George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on the point of the Goals 2000, which unfortunately has become a political football, it has become a political football in Washington, DC, but not in the States. In the States where it was originally designed by the Governors and brought to the Congress with recommendations made, it is being embraced now as, again, parents hunger to know that their children are going to have to meet world class standards; that this education is the very best education; that we should not accept the dumbing down of education, we should not accept a second-class education; that our children not only deserve the very best education, but in fact the world's economy requires that they be given that. Now we just see that swept aside in a fit of ideology, in just an absolute fit of some kind of extreme ideology that says that the Governors should not have a right to apply for this money, to upgrade the quality and the class. These standards that are being developed are being developed with private sector associations. The American Electronics Association wants to be able to develop standards and have them incorporated so a young student can take that and go anywhere in the United States and work, and the employer will know that that certificate, that diploma, means that that person is qualified to do that job and to enter that industry, and to participate in that. What do we have today? We have in many instances diplomas that do not mean anything. That is what Goals 2000 is about, it was about upgrading that. It is swept aside in this provision. It is just crazy that this kind of extreme ideology would drive these kinds of education decisions, because it is not even a matter of debate. It is just a matter of pulling these numbers out of the hat. As the gentlewoman said, in her committee, unfortunately, the attitude was ``Well, we have to cut somewhere.'' All things are not equal. Whether or not a child gets a first-class education, as the gentlewoman so correctly pointed out, the gentlewoman from San Francisco, that is the beginning and the end. That is either the beginning of a wonderful life in this country, or it can be the end of that. It is a question of whether that is the beginning of your productivity, that is the beginning of your being able to provide for yourself and have economic self-sufficiency, or if you choose to start a family. That is what that education is about. Somehow the people who cheapen that education are now the Republicans, because they slash it again without blueprint, without detail. They simply pick a number and say ``This is the number we are going to give the President to spend, because we are angry at him because we got caught shutting down the government,'' or something. The whole thing is just a tantrum and a fit of anger that really is an insult to parents of this Nation who are struggling to educate their children. I want to thank the gentlewoman again for taking this time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Congressmen Conyers and Nadler on crafting a true antiterrorism substitute which balances the fundamental rights of the American people with a firm stance against domestic and international terrorism. Unfortunately, the Hyde legislation before us today threatens personal liberties and constitutional rights. Once again, the Republicans have taken a great idea--combating terrorism--and turned it into a avalanche of extreme ideas. Why has this bill become bloated with controversial provisions? The answer is simple--leverage. It's time for this body to say enough is enough. The Republican leadership should have learned by now that the American people will not be blackmailed into accepting radical new laws from this Congress. The Hyde bill dramatically weakens the fourth amendment by allowing illegal search and seizures if they are conducted in so-called good faith. It also allows for a sweeping definition of terrorism by politically appointed officials without judicial review. Lastly, the bill places too many limits on the right to appeal a conviction under habeas corpus. I urge Members to vote for the Conyers/Nadler substitute which corrects some of these problems, while retaining the good sections of the underlying bill. Worthy of particular mention is the first section of the substitute-- and the Hyde bill--which expands the protections for Federal employees. Under the substitute, ``any officer or employee of the United States'' and any person assisting that employee in the performance of his official duties is protected from violent, threatening, or harmful actions. These simple protections are long overdue. Almost an entire year has passed since the Nation was jolted by the Oklahoma City bombing and the concept of domestic terrorism. Long before that tragic day, however, many of our Federal employees, especially in the western United States, have been putting their lives on the line in order to implement and enforce the laws of the land--the laws this Congress created. Although I have repeatedly requested that the chairman of the Resources Committee schedule hearings on this issue, my requests has been either ignored or deemed an inappropriate ``use of the committee's resources.'' The hostile climate toward our Federal employees, often the result of an extreme faction of the citizenry that opposes the enforcement of land use laws, has been translated into threats or acts of physical violence with increasing frequency. Last January, a U.S. Forest Service office in Santa Fe, NM, was bombed. The blast resulted in structural damages to the building with repair costs estimated to rise as high as $25,000. No one was injured, this time. And last August, a bomb was detonated outside of the Nevada home of a U.S. Forest Ranger. His wife and daughter were home at the time of the incident and only escaped serious injury because of sheer luck. Unfortunately, these two incidents are neither as uncommon nor as isolated as the 5-month window between them may suggest. Throughout the past few years, other offices of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have experienced bombings, Federal employees' and their families have received threats, employees have been physically prevented from performing their duties, ranger stations have been vandalized, unexploded pipe bombs have been discovered on public lands, and, as a result, many struggle with daily fear and social isolation. It is about time for Congress to beef up the legal protection of Federal employees. Those who carry out the laws of the land every day deserve nothing less. This substitute warns would-be violators in no uncertain terms that there will be serious consequences if you threaten or harm a Federal employee.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The interior appropriations language alone is reason enough for the President to again use his veto pen. I could, and do, criticize the Republican leadership for failing to provide the House with adequate time to review this bill, which contains many drastic policy changes in our historic approach to protecting the environment and managing natural resources. I could, and do, object, as the senior Democrat on the Resources Committee, to nearly half the Committee being excluded from the bill-writing process, even though much of the bill affects our jurisdiction. But this bill really presents a problem of substance, not process. With a few superficial changes, this is the same Interior bill that the President was right to veto last December. This bill, as Yogi Berra once said, is deja vu all over again. A flawed management plan is still imposed on the Tongass National Forest, but for 1 year instead of 2. The bill still interferes with the judicial process, waiving environmental laws which were violated in past timber sales, despite a negotiated settlement pending before the court. Other offensive legislative riders remain as well, such as the one gutting the Mojave Desert National Preserve. The bill is riddled with punitive provisions which have little or nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with antienvironmental policies. While the people and programs which are dedicated to protecting and preserving the environment are made to protecting and preserving the environment are made to suffer disproportionate cuts, the special interests who want to profit at taxpayer expense, like the timber companies, get what they want from the Republicans. If the extreme, antienvironmental Republican leadership persists in forcing this legislation through the Congress, they will produce yet another shutdown of the Federal Government. We saw what happened the last time the Republicans chose to inflict the pain of Government shutdown on the American people. The Democratic task force just held a hearing at which we heard the devastating impact of the past Republican-inspired shutdowns on our ability to enforce the laws protecting our environment and to prosecute those who blatantly ignore the laws on clear air, clean water, toxics, and natural resources. Do we want a repeat of that debacle?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the Cuban Government committed a reprehensible and tragic act when it decided to shoot down two civilian airplanes flown by the Cuban-American organization Brothers to the Rescue last month. And I send my condolences to the families of the victims. The shootdown was a tragedy in so many ways. It could and should have been avoided. The Cubans could have taken alternate steps. But they specifically had warned the United States and Brothers that this would happen. The group and the administration did not heed those warnings. The United States failed to prevent the group from continuing its flights of fancy and I believe the group deliberately ventured into hostile territory to provoke a U.S. reaction. The shootdown was a tragedy as well because but for that tragic action this legislation would not have won the last support that it needed. And the legislation is wrong. Instead, we should continue to open United States policy toward Cuba--for the benefit of Cuban- Americans, for American businesses, and for regional peace, and, yes, democracy. But now Congress is poised to leap backward today as it considers the so-called Cuban Liberty Act. We should not do that. Mr. Speaker, this legislation was wrong before the shootdown happened and it remains wrong today. The shootdown has not provided a single justification for a policy that even the administration that now embraces it had just recently denounced. It is extremely likely that America will be cited for trade violations over this act. And Fidel Castro, after having outlived over 35 years of U.S. embargo, surely will not back down in his remaining years because of additional embargoes. United States hostility to Cuba in fact has been his political savior. Do not listen to those who say that a vote against this bill is a vote for Fidel Castro. That is McCarthyism. Denounce Cuba in the United Nations, yes. But summon the courage to vote against this bill. Vote against this bill because it is bad policy. Vote against this bill because it violates international trade law and will be an international embarrassment for the United States. Vote against this bill, my colleagues, because it is contrary to our best interests.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a simple bill that amends title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The act, which was enacted in 1975, empowers tribes and tribal organizations to take over the operation of Federal programs that directly benefit American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. In giving tribes greater control of the programs which affect their lives on a daily basis, we sought to foster true Indian self- determination as well as to limit the growth of the attendant Federal bureaucracy which had sprung up around the Federal Indian programs. In the 103d Congress, we amended the Indian Self-Determination Act in response to the 6-year refusal of the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services to promulgate rules to carry out certain provisions in the act. Through the Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994, we streamlined the contracting process, curbed the Departments' rulemaking authority, and required the Departments to negotiate new regulations with the Indian tribes. In order to prevent any further agency intransigence in promulgating regulations pursuant to the Departments' remaining rulemaking authority, the 1994 amendments contained a sunset provision which terminates the Departments' ability to issue regulations if they fail to do so within 18 months of the date of enactment. The Departments' rulemaking authority is set to expire on April 25, 1996. Since enactment of the 1994 amendments, the tribes and the Departments have proceeded to negotiate a draft set of regulations to carry out the terms of the act. Although the tribes and the Departments finished work on the draft regulations by the end of October 1995, the two Government shutdowns and a spate of bad weather prevented the agencies from publishing the proposed regulations until January 24, 1996. The 60-day public comment period runs until March 25. The tribes and the Departments have both committed to a final meeting prior to publication of the final regulations in order to review, discuss, and reach a consensus regarding the comments received by the Departments. The tribes and the Departments both fear that there will not be enough time to conduct a final meeting and allow for adequate agency review and integration of tribal comments into the final regulations by April 25. The tribes and agencies are in agreement that they are better off with the negotiated regulations than with no regulations at all. Thus, the tribes and the Departments have asked Congress to amend section 107(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Self-Determination Act to extend the sunset provision by 2 months. Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill does. I would like to note that not only does this bill have the support of the Indian tribes and the administration, but it enjoys bipartisan support in the Congress. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Phyllis L. Peterson, who is retiring after 12 distinguished years as president of Diablo Valley College in Concord, CA. Dr. Peterson's career began 37 years ago as a high school French teacher. She later was recruited into community college administration at De Anza College in Cupertino, CA, and later at Cuyamaca College in San Diego County. In 1984, Dr. Peterson became the fourth president of Diablo Valley College. During her illustrious career at DVC, she helped develop the Center for Higher Education at DVC's satellite center in San Ramon, CA, and led the college to its highest enrollment of 23,000 students. She guided the college's faculty and staff into an era of shared governance and provided the vision for DVC's nationally acclaimed instructional program. Dr. Peterson has proven herself a leader in higher education. In 1993, she served as head of the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges. The University of Texas Community College Leadership Program recognized her as an outstanding community college president and the Association of California Community College Administrators honored her with the Harry Buttimer Distinguished Administrator Award. Through her accomplishments as a teacher and administrator, Dr. Peterson embodies the very best in our educational leadership. I personally want to thank her for her years of dedicated service to the education community and wish her the very best in the future.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, among the highest priorities for America's families and America's parents is a good education for their children and the ability of their local schools to be able to deliver world class standards in world class education for our young people and, at the same time, to make sure that today's students go to school in a safe environment and a drug-free environment. Unfortunately, under the current funding plan proposed by the Republicans we see funding for safe and drug-free schools cut by 25 percent, funding for title I that for the first time is bringing the advances in technology and teacher improvements to economically disadvantaged schools cut by 17 percent, Goals 2000 that allows the Governors of States to implement world class standards in reading and mathematics and critical thinking in the sciences for the first time so that young people can compete against the best the world has to offer to keep America's economy strong; we see these programs slashed in this funding resolution. Hopefully on March 15 we will reverse that trend and restore aid to education.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for bringing it to our attention and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the Committee on the Judiciary for reporting it. I wish that our committee would have spent more time on it because of its significant impact on Indian gaming in this country. But I think with the proliferation of gambling in the United States, we have got to ask these questions. We have got to start to have some answers as to the real impacts of gambling. There is a lot of impact that appears at first, and a lot of it appears positive, but there are obviously some ongoing studies, anecdotal evidence from communities that some of it that is so positive in the beginning maybe turns out not to be the case later. I must also say that I am concerned that this resolution starts to get into a number of areas that are beyond those generic questions as to the impact of gaming on our families and our communities and our social structure. Many of the areas where States have made decisions, the people have voted to engage in this activity, and we do not get back into trying to create some type of Federal regulatory body. But I think the resolution on balance is a good one. I would hope that the members of the Commission will remain sensitive to the unique status of the Indian tribes and the laws and the treaties governing those tribes and the laws that govern their ability to conduct gambling as a result of State activities in which those tribal lands reside. So I hope that this Commission will be productive, and I hope that it will be able to report back to us, so that decisions can be made by us, I think individually, because I think we are going to find out most of these decisions reside with the States, as they have properly in the past. But maybe this national Commission will have enough status so that local communities and States can make informed decisions before plunging into the further expansion of gambling before they know the results and whatever the downside may be.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I had the privilege of participating in the memorial services for Mr. DeWitt Bussey II at Solomon Temple Baptist Church in Pittsburg, CA. DeWitt Bussey was a remarkable man. He gave his entire life to his country and to his community, first in the Armed Forces of this Nation and then later as a community activist and volunteer. Mr. Bussey gave his time to his family and to the children of our community where he counseled and inspired them to achieve high levels of performance as individuals in their daily lives. Mr. Speaker, DeWitt Bussey was a warrior against the evils of racism and bigotry. He fought them wherever these evils raised their ugly heads in our community or in our State. DeWitt Bussey was there to fight back as a founder of the NAACP Racial Intolerance Task Force. DeWitt Bussey II was born on January 22, 1934, in Columbus, GA, the youngest of three children born to DeWitt T. Bussey, Sr., and Narcissus Burke Threatt. In 1948, at the age of 15, he enlisted in the U.S. Army shortly before the military became integrated. For the next 22 years, Mr. Bussey served in the Army with distinction, graduating from the military intelligence branch of Officer's Candidate School and attending the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA, where he became fluent in Russian. He also fought in the Korean war and the Vietnam conflict. In 1970, Mr. Bussey retired from the military at the rank of captain. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Pittsburg, CA, with his wife and children in 1971. Mr. Bussey graduated from Laney College in Oakland, CA, and earned a bachelor's degree in public administration from Golden Gate University in San Francisco, CA. He also completed several courses at Los Medanos College in Pittsburg. Mr. Bussey worked in a number of occupations following his military retirement, including salesman, circulation manager at the Pittsburg Post Dispatch, director of the First Baptist Church Head Start Program and part-time instructor at Los Medanos College. In addition, he worked for the Federal Government in the General Services Administration and the Youth Authority Conservation Corps. For the past 10 years, Mr. Bussey was self-employed as a consultant. Active in State and local politics, Mr. Bussey was a member of the Rainbow Coalition and the East County Democratic Club and twice ran for a seat on the Pittsburg City Council. A passionate advocate for civil rights and a unwavering voice against injustice and racial intolerance, Mr. Bussey was a life member of the NAACP, a member of the Racial Intolerance Task Force, the African-American Resource Center, the Los Medanos Community Hospital Affirmative Action Committee and the Pittsburg Unified School District Affirmative Action Committee. From his arrival in Pittsburg until recently, Mr. Bussey actively participated in a number of community and educational organizations, including the Pittsburg Unified School District Student Attendance Review Board, the Pittsburg Model City Program, the Economic Opportunity Council, the First Neighborhood Council, the Pittsburg Area Council, and the Youth Connection. He also helped to establish the El Pueblo Track Club. At the time of his death, Mr. Bussey was serving as the district advisory chairperson for the Pittsburg Unified School District. In 1990, Mr. Bussey joined Stewart Memorial C.M.E. Church in Pittsburg under the leadership of the late Reverend Willie Mays. He served on the board of trustees, taught Sunday School and served as an instructor for Project Spirit, an after-school program established by the church. Mr. Bussey is survived by his beloved wife of 40 years, Edna, of Pittsburg; sons, DeWitt III and Jaimie of Pittsburg; daughters Carol and Deja of Pittsburg and Donna of Atlanta, GA; granddaughter Danielle; sisters, Lenora Bussey Tubbs and Verna Kay Bussey Miles of Pittsburg; brother, Robert Threatt of Pittsburg and numerous relatives and friends. Mr. Speaker, our community lost a champion with the passing of DeWitt Bussey, but we are fortunate that he left us such a wonderful family with his values to carry on his work with our children to teach them excellence. My family and our entire community extend our prayers to the Bussey family.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the Republican program for the last 14 months is so far away from the needs and the hopes and the aspirations of America's working families. When you consider at the end of last year when the Republicans came together to discuss how they were doing and what they were going to do this year, one of their honored speakers was Al Dunlop, a man who went to Scott Paper Co. and 2 years later fired thousands of workers with little or no notice and walked away with $100 million in his pocket. He advised the Republican caucus to forget the working-class issues, they did not matter. Well, they matter to millions of Americans, to millions of Americans who are worried about losing their job, and with that losing their health care; about losing their job, and with that the ability to pay for their children's education. And what do we see cuts in education for their children. We see cuts in student loans for their children. We see them trying to keep the health care bill that would make health care portable from one employer to another from coming to the floor. What we see is an agenda that is outright hostile to middle America and to the working families of this country.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is critically important that the House vote in favor of the Dan Miller-Charles Schumer amendment to phase out the sugar program. The sugar program as it is administered today rewards the growers of sugar at the expense of the environment, at the expense of those who process the sugar, and at the expense of the consumer. Most importantly, the real price being paid for the sugar program is by the workers at American refineries that are facing serious layoffs. This amendment is reasonable, giving sugar growers a chance to adapt to the new reality that is dawning in Washington and the Nation about the proper role of the Federal Government. The sugar program keeps the price of sugar artificially high and this artificially high price has had a severe impact on my constituents and American consumers. As a direct result of the sugar program, the C & H Sugar Co. in Crockett, CA--the only west coast sugar refinery and one of the largest refiners in the country--has reduced its hourly employees by 42 percent and salaried employees by 38 percent. Total employment at the refinery has been reduced by 44 percent between 1989 and 1996--from over 1,000 employees to less than 600 today. On the first of this year, in fact, C & H laid off 200 employees--25 percent of its work force. The jobs at C & H are good jobs, paying between $13.50 and $24 per hour plus benefits. These are mostly union jobs. These are scarce jobs. The local labor unions at C & H, the ILWU Local 6 and the Sugar Workers Union, support the Miller/Schumer amendment. The management, including C & H's president who is here with us today, supports this amendment. This amendment is about the future of the jobs of these workers and their families and we should not abandon the opportunity to help them. I have heard from the beet growers and the cane sugar growers, all hardworking people to be sure. They complain that without the sugar program they will go out of business. We hear that a lot around here when legislation is going to the floor. But the fact is, refineries have already gone out of business--11 refineries have closed their gates over the past decade. I don't want to see C & H Sugar and its employees added to the list. The vote on the Miller-Schumer amendment will also be one of the key environmental votes of the year. The artificially high price of sugar has enabled sugar companies to keep lands in production that otherwise would not be profitable. In Florida, this has meant that sugar is competing for scarce water that is needed to save and rehabilitate the Everglades--a national park and a national treasure. On behalf of the environment and on behalf of my constituents who hope to retain their jobs, I urge the House to support this bipartisan and extremely important amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alphonse D'Amato, by introducing bills to force Mexico to crack down on drug trafficking and money laundering operations as that country has pledged--but failed--to do. The bills would prohibit the extension next month of United States guarantees for multibillion dollar loans to Mexico, deny applications for entry of Mexican commercial vehicles into the United States under NAFTA, and express the sense of the House that Mexico has not cooperated in antinarcotics efforts, and therefore should not be certified under the Foreign Assistance Act. All of these measures would remain in effect until Mexico meets specified conditions proving it is taking steps to eradicate drug activities. Senators Feinstein and D'Amato introduced this legislation this week and I am introducing identical legislation here today. I applaud them for their initiative in this area. Last year, Congress approved President Clinton's request to guarantee $20 billion in loans to Mexico following an economic crisis there. The year before that we passed NAFTA, a free-trade agreement that gives Mexico special and unique access to America's markets. And now, next month, President Clinton will likely ask Congress to approve the extension of loan guarantees to Mexico for at least 6 months, and possibly longer. But the President will be unable in good faith to certify that Mexico has met its obligation to crack down on drug smuggling, money laundering, and government corruption as it has pledged to do. Mexico is one of the most significant source countries for the transport of narcotic and psyshotropic drugs into the United States. The Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that 75 percent of all cocaine available in the United States travels through Mexico, up to 80 percent of all foreign-grown marijuana in the United States originates in Mexico, and 90 percent of the chemical used to make the drug speed flows through Mexico before infecting our neighborhoods. But, Mexico is not only shipping drugs to the United States, it is also shipping its drug smugglers. Nearly 90 percent of drug smugglers arrested at the border are Mexican. Mexico is also a major transshipment point for Columbian drugs and drug money. And because it has no reporting requirements for large cash transactions, Mexico has become a haven for drug money laundering. To make matters worse, Mexico is also preventing the United States from enforcing our own drug laws. The United States has 165 extradition requests pending with Mexico. And despite our extradition treaty with that country, Mexico has never allowed the extradition of a single Mexican national, even though we are supposed to be close allies. In fact there are reports that leaders of drug cartels, known to the Mexican Government and its police, are frequently seen in public. Apparently they have no reason to be afraid: reports are rampant of widespread government corruption , extending possibly even to higher levels of power. Time and time again, the United States treats Mexico like a trusted ally and what we get in return is an increase in drugs flowing from Mexico to the United States poisoning our kids and making the American ``War on Drugs'' ineffectual. Why should the American taxpayer support Mexico's Government or its economy when Mexico is undermining American antidrug laws? We should not. We should not extend multibillion-dollar loans to Mexico, provide foreign aid, or allow entry of their commercial vehicles without evidence that Mexico is taking concrete steps to eradicate drug activities. We have too much at stake--in America's schoolyards, workplaces, and homes--to tolerate this level of inaction on such an important issue. Again, I applaud Senators Feinstein and D'Amato for their initiative in this area and I encourage all my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring these three pieces of vital legislation. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Sense of the Senate Resolution That Mexico Should Not Be Certified Expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should not certify: (1) Mexican cooperation with international drug enforcement efforts; or (2) that is it in the vital national interests of the U.S. to give this aid notwithstanding Mexico's noncooperation. If the President does not make these certifications, the result would be: a 50% reduction in U.S. aid to Mexico; and the United States not supporting the provision of multilateral development bank assistance by various international bodies. The resolution sets out the basis for this recommendation: Mexico is one of the most significant source countries for the transport of drugs into the United States. Mexico has failed to prevent or punish money laundering. The Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that at least 75 percent of all cocaine available in the United States travels through Mexico. Various U.S. drug enforcement agencies estimate that 70 to 80 percent of all foreign-grown marijuana in the United States originates in Mexico. According to U.S. Customs Service, 69.5 percent of those arrested for drug smuggling at border stations in the United States are Mexican Nationals. The Drug Enforcement Administration has stated that drug smugglers have been flying airplanes carrying 10 to 20 tons of cocaine at a time into Mexico, which then return to Colombia with 20 to 30 million dollars of U.S. currency.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I read with interest of the remarks of Albert J. ``Chainsaw Al'' Dunlap to the Republican freshman caucus. Mr. Dunlap earned his nickname by firing thousands of employees at various companies, most recently Scott Paper Co. American workers and voters, take note. Mr. Dunlap's frightening strategy involves firing loyal employees, ignoring impacts on communities, and maximizing profits to stockholders and the corporate elite--like Mr. Dunlap. Two years of firing employees made Chainsaw Dunlap a very rich man; he pocketed about $100 million, much of it in stock gains that would be untaxed under the Republicans' flat tax scheme. Along the way, he fired 20 percent of hourly workers and 50 percent of managers, barred community activities, and reneged on charitable commitments. But as the chairman of Wharton's management department noted, ``Dunlap didn't create value. He redistributed income from the employees and the community to the shareholders.'' Let us hope that the Republican revolutionaries who listened to Dunlap do not buy into his prescription that people are as disposable as Scott tissue as long as the bottom line spells money for the wealthy

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of revisionist history going on here on the other side. First let us understand something. The demand was that the President would submit a 7-year CBO-scored balanced budget. The Republicans came saying, ``He won't do it, he won't do it.'' He did it. They called off the negotiations. Apparently they were not serious about that. They spent 50 hours at the White House. The leaders of the legislative branch, Senator Dole, Speaker Gingrich, and the President of the United States, first time in history, high-level negotiations, at the 50-hour point after conferring on a number of topics, the President put down a budget that was CBO-scored, 7 years, balanced the budget, and the Republicans said the meetings are off. Why did they do that? Because apparently they cannot stand success. So now they want to up the ante, and what they want to suggest is what they are now prepared to do is to jeopardize the credit rating of the United States of America, to put this Government into default, and to potentially cost American families billions of dollars because they want to play fast and loose with the debt of this country and the debt limit. They should not be allowed to do that. They should not be allowed to cost the American people billions of dollars by leaving town tomorrow. I guess they are going to stay to hear Jacques Chirac, the Prime Minister of France, and they are going to listen to him and then they are going to leave for 3 weeks and come back, apparently on the 26th or the 27th, 2 days before the debt limit expires, and play brinksmanship with the White House or with themselves. Or really what they are doing is, they are going to play brinksmanship with the American people and their families. Because of the speculation and going down to the wire, people in the bond market will make decisions, the price of bonds will go up or they will not go up, and all of the American families that have automobile loans, that have adjustable rate mortgages on their home, that have a credit card whose interest rate is tied to indexes, who have home loans that are tied to indexes, all of those people will immediately be disadvantaged because the Republicans decided they want to leave town for 3 weeks. I guess they want to leave town for 3 weeks because their program is not working. Someone just said they will not put the President's budget on the floor. No, the Republicans will not put the President's budget on the floor. That was the decision today. That is why we are doing 5- minute special orders, because they do not have anything to put on the floor, except we have this huge backlog of business to do. We have not done the 1996 budget. The 1997 budget is supposed to be getting underway. We have not dealt with the appropriations bills. We have not dealt with the farm bill. We have not dealt with the Endangered Species Act, we have not dealt with the Clean Water Act, we have not dealt with regulatory reform, but yet the Republicans want to go home. If your children did this, you would say, ``Eat your vegetables first before you get dessert.'' If a corporation did this who was contemplating going into chapter 11 and they said, ``We're going to leave town for 3 weeks, we'll get back to you on the day before the default,'' they would be fired. But somehow the Republican-led Congress can decide that we are just going to take 3 weeks off so Mr. Dole can go campaign in New Hampshire and in Iowa, and the deficit be damned. That kind of cavalier attitude is going to cost American families billions of dollars. It is going to cost this country its standing in the credit markets of the world. That should not be allowed. It was the same cavalier attitude that led to the tragedy of shutting down the Government, to deny American taxpayers the benefits of the Government for which they were paying and to jeopardize the financial stability of Governmental workers and their families. It was unfair, it was rude, it was reckless, and it turned out it was repudiated by the American public; repudiated again as late as yesterday in the Oregon election where the citizens of Oregon chose not to go with an extremist attitude, chose not to go with an extremist agenda but rather to try to go with a constructive individual who is interested in working for change, to bring about real change as opposed to extreme rhetorical charges and rhetorical comments about change. Mr. Speaker, this Congress should stay here, it should do its work and get its job done. If Mr. Dole wants to run for President, let him resign as the leader of the Senate and get on with his campaign, and let the American public get the benefit of us meeting the debt limit on a timely basis, on a clean basis, without threats of blackmail, without threats of taking hostages, without threats of shutting down the Government. That is the way we ought to do business. This obstructionism, this extremism ought to be brought to an end. Maybe the Oregon election will help bring that to an end. Maybe the Oregon election will get these people to understand that their agenda is being repudiated as being anti-American and American family.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the remarks he just made. I represent a district that has a very substantial amount of refining as part of the economic makeup of our district. It has been that way for many years in northern California. Those refiners, based upon these Federal laws, have invested billions of dollars in clean fuels projects at each of these refineries and have had to make that decision. As the gentleman knows, they were very uneasy about making that decision because the question was, what would the market be for the gasoline and would the consumer pay more for these clean fuels. They went ahead and did that on these assurances. Now we find out that people who were on the same notice in Venezuela and elsewhere, they could have made this investment in their refineries to meet this market but they have chosen instead to go to the World Trade Organization and to challenge this legislation, to get it overturned so they can continue to sell a product into the market that undermines the decisions that this Congress made about the health and safety of our citizens. I want to thank the gentleman very much for his remarks. I would join him. We have tried to get others in the Congress to understand that this is just the beginning of the assault on a number of environmental health and safety laws where this Congress has made a determination about those benefits for the American people that can be undermined by foreign competitors who want to continue to challenge them as though they are indirect trade tariffs when in fact they are not. They are health and safety laws for the benefit of the people of this country.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we have heard since the election of November last, and all of last year, that the goal of the Republicans in Congress was a 7-year, CBO-scored, balanced budget. And the challenge over the last several months apparently was to get the President of the United States to agree to put on the table a 7-year, CBO-scored, balanced budget. The President of the United States has done that. He has met that test. CBO has scored that budget. There is some $700 billion in savings in that proposal sufficient to balance the budget in these 7 years; and yet we now find that rather than take those savings and balance the budget, the Republican majority would rather end the negotiations. So those negotiations have been ended when there is $700 billion in cash sitting on the table that all they have to do is walk in and pick it up and walk out, and the American taxpayers get all the benefits that we have all talked about from balancing the budget. Rather than do that, apparently now there is an idea afoot that what we will have is a downpayment, a downpayment on the deficit. I have been here 20 years, and I have only seen one downpayment on the deficit that lowered the deficit. That is what President Clinton did 2 years ago when the deficit was over $250 billion, and today it is $167 billion. All the other downpayments on the deficit never quite got around to lowering the deficit. So right as we are on the eve of a balanced budget, we find ourselves in the unusual position of the people who claim to have been the strongest proponents of that balanced budget, and I do not think there is any question that they have done everything to move this Congress toward a balanced budget, they now walk away from the negotiations because it is not everything that they could have had. Rarely in negotiations, whether it is in business or sports, in your family or in the Congress, do you get your sway on everything. And so we are talking about $700 billion in savings sitting on the table, waiting for somebody to pick it up. It is $297 billion in discretionary cuts, $124 billion changes in Medicare, $73 billion in interest savings, $67 billion in other mandatory spending changes, $59 billion changes in Medicaid, corporate subsidies and compliance, $56 billion and $41 billion in welfare changes. This is a lot of money, my colleagues. This is the largest deficit reduction that we have seen. But now we are going to turn it down because it is not perfect? Because it is not exactly apparently what the majority wanted? We can still make these changes in Medicare. We can have a separate vote on this floor. We can have a separate vote on this floor on medical savings accounts, make them part of it, either in or out. But we do not have to hold up the changes necessary to get the largest entitlement program in the country under some control. We can make changes and we can still discuss whether Medicaid is going to have nursing home standards or it is not going to have nursing home standards, whether it is going to be an en bloc entitlement or a personal entitlement. We can have those debates afterwards. We can spend this whole year debating that subject. But we can get the budgetary savings, we can get the deficit reduction now while it is real. That is when it is important. We know that essentially, that essentially we would dramatically change, under the coalition welfare bill that was passed, that was voted on in this Congress, I believe every member of the Democratic Party voted for, dramatically restructures welfare as we know it in this country, dramatically restructures your ability to stay on welfare forever without meeting your responsibilities to try to find a job and to go to work, substantially changes your obligations if you are going to receive taxpayer dollars. The requirements of going to work, the requirements of time limits on welfare, all of that can be achieved and $41 billion in savings at the same time. But we are going to turn it down because it is not exactly what the Republicans wanted in their bill. This is incredible. This is incredible that we would be here on this eve, and now we are going to back up and we are going to create some kind of stopgap budget reduction legislation with a tax cut, and we are going to sort of give some kind of partial savings. I just find that when we see that the President of the United States has come this far and is this willing to make these kinds of concessions and these kinds of changes, changes that are needed in each and every one of these programs, that somehow the Republican majority in this Congress will not give the American people those savings, those savings that will bring the budget to balance, those savings, as one of the previous speakers in the well said, will provide for reductions in interest rates on home mortgages, on credit cards, on student loans, and all of the things that America borrows for, that will provide real money in the pockets of working families in this country, is now going to be turned down by the Republican majority.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentlewoman would yield, when Orange County could not meet its debts, they paid a premium for just the discussion of default because they said nobody has ever repudiated their debt in municipal bonds. You now have under active discussion the repudiation of your debt. You pay a premium for having that discussion. The discussion is not free. Forget the act, how horrible that would be. Just the discussion changes the way other investors look at this, because they are banking other people's money when they buy these securities and this debt of the country. Ms. DeLauro. If I can make a point with what the gentleman said, and I would ask my colleagues to comment, in terms of our colleague from California talked about Orange County, this has enormous reverberations for every county, every mayor, every first select person, every State in terms of what happens to bonds that are issued, whether it is a school board, whether they are a general obligation. The bonds out there are in trouble.

Mr. MILLER of California. I think we should also be aware of the fact that not only is it the actual default that could cause economic havoc, but the discussion of it and the anticipation of it. Millions of Americans have personal loans at the bank, credit card loans at the bank or their credit union, what have you, they have the mortgages on their home that are tied to indexing and to indexing averages that are tied to the interest rates on various indexes. When you take the best credit rating in the world, which is the United States of America, it is what all other credit is rated according to. When that moves on a daily basis because of the uncertainty, because of the potential risk, whether we ever default or not, you have already cost homeowners, credit card borrowers, you have already cost them money because the average is higher than it would have otherwise been over the 30-, 60-, 90-day period of time. When they reconfigure your adjustable rate mortgage or your credit card or your home mortgage, it will be higher or not as low as it might have been when we see interest rates dropping as we have seen over the last couple of months. So, bumping around that index, every day the Republicans threaten to impeach the Secretary of Treasury, they threaten to shut down the Government, they threaten to default on the debt, to expose our credit rating to this kind of questioning, you pay instantly as a homeowner, as a person out looking and using consumer debt in this country. So this is not free, this discussion. This is not free, their threats. This happens immediately to people in terms of how those average indexes are used for their adjustable rate mortgages. What they are doing is, by their irresponsibility, by their threatening our credit rating, they are immediately impacting the cost of credit to every American family in this country.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is about the fact that they have had the most massive meltdown in failure on their side after putting people at risk in this country that now what they want is a minimalist bill and get out of town. This is about just getting out of town so that nobody will discover that they have dramatically changed apparently the priorities of this Nation. They have gone from a balanced budget to business as usual.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reason that this rule is being put forth today is because obviously, I say to my colleague, the reason you put the martial law issue, at some point you want to decide you want to end the debate, you want to stifle debate and you do not want to allow alternatives, you do not want to allow amendments. We were here and we are here today because apparently at one time there was just a high principle of 7 years, CBO-scored and a balanced budget. Apparently that all evaporated sometime Tuesday night. What we now find out is that 7 years is no longer important; CBO is no longer important; a balanced budget is no longer important. The authentic revolutionary who stood there the first day of the session in the chair of the Speaker has now become an incrementalist. Because the Speaker has now become an incrementalist, they now want to stifle the debate. They were willing to throw people out of their jobs, at risk in the Social Security system, at risk in the AFDC payment system. They were going to put them all at risk because they were going to save this country with the 7-year CBO balanced budget. Today they want to take it off the floor, they want to deny the President $700 billion in savings that he has already agreed to. They do not want to give us the alternative for $700 billion in savings. What they want to do is patch up the system in the same old way of business as usual. That is why they need martial law, because if they do not have martial law, they have to accept amendments, they have to accept debate, and they have to accept the discussion. But they brought in their freshmen, they said there was nothing more important to the country. Well, they have just decided that apparently something else is more important, and that is apparently the tax cut or patching up this system and getting out of town for a month and not coming back. They would rather get out of town than have a debate about whether or not we should still go for the hundreds of billions of dollars in savings that this administration has already agreed to. That is why they need martial law. And they should be denied martial law. As was pointed out, they have martial law for a bill that we have not even written yet. That is not the democratic process, that is not an open process, and that does not allow for comment. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and when I say that, when I say in opposition, I say in opposition in its current form because I believe the bill, as it currently is written, is overly broad and allows an exemption far greater than that that is necessary. I also want to recognize the work of my colleagues from California, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], for the attention they have given this problem to address what has been considered a very legitimate problem in California with respect to the use of these facilities. My concern with this legislation is that in fact what we now see is that this use of these facilities will override, should the State so decide, will override the public health and safety and environmental quality. These facilities, in many instances, are used to discharge agricultural water from the lands, as my colleagues have pointed out, but I would also suggest to you that these facilities are being used for a multiple of other purposes, including fish and wildlife and water-based recreation contact and noncontact use of these waters. Some of these facilities are rather large and, in fact, in the State of California now in the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California aqueduct dedicated under the Clean Water Act, including contact and noncontact recreation, warm-water fish and wildlife habitat and used by thousands of people over the year for sport fishing. In southern California, water from the Colorado River flows into many canals serving the Palo Verde irrigation district, Imperial irrigation district, and, again, fishing and contact use of the water is made by other than agricultural interests. The Imperial irrigation district and in several locations in Texas near the border with Mexico, low-income people, unfortunately, in this country live alongside these irrigation canals and depend upon them for subsistence fishing, for bathing and even drinking supplies because of the of the tragic situations they find themselves in with respect to housing conditions in those areas. In the Palo Verde Basin, a significant amount of sport fishing takes place in the Palo Verde Outfall Dam. Some swimming and boating also occurs here. The point is this. Here, Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation, and I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] already mentioned it, the administration is continuing negotiations. I would hope this legislation could be more narrowly drawn to protect those public health and safety issues that can occur under the legislation as currently drafted. The EPA memorandum follows: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, January 18, 1996. Subject: Status of Corrections Day Bill HR 2567 Constructed Water Conveyance Reform Act of 1995. From: Catherine Roberts, Congressional Liaison Officer. To: Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator. The Corrections Day bill HR 2567 introduced by Representative Gary Condit and co-sponsored by Representatives Robert Matsui and Vic Fazio was passed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by voice vote on December 14, 1995. Headquarters expects the bill to move to the House floor as soon as January 23, 1996 although it is possible that a delay will occur until the next Corrections Day. The original purpose of the bill as described by Representative Condit's staff was to provide relief to the rice industry from the designation of uses for irrigation return flows. It was on this basis that Representatives Fazio and Matsui were persuaded to be co-sponsors although Mr. Fazio withheld support until a few days before Committee mark up of the bill. However, the Committee had entirely different intentions than the ones expressed by the California sponsors. Indeed, it became evident that the Committee, Chaired by Representative Bud Shuster (R-PA), wished to provide relief to any state nationwide with manmade/ constructed water conveyances for agriculture, municipal and industrial purposes. Historically, Region 9, at the request of Senator Harry Reid during the 103rd Congress, participated in a working group comprised of arid west states to develop amendments to provide flexibility in the Clean Water Act for states in the Arid West. The proposed amendments were originally designed for a more broad set of physical characteristics such as ephemeral streams in the arid west than just constructed water conveyances. Nevertheless these types of conveyances were recognized in a subsection of the amendments and were given relief under specific criteria. These amendments were included in the Clean Water Act reauthorization and passed by the Senate in the summer of 1994. In the House of Representatives, the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act failed to emerge from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Arid west amendments were subsequently included in HR961 passed by the House during the first session of the 104th Congress but the language and intent was changed significantly from the original Reid amendment. The significance of the changes made to the original language on constructed water conveyances were associated with: (1) broadening applicability to the whole country instead of limiting it to the arid west; (2) broadening the definition of constructed conveyance and; (3) the addition of a clause describing relevant uses. These changes were made in HR961 and then extended further in HR2567. Representative Condit's office initially did not realize that HR2567 had been taken out of the arid west context and thus made relevant nationwide. This issue was immediately raised by Region 9 and was recognized by Mr. Condit's staff as needing further discussion. However, we were to discover that the majority staff on the Committee were not receptive to the limitation to arid west states. During our conference calls with Committee staff, it was expressed that it was their intention to retain the original language in HR961 since it had already passed the House however the Committee markup resulted in expanding the language further and well beyond the carefully phrased language in the original Reid Bill. The passage of this bill is a high priority for Mr. Condit for several reasons not least of which is that a ``commitment'' was made to the rice industry President Clinton's Central Valley visit regarding constructed water conveyances. The substance of this discussion has been narrowly summarized as providing relief through a Correction's Day Bill. The efforts of the WMD and the State of California to work with the rice industry on their concerns has been seriously overlooked by the bill's co- sponsors. We believe that the Clean Water Act already provides the flexibility to address their concerns and indeed exemptions have been made by the State. The debate on this bill has been further complicated by the very different concerns raised by the state of Arizona. Arizona actively supports the bill and is in the process of trying to dedesignate uses for some of their constructed water conveyances. It appears that the preferred approach is to carve out permanent legislative relief rather that working within the parameters of the existing CWA. Furthermore, the efforts of EPA staff to work with the various stakeholders whether from Colorado or California through a consensus process is being forfeited to political expediency. At this point HQ is recommending to OMB that the bill as written be vetoed by the President. The recommendation is based on a number of concerns that were presented to OMB as official Agency comments (attachment). In essence, HQ stated that HR2567 would exempt States from establishing standards for constructed water conveyances, specifically for the adoption of standards for recreation, aquatic life and fish consumption. HQ comments further state that the purpose of the water conveyance system is given a higher priority than the protection of human health and the environment. There are a significant number of water bodies defined as waters of United States that could be impacted by HR2567 and we have provided a preliminary list of these areas for HDQ and the House Minority staff (attachment). Unfortunately, HQ has very limited information on impacts to waters in Regions other than Region 9 and 6. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is chaired by Bill Shuster (R-PA) who will be taking the lead along with Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) on the floor debate. It is expected that the argument for passage will be a simplistic reference to this bill as being part of the already passed HR961. The Region 9 Members on this Committee are as follows: Bill Baker (R), Jay Kim (R), Steve Horn (R), Andrea Seastrand (R) and Bob Filner (D). In addition, Representatives Condit, Fazio and Matsui will also be there to encourage their colleagues to vote for a bill that will give relief for the rice industry. I have included for your review a copy of HR2567, the original Reid amendments, Region 8 comments and a statement by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) the ranking minority Member on the Committee (attachment). If you have any questions or need further assistance please let me know at x1560. Attachments. epa comments on h.r. 2567 EPA believes that H.R. 2567, relating to standards for constructed water conveyances within the context of the Clean Water Act (CWA), is unnecessary. Current CWA authority already provides the necessary flexibility to address standards for constructed water conveyances. H.R. 2567 would: Exempt States from establishing standards of any kind for constructed water conveyances and Exempt States (when they do develop standards for constructed water conveyances) from adopting recreation, aquatic life, fish consumption uses if these uses ``are not existing or reasonably foreseeable or such uses impede the authorized uses of the conveyance system.'' This language essentially sets the water conveyance use above the protection of human health and the environment and lacks a mechanism to ensure that the basic water quality protections of the CWA, even if existing, are maintained. Such categorical exclusions are inappropriate. Site-specific analyses and use attainability analyses under current authority and implementing regulations can and should be conducted to determine the appropriate requirements for water conveyance systems on a case-by-case basis. Because of the blanket exclusion in H.R. 2567 for all water conveyances anywhere in the country, this bill could have resulting adverse impacts on water quality affecting not only water quality in arid/semi-arid areas, but a substantial number of water bodies nation-wide. In addition the H.R. 2567 does not anticipate any additional impacts due to new, non- agricultural development which could add stormwater discharge to the conveyance and result in increased flows during storm events (see suggested changes in (C)(i)(II) below). Whether a use is existing or not does not mean that it is not attainable (see #2 above). Also, the meaning of ``reasonably foreseeable'' should be clearly defined. The statutory construction provision in subsection (iii) would allow States to avoid exercising jurisdiction over constructed conveyances at all, although they may be supporting at least limited aquatic life, wildlife or irrigation uses, clearly avoiding the goals of the Act set out in Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c). Since many of the conveyances are functionally perennial rivers, the definition of constructed water conveyance is similarly flawed. If this bill were to go forward we offer the following suggested changes (If however, the intent of this bill expands to include municipal water conveyances, we would need to reevaluate the specific language to be protective of human health and the environment.): Suggested changes are in italics deleted matter in bold brackets: Section 1. Arid West Constructed Water Conveyances (C) Standards for Arid West constructed water conveyances. (i) Relevant Factors.-- * * * * * (II) Any water quality impacts resulting from any [return] flow from a constructed water conveyance to navigable waters and the need to protect hydrologic integrity at the confluence with navigable waters, as well as downstream [users] uses. * * * * * (ii) Relevant Uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall not be required to establish recreation, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses for such systems it the uses are not existing or reasonably foreseeable [or] and such uses unreasonably impede the authorized [uses] purposes of the conveyance system.'' * * * * * (iv) Constructed Water Conveyances Defined.--In this subparagraph, the term `constructed water conveyance' means a manmade agricultural drainage water transport system....'' (v) Arid West defined.--In this subparagraph, the term ``Arid West'' means an area in the western portion of the United States that typically receives less than fifteen inches of rain on an annual basis. or (v) Arid West defined.--In this subparagraph, the term ``Arid West'' means an area in the western portion of the United States west of the 100th meridian. In summary, EPA believes that the legislation is unnecessary, that the flexibility contained in the CWA currently gives States the functional equivalent of this bill; and that a case-by-case analysis is the way to determine which conveyances deserve the exclusions provided in H.R. 2567.