J. Dolan on the occasion of his retirement from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and recognizing him for his many years of dedicated public service. Roger has enjoyed a career marked with many personal and professional achievements. During his time with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, Roger was responsible for the pilot investigation of physical, chemical, and biological processes which established the design criteria for a 120 million gallon per day high purity oxygen activated sludge process. He supervised the design of this $85 million plant, and managed its construction. Since becoming the general manager-chief engineer of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in 1977, Roger Dolan has developed a nationally recognized household hazardous waste facility, and a 45 million gallon per day secondary treatment plant with sludge incineration, ultra-violet disinfection and water reclamation. While Roger's achievements have won him the praise and respect of his colleagues and peers, these deserving benchmarks cannot overshadow his consistent commitment to environmental protection and his exemplary stewardship of our natural resources. His pursuit of technological innovation in the field of wastewater treatment and water recycling, and his promotion of scientific research into the methods of protecting the waters, fish and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay, are the hallmarks of his career for which I am most thankful. I know I speak for all the Members of this Chamber when I wish Roger J. Dolan a very happy and healthy retirement, 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. Chairman, this was a program that was designed to focus on the educational problems of poor children, of educationally disadvantaged children, and we continue to get back scores about how average children are doing in school districts and in States. What have we found out? The poor children, the educationally disadvantaged children, continue to slide back. Apparently only in Maryland, only in North Carolina and in Texas will we know how all of the children are doing. This whole program is predicated that we are not going to go the old route of attracting certain children, pulling children out of classrooms, going through all the stuff we have gone through in the last decade but we are going to make a decision that all children can learn. When the Texas Superintendent of Education came before our committee, she said one of the things that having these targets, of having this kind of data that we call for in our amendment, what this has allowed them to do is to redeploy the resources based upon where the problem is, because under the flexibility side of this bill, they are able to do that. They can go after those schools where there is a problem, they can go after those students who are not reading to grade level. That is the advantage of this legislation as authored by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). It provides the flexibility to do that. We do not touch that flexibility. We deal with the side of accountability. I think we have an obligation to parents, to students, to taxpayers to ask these tough questions, and I think we have got to get back the answers in a form that we can hold people accountable. This is sort of just old hardheaded accountability. Now, we do not have a whole lot of accountability in the political system and in our budget systems and all the rest of it, but apparently the Nation has told us that that is what they want. Parents want to know how their children are doing, but in many school districts and even the Ed-Flex school districts in the pilot program, they have no data. They are not able to report how these children are doing. I think it is time, as I said, to fish or cut bait. We are going to invest $50 billion in this program later this year. We ought to be able to get back the answers about how it is doing. As the Superintendent of Maryland wrote to us, the underlying bill simply does not contain provisions to ensure the States receiving the Ed-Flex waivers are held publicly accountable for student achievement. Interestingly enough, the States that in many ways are doing the best, North Carolina testified that this is the way the questions ought to be asked and this is the way the data ought to be received, Texas that is living under this system said yes, they agreed with this amendment. The State of Maryland that is getting accolades under this program said yes, this is the way the data ought to be received. There is a lot of talk about how somehow this is going to delay it. Does anybody believe that this legislation and all the rest of it is going to be ready for the next school year? We told people at the end of 5 years after $2 billion, we wanted a system of testing and of assessments and many of the States are there. But we cannot any longer fudge with the timetables.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself and with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) I think is the most important education amendment that we will address this year, not because we are the authors but because it has come time for the Congress of the United States to fish or cut bait with respect to education. This amendment goes to the issue of what is the accountability by us, by governors, by superintendents of schools and local school districts for the education of our children. Why do we get a right to ask for accountability? Why do we get a right to ask how are our children doing? Because over more than a decade, we have spent $118 billion in the elementary and secondary education program, and with all due respect to those expenditures, it is not all that we would like it to be. By some accounts, the results are mixed, by some accounts there are some bright spots, but the bright spots do not warrant the expenditure of $118 billion. We have decided to head off in a new direction, dealing with flexibility. We made this decision a couple of years ago. We made it with the Goals 2000 where we told States we would put up a couple of billion dollars so they could generate high standards and good assessments of those standards to how those children are doing. We wanted them to do that so that every child could learn, not just some children. Then we had the Ed-Flex pilot program. We gave 10 districts the ability to go out and gain flexibility in putting their programs together at the State and local level. Then we had a GAO report. That GAO report came back and said we are doing fairly well on flexibility but we are not doing very well on accountability. Some of these districts just have not measured up in terms of being able to tell how are the children of America doing, how are the children of any State doing and how are the children of any school district and school doing. The GAO came back and told us that in fact most of the States that participate in Ed-Flex had very vague if any standards at all. They could not really answer the questions that were asked of them with respect to accountability. They had not established any goals. But they took the money. Except one State, the State of Texas that applied for Ed-Flex that asked for flexibility in the Texas programs, the Governor and the State Superintendent of Schools there said in trading you for flexibility in how we use the Federal money under ESEA, we will tell you that these are our goals for our students and we will put them down in a numerical fashion so you can measure us 5 years from now. At the end of 5 years, they said they expected that 90 percent of the schoolchildren in Texas would pass the State exams, State exams, mind you, that are getting very high marks nationally for what they measure. They said that not only will 90 percent of the children in Texas pass the exams, I am willing to tell you, the Governor of Texas said to us, that 90 percent of the African-American children, 90 percent of the Hispanic children, 90 percent of the poor children, will also pass that exam. Now, what have most States been telling us in exchange for Federal dollars? One of the Ed-Flex States said, rather than do what the Governor of Texas did, they said that they would have a commitment to the identification and the implementation of programs that will create an environment which all students actualize their academic potential. Absolute educational babble. Absolute educational babble. How do you hold anybody accountable and how do you ask how the students are doing? At the end of 5 years in the State of Texas, we will know whether 90 percent of the children were able to achieve the goals that the State has for the schoolchildren of Texas, or whether 80 percent or 79 percent or what have you. We also know that Texas is moving toward that goal in the interim assessments that we have of their program. We are about, later this year, to reinvest $50 billion in this program over the next 5 years. I ask my colleagues to think like the people ask us to think when we go to town hall meetings, because they stand up all the time and they say, ``Why can't you run the government like a business?'' Well, if a businessperson was going to invest $50 billion in a venture, if a bank was going to invest $50 billion in a venture, if a venture capitalist was going to invest $50 billion in a venture, they would ask the recipients of that money, ``What can I expect in return?'' In this case, what can I expect in return of student achievement over the next 5 years? Unfortunately, the bill before us does not allow that question to be answered in the proper form. We will still get back questions about how the average students are doing. This is a program that was originally designed for poor children.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, today with this debate, we arrive at a crucial point after a number of efforts over the past several years to increase the flexibility by local educational agencies to use Federal dollars. Today we arrive at a point that, if we are now going to provide additional flexibilities to the States to grant waivers to local school districts, we then have to make a decision about accountability. We have to know that we can hold the States publicly accountable for the results. Many have said over the past years that the education debate is not about dollars, it is not about how much money we put into it. Let me tell my colleagues what it is about. It is about results. It is about what happens to the children at the end of the schoolyear. Can they or can they not compute and read at grade level? Can they critically think? Can they master the skills so they can participate in our American economic system? Last night, we retreated to the fact that six young children from the same school in Maryland won the equivalent of the Nobel prize for high school students, the Intel competition. That same State has worked very hard on flexibility, but it has also worked very hard on accountability. The superintendent of that State's system encourages Members to vote for the Miller-Kildee amendment to increase accountability because, as she said, ``This bill, in its current provisions, does not ensure that those States receiving Ed-Flex will be held publicly accountable.'' The Governor of Texas, when he came and applied for Ed-Flex for flexibility in running his school system in Texas, he said, ``Here is what I am prepared to do as a result. Five years from now, I am telling you that our goal, what we hope to achieve, is to have 90 percent of our children pass the State Texas exams, 90 percent of our children.'' He also said something else. He said, ``I am prepared to have 90 percent of our Hispanic children, 90 percent of our African-American children, and 90 percent of our poor children pass that exam.'' That is public accountability. That is the kind of accountability we would have if we have the Miller-Kildee amendment. I think it is terribly important. Because what did we get from the other States that applied for Ed-Flex? We got educational babble out of them. They did not set any goals. We saw the GAO report. They have very vague goals, very vague references to achievement. Some of them could not even provide the data. We cannot continue that process. This is now going to become a permanent part of our law. This is now going to govern the investment of $50 billion later this year. We ought to be able to look our constituents and taxpayers in the eye and tell them that we are going to hold people publicly accountable for the results. I am not telling them what results to achieve. I am not telling them how to do it. But I think they ought to tell us where they are going to be 5 years from now, because the last 5-year plan has not worked out very well. In fact, about 85 percent of the school districts did not do very well on accountability. I appreciate they have got flexibility, but they cannot tell us how their children are doing. That is what parents want to know: How is my child doing? Are they receiving the education that they deserve?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the rule provides for it or maybe we can find out from the Chair, is there going to be an order for the amendments or is it just going to be based upon recognition? Is the whole bill open for amendment?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So it is just based upon recognition by the Chair?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Holt amendment to the Ehlers amendment. I must say that I am somewhat surprised that this amendment would not be accepted by the majority to the legislation, because, one, I think it is quite consistent with the legislation. It is also quite consistent with the priority that this Congress has spoken to with respect to math and science, education and professional development. If you read the underlying statute in the Eisenhower program, the first monies appropriated go to math and science because we have obviously recognized and continue to recognize that this Nation has a problem with respect to math and science education and also to the development of qualified teachers to teach math and science. If I remember right, when Governor Ridge was before our committee testifying on this legislation, and many of the changes he has made in the State of Pennsylvania, many leading the Nation with respect to teacher development, he suggested that with respect to math and science, if I remember his testimony correctly, that he essentially felt that Pennsylvania has basically done a very good job in preparing math and science teachers and now he would like to move on to other areas of professional development within that area. There is nothing in this amendment that would prevent the governor from so doing. When he prepares the plan or the superintendent of schools, public instruction, prepares a plan for submission, they would simply recite how they are doing with respect to this, how they have met it or are meeting the professional development. If he feels he has accomplished this for the time being and he wants to use the resources otherwise, he is fully free to do that under the Holt amendment. I think that is the important thing about the Holt amendment; it merges with the intent of this legislation. It does not contradict that. Let us understand something else about this. Some day we will have a hearing about professional development, and I suspect if we go into schools and talk to schoolteachers and others we will find out there are a lot of interesting courses being given that are federally funded about professional development that have very little to do with the real development of teachers. They are there because somebody needs so many units or so many hours of whatever. We find some people taking language courses before they are going off for the summer on a trip, and all other kinds of problems. We ought to make sure that the resources for math and science professional development, to make these teachers qualified, to help them become qualified, that it is not a casualty of flexibility. I think that is the goal of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I think it is clearly a goal that is properly reinforced. It is a simple recitation. This is not a long, drawn out process. It simply, once again, takes the responsible public officials, puts them on the public record with respect to how they are doing and what we can expect from that State organization, from those local organizations, over the next 5 years of this legislation. This is a program that is authorized at some $500 million. We have decided this is important; this is what is necessary. I would hope the majority could accept this amendment because I think it is important that we keep this priority and that math and science education does not become a casualty of flexibility.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today Members will have an opportunity to vote on the Miller-Kildee amendment to the ed flex bill which will provide for stronger accountability on behalf of the States. We will be voting later this year to send the States $50 billion additional in title I moneys. We have sent them $120 billion over the last decade, and the results at best are mixed. In some cases they are shameful. We need to have accountability. The Miller-Kildee amendment simply does what George W. Bush did in Texas. He told the Federal Government in exchange for flexibility, I am willing to set the following standards, all children in Texas or 90 percent of the children in Texas will pass the State exam in 5 years, 90 percent of the African Americans, 90 percent of the Hispanics and 90 percent of the poor children. I do not know what the governor of my State could say and I do not know what the governor of Louisiana or New York could say, but they ought to be able to tell us what their goals for achievement are, how they will measure them. No longer should the Federal Government continue to enable lax accountability for our children's education.