George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it says no appropriated funds, whatever we end up determining is appropriated for new roads, that none of those appropriated funds would be used for new road construction.

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, if that is the only appropriated monies for new roads.

Mr. MILLER of California. That is a very important point. This has been one of the most aggressive road building programs per board feet. I mean, let us not pretend like there is not timber to cut off existing roads. With all due respect to the Alaska delegation, and admiration, they have done very well in pushing roads that far exceed the purpose of the road for the timber that was taken off of previous sales. So it is not like they cannot meet 100 million board feet off of existing roads. Let us not pretend the road is only good for that one sale and we never go back. That is not the history of forest roads anywhere, and it is certainly not the history here when you look to the extent to which roads have been pushed into the Tongass already in the name of previous sales.

Mr. MILLER of California. Exactly.

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. MILLER of California. No, I never have been. Ten years ago we made a deal, Senator Stevens and I, and we said for 10 years, that that would be it on the Tongass. It was not a matter of months before riders started appearing on Senate appropriations bills directing cuts in the Tongass. We all have great admiration for Senator Stevens, but he is the one that continued, continued to alter that original agreement that we had. I do not like the results but I have got to admire the talent. He has never stopped, as those Members on the Committee on Appropriations, I see them all smiling here, they know exactly what I am talking about. They have never had an appropriations bill move where there is not something tricking up. He tried to change the forest plans. He tried to go back to the old plans. He tried to increase the cuts. He tried to increase the roads. He tried to bail the industries out of problems. Bang-di-di-bang-di-di- bang. This guy has never slept. I guess I misunderstood. I thought we shook hands, and he said we were going to go away for 10 years. I think he said he was never going to sleep for 10 years. That is what happened. So this is not some unilateral course. As the Chairman knows, this is a very, very active subject matter in these appropriations bills, and it usually runs afoul of forest policy and the administration and all of the rest of it.

Mr. MILLER of California. Right.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will not because he has such great admiration for this team over there. We know what is coming from the other side. It is clearly a decision to try and to drive additional roads and additional cuts far beyond the market- driven cut here. I think this is an important amendment. It is two old war horses up here.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, let me just say if this was the World Wrestling Federation, this tag team from Alaska would be the world's champions.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate there is nothing in this bill, but we already know that the Senate is mandating more than doubling the cut of 240 million board feet. This is the Soviet Union saying we are going to cut this. There is no market. The price is falling. But what they need to make it all work is tax subsidized roads.

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman does know that the Tongass is not part of the moratorium which is the basis for the agreement.

Mr. MILLER of California. We have this wonderful agreement over here on the other side. I can hear the heart beating over there and it is 240 million board feet.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C. and inside the so-called beltway would this be considered a normal relationship. Unfortunately, when we talk about this normal relationship, we talk about the engagement of China. Every time this administration engages China, it must diminish and depreciate the American values of religious freedom, of freedom of speech, of human rights and self-determination, of national security, of nonproliferation, and of fair trade. Each and every time the administration sets out its goals for China, they sound laudable and they sound supportable. The only problem is the Chinese Government does not meet those goals, and yet we call that engagement. We call that engagement because in order for this administration to continue to engage, they must concede these very basic American values, values that have built this Nation and values that this Nation has been a beacon for across the world. To say that engagement is not endorsement sounds like a child-rearing policy of the 1960s when we wanted not to admit what our dysfunctional children were doing.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think what has become very clear is that we have to start curbing these financial abuses by the Forest Service. This amendment does that. That is why this amendment has the support of not only the environmental groups but almost all of the taxpayer organizations that look at these practices and ask the question, is the American public getting a fair bang for its dollar? Is the American public getting a return on its dollar invested, and is the law being followed in terms of what the public has an expectation of with respect to, in this case, reforestation programs? As we look at these programs from an environmental point of view, or as we look at these programs from a taxpayer point of view, they fall far short in their accountability to the public, and they fall short because of that lack of accountability in their obligations to the environmental charge of these funds under this law. That is why this amendment should be accepted by the committee and by the House. I plan to ask for a vote on this. This is a very high priority of both the taxpayer organizations and the Forest Service organizations. Again, many of us sat through these hearings and we were quite stunned at the extent to which the Forest Service accountability and financial controls have lapsed. We were also heartened, I think, by the fact that the Forest Service brought in professional financial managers to start to bring this back into control. But we have to begin with this legislation in this fiscal year and stop the diversion of these off-budget funds. I would hope eventually that the authorizing committees, and if not, then the appropriating committees, will bring these funds back onto budget and make them subject to appropriation so that the American taxpayer understands where the money is being spent and what the benefit is, and we can make a determination each year as to whether or not the public interest is being served and if, in fact, the mission of the Forest Service as determined by the Congress is being served. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his remarks. Mr. Chairman, I think as the gentleman said, he shares our dismay at what we heard in the reports from GAO and from the Forest Service. Hopefully, their acknowledgment of that is the beginning of a change. But let me say in this case, and I did not as I said in my statement, I believe that all of these should be brought on budget and the appropriators should have some say in how this is being done. But this last time, it was 35 percent. The committee says 25 percent. That level of overhead is just unacceptable when we are struggling to do the reforestation programs that we all know are necessary as part of watershed management and going back and trying to correct some mistakes and all the rest of it. I would urge the gentleman from Oregon to have his hearings and to have the authorizing committees make these things, but also I guess we are at the end of the session here. This is the beginning of the fiscal year. I still think that this amendment is very important if we are going to stop this.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his comments. We are quickly trying to assess his offer. I think a couple of our colleagues have something they want to say on this and maybe we can chat about this. But there is a problem with respect to ongoing litigation, so this has to be done sort of right, I guess, not to prejudice some parties. So, we can talk.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, let us not pretend like this is the only administrative money available to the Forest Service. The Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations unfortunately makes a huge amount of money available for administrative overhead to run these programs, and for them to siphon off this huge amount of overhead to get these programs on the ground and get them working is just unconscionable. But it is not like it would leave them without administrative overhead. It would leave them without a place that they could go without accountability, but they still have administrative money for these functions.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the point he has made. What we have here is a situation that over time has developed to now an extravagance, that any time the Forest Service has something they want that the Congress does not go along with or somebody does not go along with in Washington, they reach into the restoration funds. The purpose of these funds was, and the gentleman represents areas that are much more affected than mine, the purpose of these funds was to try to do restoration on the theory that forests were on a, cycle and that we would make an agreement to cut them and make an agreement to reforest them and to start the new cycle of trees, and future generations could make determinations. But what we now see is over a third of the funds, or about a third of the funds, have now been subject to a diversion, to a simple wish list of local forest people, of managers, about what they want in terms of administrative overhead, with no bars. And what came to a head in March of this year was the total unaccountability of the system with respect to a basic fundamental forest law, the Vince Vanderberg funds for reforestation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?