George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. The genesis of this program was this was about putting police officer resources on the street, not about initiating a debate in city councils or boards of supervisors and the State legislature about what to do with a block grant form of money. This was about getting officers on the street to deal with the community. I would suggest that our Republican colleagues ought to spend some time riding with these officers, walking with these officers, visiting the communities, talking to the merchants who for the first time feel comfortable in their communities because they know that these officers are around and about. Many people lament the loss of community, the way it used to be. Well, the way it used to be was the people knew the police officers on the beat. They trusted them, they knew them, they could report activity to them. That, once again, in the communities I represent is returning. When I went around and talked to the merchants in Richmond, when I went around in Vallejo and talked to the merchants, they said yes, now they knew that sometime during the day this officer would be there. They felt free to talk to them. to say gee, there are these groups congregating on the corner, causing trouble, could you do this, look into it, do that. That is how we police our communities. I think the point was that is what this was directed at. The block grant suggested there is some greater law enforcement decision to be made out there, and that we will let that open debate and let communities do what they wanted. The fact of the matter is what local communities wanted were officers, police personnel, on the streets. If they think this is warm and fuzzy, they ought to talk to the criminals that have been run down by community police officers in the commission of an act of crime and brought to justice. That was not very warm and fuzzy, but they were available, where in the past they have not been.

Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman would yield, yes, we would not want to do that with an absentee Governor like we have now, but more importantly, our communities were able to take their circumstances, their crime rate, their concern about youth gang activities, and in the city of Richmond, the city of Vallejo, that have been suffering under increasing crime rates, they were able to take that situation, make this application, and very quickly determine whether or not they would be qualified for the first- or second-round grants that were made, and the fact of the matter is the money is now in the police department where it belongs, it is not being argued about within the city council over some other kind of way they can sneak out that block-grant money and use it for some other purposes. It is in the police department, it is being directed at crime, and the results are coming in in terms of a diminishing crime rate in two communities, both Vallejo, CA, and Richmond, CA, that were having a real rough time fighting crime. They do not need the Governor's involvement. They do not need Congress' involvement. What they need is communications between the Justice Department and their own situation and a quick determination of whether or not they quality or not.

Mr. MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for taking this time to call attention to the concerns we have about the appropriations bills that come to the floor and the reduction of the cops portion of that bill. I represent two communities in my district that were among--had among the highest crime rates in California, and unfortunately one of them had among the highest homicide rates in the State of California. But of those communities qualified for Federal moneys to expand their police forces, to expand the cops on the beat or to participate in the Cops on the Beat Program. Both of them used it for the purposes of community policing, along with the sheriff's agency in one of the countries that I represent, but in these two communities I have traveled with the police during the day, talked to the officers on the best, and seen a remarkable, remarkable change in attitude as this money has allowed the police departments to expand into the communities. In one case in Vallejo, CA, they have used them for a bicycle patrol within the commercial districts, and helping out the transit districts as large numbers of young people get out of school during a particular time during the day, and also used them for evening drug patrols, and drug activity has plummeted, the homicide rate is down considerably. They have been able to literally ride down and capture more individuals engaged in drug-related activity because they have been able to move along the railroad tracks, over hill, over dale, and also, as they point out, to very often surprise drug deals because they are just not cognizant that these bicycles coming down the road are police officers. In Richmond, CA, they have used the officers on the beat again to make it safer for retail businesses to have people shop on foot, to come back downtown, to participate in the community. They have used it to patrol the housing projects, again bringing about a reduction in criminal activity. They have also related very strongly that they have--this money and this cops program has allowed them to spend additional time with some of the gang-related activities that we have experienced in both of these communities, and in one of the communities we have again seen a reduction in the gang violence. This summer so far has been much different than the summer a year ago and a year and a half ago, and we hope that we will be able to continue that effort. Of course now the mayors of those cities and the city councils are concerned that either they are going to renege on these contracts for cops on the beat or they will not have the availability to try and reapply should that funding be available beyond the contract period. We should not, we should not, diminish the success that we have, and we should not yank away these resources from the communities, whether it is in Austin, or in Colorado, in Boulder and Denver, elsewhere where I think we have shared these kind of experiences. The returns are just now starting to come in as these communities have been able to participate in this program, and for the Republicans now, almost what seems like almost spite because of the success of this program, because this program, I think, was successful for the administration, but they thought it up, they executed it, they got the money on the street, that now there is some desire just to whack this money, and it is going to be a terrible blow to the local law enforcement, certainly to community policing in many, many communities that desperately need this money and really do not have the wherewithal to replace it, and I want to commend the gentleman and thank him for taking this time and the gentlewoman from Colorado for participating in this.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Committee on Rules would make in order the Spratt-Markey-Moran-Burton amendment dealing with the V chip, which is the ability to provide parents greater say over what programs come into their home and to have the ability to lock those programs out should they desire that their children not be able to view those programs. Many in the telecommunications industry and certainly many in the networks fought this effort when it was offered on the floor of the Senate and were able to defeat it. We should empower parents to have the say, to have this control in their own home about the kind of programming that is coming into their programs, especially when so very often young children are left at home or are home for a good portion of the day while both parents are out working. Those parents should have the confidence that they can have some say to regulate the flow of programming, if they are concerned about violence, if they are concerned about sexual content of programs, they should have some say in that. They should be able to pick and choose for their children, not the networks and apparently not the sponsors that are not prepared to exercise self-control and to respect the rights of young children and of families. I hope that the Committee on Rules would make the amendment in order and Members of the House would vote for the V chip amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, I think the amendment is necessary, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. Mr. VENTO, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] was explaining his amendment, he pointed out that this legislation removes the ability of the President to put in place any type of limitations in terms of the volume limits with regard to the exportation of oil. He takes that away. Of course, what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] does beyond that is, he recognizes and gives the Chief Executive the right to put in place some limitations, and, of course, provides, the second part of his amendment, provides for an assurance of 1.3 million barrels a day that is first sent to the lower 48, and then the amounts over that amount could be exported. So he is trying to recognize one of the shortcomings, I guess, in terms of the North Slope oil, and some of the effect on the market, but at the same time trying to meet what is obviously a significant domestic need on the Pacific coast. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the workability of the regulations and the law that exist in this instance are not perfect, nor is the global oil market perfect. We are hardly dealing with the handiwork of Adam Smith here in terms of the economy. I noticed that the opponents seem to marshal often very obtuse arguments to defeat or to reinforce what is in the bill, sort of extreme situations, but I do not think we have to really do much guessing in order to understand that the way that the volatility of this market in the last 30 years has gone has caused great distress and significant impacts on our market. Look at the terms ``oil shock,'' the ``energy crisis'' in the 1970's. The last two decades are replete with problems that have grown out of the shortfalls in terms of the marketplace. I just think that we should, obviously, retain in the President's control the ability to have flexibility with regard to the export from these lands. Mr. Chairman, the tradeoff here that occurred with these State and Native American lands and other Federal lands where oil was flowing from in Alaska was that we would sacrifice these resources in an effort to try and provide security in terms of energy in the lower 48. Today we are even more vulnerable, but this has provided some stability, some constancy with regard to oil and energy policy on the West Coast and throughout the country. Now, of course, in the name of a more perfect market, in the name of trying to develop this, the excuse here is that we are going to actually unleash and develop more and more of our domestic oil because this price is being held down. Admittedly, it is lower in these instances than it would otherwise be if it were completely open and we were bidding against many other countries in the Pacific Rim. I do not think there is any question about it; but I do not necessarily think that that has happened, and constantly not, despite the Energy Department study, translated into higher costs in terms of the marketplace. After all, we have seen oil go from $10 a barrel all the way up to somewhere in the high thirties at various times in the market. That is not exactly because of this particular problem. Now we are talking about here much smaller, finite, or much smaller amounts of change that have occurred between this particular type of sour crude oil that exists in this instance that is being discussed. I think the issue here, obviously, is being pushed by those who want a higher price, who are not concerned today, and I would say to my friends, and many of them served here during periods and have put up with this role in terms of energy shortfall, that clearly this is something that is being shunted aside. I think the Miller amendment brings us back and gives us the opportunity to export but at the same time meet the domestic needs, to have both. We have, in essence, allowed for the opening of these areas, to provide the security. I think we still need that. I think we can still do that. I think there is a role. Some would take the Federal Government out of any type of policy role here. I am not a new Federalist, I am not a new Confederate, I am an unreconstructed Federalist and feel that the Federal Government is the only entity that can basically deal with this. We go through all sorts of arguments here in terms of U.S. bottoms and other issues which I think will provide for circumvention, I might say, of many of the policies and goals that are stated here in the legislation. I would hope that the Miller amendment could be and should be accepted by the proponents of this if they mean what they have said in regard to this issue. Obviously, there is opposition to it. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment in committee along with our colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf]. It represents what I believe is a reasonable compromise which will allow Members to support exports as long as the needs of the United States are taken care of first. That is the intent and the purpose and the result of this amendment. This amendment does two things: First, it deletes the bill's unjustified restriction that the President cannot determine that a volume limitation on exports is in the national interest. Obviously, at some point, with some unforeseen circumstances, the President may conclude that and he ought to be given the powers to so decide. Second, the amendment provides that exports of Alaska oil are authorized but only in amounts produced in excess of what is currently refined and consumed on the west coast. This amendment speaks to the current consumption figure of 1.35 million barrels per day which is the amount of Alaska oil used in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona. Under current production levels in Alaska, my amendment would allow up to 250,000 barrels a day to be exported. This is significantly in excess of the 140,000 barrels projected by the Department of Energy and the State of Alaska as likely for export, as they have presented testimony when we were considering this bill in the committee. What this amendment does in effect is to allow the oil which is currently produced but not used on the west coast to be exported. This is the oil that is sent to the gulf or to other designations at significant extra expense. It is the oil that makes up the most economic sense for us to export to foreign nations. What this amendment does not do, unlike the bill, is to allow British Petroleum to manipulate the price and supply of Alaska oil for the west coast usage. This is an amendment which protects U.S. jobs and consumers. It allows exports if and when they do not come at the expense of our citizens. It neither denies profits to British Petroleum nor revenues to the State of Alaska. It is a reasonable compromise, and I urge its adoption. This amendment reflects the changes that have taken place since the study that was conducted to justify this legislation and that is the Alaska oil is now essentially at parity or finds itself more often at parity with the world price of oil than when it does not. And the so- called glut on the west coast that was available is essentially evaporated and the margins that Members keep referring to with respect to west coast refiners has essentially evaporated because of the change in the demand for energy products on the west coast. Those margins, the evaporation of those margins, the narrowing of those margins are the same whether it is an independent refiner or whether it is one of the larger refiners. It is just simply a change in the world energy picture. Early on in the development of north coast, North Slope oil coming out of Alaska, a huge amount, because of the requirement that it could not be exported, a huge amount was sent to eastern markets through the Panama Canal. That oil essentially now, much of it, has been backed out of that market because it is really not competitive and because of the increased demands on the west coast as what was previously considered a glut has disappeared. So we now find ourselves in a situation where this very substantial amount of the oil that is currently produced in Alaska is, in fact, needed. It is needed on the west coast because it cannot be readily substituted by oil from the, by the central valley, although that can make up part of it. So what we would do is, without any impact on price, we would simply make sure that those West Coast users are held harmless as to the supply. That supply would be made available to them not at preferential prices; it would be made available to them at the world price. If they were not prepared to pay, if there becomes in fact a premium price on Alaska oil, in Singapore, in Japan, in Malaysia, in Korea, and they can sell that oil to that market and West Coast users do not want to bid that price for it, they will simply lose out. So the marketplace will continue to work in terms of the economics of the price of oil. In fact, as we know, when we started this venture many years ago, it was believed that there was a domestic price of oil and a world price of oil. As we know today, there is only one price of oil essentially, and that is the world price of oil. That does not matter whether you are Sadam Hussein, whether you are Iran, whether you are the Russians or you are the domestic developer within the United States, that is the price of oil. This honors that, the economics of the energy business with respect to that, but it does make sure that those people who have come to rely on this oil for domestic uses are in fact held harmless from this. As a market, if in fact the market continues to grow, if in fact the pipeline was ever put back to its full utilization in excess of about 2, 2.5 millions barrels of oil a day, all of that would be eligible for export. So I think this in fact provides the best of both worlds to make sure that American economic interests and the customers are taken care of first and then certainly free to export whatever is available over and above that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and again I would hope that the committee would support the passage of the Gejdenson amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would rise in support of this legislation. As the gentleman knows as a member of the committee, when we discussed this legislation in committee, this was one of the major tenants of the acceptance of this bill, I think on a bipartisan basis, was that this oil would be carried in American transportation and would provide jobs for those individuals who are currently engaged, and hopefully if production is increased under this legislation, that were engaged in the transportation of oil now to the lower 48, they would continue to be utilized. Some people have suggested that that would raise trouble with international trade agreements. If that is the case, then we have to rethink what it is we have told people the benefits of this legislation will or will not be. Certainly we would have to rethink the arrangement by which we are then engaging in the export of that oil, should that ever happen. I think the gentleman's amendment is a good fail-safe amendment for those who have been supporting against their historical positions of opposition to this legislation, that they would in fact be protected and that a deal is a deal, as the gentleman has said. I would hope that we would support this amendment.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining Mr. Goodling in bipartisan legislation--H.R. 2066--to give schools more flexibility in the methods they may choose to improve the quality of their meals and to meet the dietary recommendations in the ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans,'' including the appropriate levels of recommended dietary allowance for nutrients and energy. I stand firm in my support for improving the nutritional value of school meals and for the legislation passed last year requiring schools to meet the guidelines in the time line indicated in Public Law 103-448. In last year's reauthorization of the National School Lunch Act, Democrats and Republicans joined together to support the ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans.'' Our goal was, and is, for the school lunch program to provide healthy meals that kids will eat. The reauthorization bill--Public Law 103-448--requires schools to bring their meals into compliance by the first day of the 1996-97 school year. Because this time line is relatively short, we sought to give schools flexibility in the methods from which they might choose to reach compliance. The regulations interpreting the new law, however, do not provide the flexibility we sought. Unfortunately, the regulations prohibit schools able to comply with the guidelines under the current meal pattern, or another nutritionally sound meal pattern, from doing so. In fact, those already in compliance under the current meal pattern would be forced to change to one of USDA's new systems even though they are already in compliance with the guidelines. Though studies have shown that most schools to not meet the guidelines under the current meal pattern, some schools are able to. Others believe they could meet the guidelines also if they make a few minor changes in cooling methods and food choices. I do not believe schools that are able to meet the guidelines under the current meal pattern or another nutritionally sound meal pattern should be precluded from using those systems. Our goal is to provide healthier meals, not to ensure certain methods are used for achieving healthier meals. Specifically this legislation allows schools to use any reasonable method to meet the guidelines, including those provided by USDA. The Clinton administration deserves great credit for working to improve the health of schoolchildren. This amendment is in keeping with that effort. Our bill says to schools: We don't care what method you use to provide your children healthy, nutritionally balanced meals, just make sure you get it done. I firmly believe that the problems posed by the inflexibility of the USDA regulations can be corrected by the Secretary, and there will be no need to go forward with the bill. Again, I commend the administration for its work in this area and look forward to continuing our bipartisan effort to improve the nutritional value of school meals.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation for the tireless public service of Mr. Stanley G. Feinstein, who retires this month from the General Accounting Office. At a time when budget-cutters seek to eliminate the GAO and cripple the Congress's ability to investigate Government waste, Mr. Feinstein's work exemplifies the valuable assistance that this Congress received every day from the GAO. Over the course of his career, Mr. Feinstein helped document some serious abuses of the public trust. His legal analyses of Federal water projects provided this Congress with the factual information we needed to make significant changes in Federal water policy and in the authorization of specific water projects. Mr. Feinstein helped us to sort out the intricacies of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, the Garrison project, the Oahe project, the Central Valley project, the Colorado River Basin Project Act, to name just a few. He told us what was authorized and therefore legal, and what was unauthorized and therefore illegal. I first met Mr. Feinstein in 1977 when he served on the staff of the San Luis Task Force, a presidentially appointed task force established to investigate abuses of a major Federal water project in my home State of California. Mr. Feinstein's work on that study uncovered abuses of reclamation law and demonstrated that large corporations were in fact receiving illegal subsidies from the Federal Treasury. These discoveries contributed in large part to the reforms embodied in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. Mr. Feinstein has for many years demonstrated an incomparable understanding of natural resource law, attesting to the importance of the independent legal analysis that GAO staff brings to the legislative process. His contributions will be missed, and we wish him a long and happy retirement.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we are all familiar with the rhetoric of the special interests who benefit from public resources-- mining companies, subsidized irrigators, timber companies, coal companies. We hear the same inflated rhetoric from the leaders of the media, county rights, property rights, and Western movements: The government is threatening our property; the government is controlling our land; the government is conspiring to take away our liberties. And, moreover, we are told that these allegedly anti-Western actions are promoted by Eastern elites who just don't understand the Western way of life. The fact is that vigorous defense of our public resource and environmental protection laws is spread throughout the West and the Southwest just as it is through every other region of the country. People in Utah and Montana, California and Oregon, Idaho and Arizona are just as outraged by our giving away of billions of dollars to international mining corporations as people in New York and Florida. They are just as angered by the billions we waste on subsidized forest practices or irrigation subsidies. The so-called Western voices we hear, in many cases, are the voices of anti-government extremists and the free-enterprise spouting but publicly subsidized corporations that are conspiring to destroy sound management practices. No aspect of the extremist assault on the environment is more outrageous than the growing threats, intimidations and assaults on law enforcement officials who defend public resources and the people who use them. This House just voted to cut law enforcement funds for the Bureau of Land Management, on whose lands more than 12,000 crimes occurred last year. We have been unable to secure formal hearings in the Judiciary and Resources Committees on the issues of militias and attacks on Federal law enforcement officials. So, the attacks go on, the threats go on, and the Republican leadership of the Congress turns a deaf ear--or worse--to this scandalous behavior. Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that people in the West do not share the extremist analysis or the extremist agenda. As usual, it is a tiny fraction of people who, for whatever misguided reason, have decided that the government is the enemy. Large numbers of Western Members of the House have joined us in passing legislation to protect the environment and to reform resource policy as recently as last year. The reason is that westerners don't like to see their lands desecrated or their resources exploited any more than southerners or easterners. If you're a taxpayer living in Boise or Billings, or Salt Lake, or Seattle, you're every bit as outraged as the hundreds of millions of dollars with which we subsidize grazers, or irrigators, or mining companies. People are moving to these Western areas because they treasure the land and want it preserved, not opened up, blown up and peeled back in the relentless search for private profit. I want to insert into the Record a recent editorial from the Seattle Times-Intelligencer, a distinguished Western newspaper, that speaks eloquently to these issues. I am also including an editorial from the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle that speaks to the obsession of the Republican leadership with the Waco shootout but its seeming indifference to the threats to public officials. [From the Seattle Post Intelligencer] Rising to the Defense of Federal Land Agents A member of Congress finally has stood up to defend federal land managers in the West who have been under attack from extremists who imagine that they are above the law. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. has called for Congress to examine what can be done about the rising tide of violence against government officials who are discharging their legal duties. He rightly chastised Western congressional colleagues who carelessly ``legitimize'' their paranoid fringe constituencies. Violence toward and intimidation of federal officials is simply unacceptable, and no member of Congress should be in the business of appearing to indulge it. Officials of the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service all report instances of violent acts and threats against their employees. The BLM has been bombed in Nevada, and guns have been drawn on national park rangers and fish and wildlife agents, Miller said. Miller said the Western lawmakers most guilty of providing a small group of extremists ``the political space to continue the attacks'' are Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who recently advocated taking guns away from law officers on federal lands; Rep. Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho, for stating that citizens have good reason ``to be afraid of their government,'' and Rep. Barbara Vucanovich, R-Nev., who suggested that federal officials can avoid having guns drawn on them by ``exhibiting sensitivity.'' All of those lawmakers ought to know better. They deserve condemnation, not to mention a generous dose of ridicule, for their irresponsible statements. Miller also found fault with House Speaker Newt Gingrich's fulsome remark that ``The thing Easterners ought to understand . . . is that there is across the West a genuine sense of fear of the federal government. This is not an extremist position in much of the West.'' We beg to differ, Mr. Speaker. If there is any genuine sense of fear across the West, it's a fear of lawless lunatics, not of the duly sworn agents of representative democracy. ``Will the speaker next rise with words of sympathy for the `genuine fear' felt by the Bloods and the Crips, by the Aryan Nation and by the Ku Klux Klan?'' Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D- Colo., asked in a floor speech. It is indeed ``irrational,'' as Miller contends, to suggest that the federal government should retreat from its duties because of the paranoid delusions of a few frustrated citizens who fantasize that fish and wildlife agents are the vanguard of a tyrannical New World Order.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the committee report accompany H.R. 1976, the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations bill, contains a provision that will seriously affect the availability of food on Indian reservations. In the report, the Appropriations Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to begin the termination of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, commonly known as the commodities program. Indians who benefit from the commodities program are to be transferred to the Food Stamp Program. Given the current levels of poverty and hunger on Indian reservations, the phase out of the commodities program is an unwise and uninformed maneuver that is nothing short of another clear breach of this Nation's trust responsibility to native Americans. The administration requested $78.6 million for reservation commodities in fiscal year 1996. The committee's bill provides for $65 million, a decrease of $13.6 million--17 percent. The President's request reflects the fact that the commodities program must operate with a $0 carry-in for fiscal year 1996 as opposed to carry-ins of $13.4 million in fiscal year 1994 and $27.3 million in fiscal year 1995, as well as the fact that food costs have risen steadily, from $45.6 million in fiscal year 1994 to $47.7 million in fiscal year 1995 to an estimated $49.2 million in fiscal year 1996. The commodities program serves more than 110,000 native Americans each month who reside on or near reservations in 24 States. The reservation commodities program was the only commodities program maintained by the Nixon administration following the institution of the national Food Stamps Program in 1974. Both Congress and the Nixon administration carefully examined food needs and determined that the Food Stamps Program would not adequately meet the needs of native Americans living on or near reservations. The main reason that the Food Stamps Program is unsuited for Indian reservations is that the program requires individuals to trade food coupons for food at grocery stores. In many reservation areas there are simply no or few grocery stores, round trips of up to 100 miles to buy groceries are not uncommon, and transportation is often unavailable. In addition, the prices for foods at existing on-reservation stores are generally much higher than those at off-reservation stores. In other words, food stamps will buy less at reservation stores than off- reservation stores. Thus, this bill not only makes it harder for Indians to get food, but it also makes it likely that they will end up with less food. In addition, while tribes operate the distribution of commodities, States operate the Food Stamps Program. Conversion to the Food Stamps Program will require native Americans to travel vast distances to the nearest State food stamp office. Other problems with the food stamps program include a differing set of eligibility rules, and the likelihood that nonperishable foods, which make up the bulk of the commodities programs, will be less available under the food stamps program because stores are less likely to stock them. Finally, it appears that conversion to the Food Stamp Program will result in increased costs to the Federal Government. In fiscal year 1994, the average per month cost of food stamp benefits was $69.01 compared to $33.51 for commodities. Thus, conversion to food stamps would more than double the per-person food cost of service to Indian beneficiaries. In sum, the Appropriation Committee's plan to phase out the commodities program will not only increase hunger and hardship on Indian reservations but will also increase costs to the Federal Government. This policy is clearly anti-Indian and, without any hint of hesitancy or remorse, literally takes food out the mouths of the poorest of the poor. Mr. Chairman, the Indian population which is dependent upon the commodities program needs our protection and not our spite. As trustees and fiduciaries to the more than 550 native American tribes, we should treat them better.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I would hope that we would support the Sanders amendment because it does violate the relationship between this House and the people we represent and the President of the United States. When we make an expenditure of $20 billion, we ought to have the right to vote on it. The notion that somehow this is the instrument, these are the tools of the new financial order, is to suggest that we are the lender of last resort and there will be no risk for hot money on Wall Street. We cannot hide this problem behind the pension funds that were there. Maybe they should not have been there. The financial problems and the risk in the Mexican market were discussed in business journals across this country and across this world. If you read the Wall Street Journal, if you read Forbes, if you read Fortune, if you read Barrons, everybody was commenting on how fraudulent the system was in support of its peso many months before. The night that Mr. Greenspan came up here and Mr. Rubin and others, they said that this was a surprising development, and then when they laid out what happened, they said it was perfectly predictable. We ought to have some say in that. And the other part of this is, we ought to know who we are paying off. Orange County is going through serious problems. They are going through what potentially could be a bankruptcy, if not a full-blown bankruptcy. The fact of the matter is, they are negotiating with their creditors. A lot of this money was simply hot money that was looking for returns far beyond what they could expect. They stood to lose 70, 80 percent of their investment had we not intervened. Could we have delayed the payoffs? Could we ask for time? Could we ask for terms? Could we have negotiated with the Fidelity people who overextended their investors into this operation? Could they wait like school districts are waiting in Orange County? Could they wait like water districts, like cities and counties are having to wait for payments? But we never got to a point of discussing that. We never had to make that because we do not know where the money went. That is the term. That is what you should be doing. People ask you all the time, ``Why don't you run it like a business?'' Nobody would have done this. Nobody would have handed out $20 billion with no terms and no disclosure, and we should not have allowed it to happen in the names of our constituents.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the point of order. In my view, the Kennedy amendment is an appropriate limitation and does not violate clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits legislation on a general appropriation bill. As set forth in book 8 of Deschler's Precedents, a limitation amendment is in order if it restricts criteria which are within the range of choices given to an official by the authorizing law. To quote, ``A limitation may, in fact, amount to a change of policy, but if the limitation is merely a negative restriction on the use of funds, it normally will be allowed.'' The Kennedy amendment restricts the discretion that Forest Service officials have in the exercise of their duties to conduct road building and hold timber sales in roadless areas of 3,000 acres or greater in the national forests. [[Page H 7127]] The Kennedy amendment does not impose any new or additional data- gathering duty on the Forest Service beyond existing law. As a general matter, the Forest Service is obligated to develop land and resource management plans for the National Forest System as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. section 160, et. seq. Purusant to the authorizing act, forest plans determine the availability and suitability of forestlands for resource management. While forest plans are normally revised on 10- to 15-year cycles, section 219.12(D) of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that ``[E]ach forest supervisor shall obtain and keep current inventory data appropriate for managing the resources under his or her administrative jurisdiction * * * Data shall be stored for ready retrieval.'' The forest plans are used as the benchmark for further review and planning of each of the individual sales in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. As a specific matter, CFR section 219.17 directs the Forest Service to evaluate and consider roadless areas as part of their land planning process. The inventory and the evaluation of these roadless areas is to be developed with public participation. The definition of roadless areas are lands which ``remain essentially roadless and undeveloped, and which have not yet been designated as wilderness or for nonwilderness uses by law.'' It is important to note, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has, that there is no acreage limitation in the CFR section on roadless areas as there is with wilderness. Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service has a sophisticated land planning system which now includes the use of GIS technology for mapping. No duties to gather information are required by the Kennedy amendment beyond the existing law. The notion that they are unaware and incapable of determining where 3,000 acre or more blocks of roadless areas exist is an insult to the agency. I would point out to my colleagues that 3,000 acres is 5 square miles of land. The Forest Service is capable of producing this data on a ready basis for roadless areas on a national scale. For example, in response to the directive for the fiscal year 1995 House Interior appropriations report, they submitted data in their 1996 budget request which itemizes 94.9 miles of construction planned for roadless areas, including 70 miles in the National Forest of Alaska. The fact that they have not presented data to the Congress on the amount of roadless lands in excess of 3,000 acres is simply off the mark. What is relevant to the amendment is that the Forest Service has the existing capability of providing such data and does so on a regular and current basis on a national scale. What is even more important is that they have the data which can be applied to the individual timber sales in compliance with the Kennedy amendment. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me submit on behalf of the argument against the point of order that this data is readily available and this is nothing more than a ministerial act, and that is 36 CFR, chapter 2, which deals with the contents of the advertisement and the contents of the prospective of the sales. There are some 35, almost 40, requirements that go into this, which include the location and the estimated qualities of timber and the forest products offered for sale. For each sale outside the State of Alaska, which includes a provision the purchaser the credit for construction of permanent roads with total estimated construction costs exceeding $20,000, a timber sale shall include: One, the total estimated construction costs of all permanent roads. When submitting the bids, they have to say exactly how much it is going to cost to have the Forest Service construct those roads. Under the contents of the prospective, the Forest Service must provide the location and area of sale, including the harvest acreage; the estimated volumes, including the quality of the volume, the size of the trees, the age of the trees, and the class of the trees. Very specific, on-the-ground determinations they must make now on an ongoing basis. They must include the road standards for specified roads to be constructed; the estimated road construction costs and the purchaser credit limit. If small businesses are involved, the road standards applicable to the construction of the permanent roads and the reference of source of such information; the date of final completion of all permanent roads, where they will go, and when they will be finished; a statement explaining how the Forest Service intends to plan for road construction by forest account or contract and whether or not the higher bidder shall make that determination. What, in fact, we have is a very detailed process of counting the trees and taking the inventory. What we have is the overlay of a number of Federal laws that require this inventory, require that the inventory be kept current, that the land base be kept current, that the timber base be kept current so that they can, in fact, comply on an annual and regular basis with the National Environmental Policy Act as they let lands for sale for timber sales. Mr. Chairman, all of this is done on an ongoing basis. The Kennedy amendment is simply a limitation on those functions and tracts of land of 3,000 acres or more. What we have here is a simple ministerial task to be carried out by the Forest Service; a task and function which is no additional burden to them because it is part of their ongoing requirements under existing authorization and legislation by the Congress and I think the point of order should be overruled.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill does a great disservice to the American Indian and Alaska Native tribes of our country. While we were able to restore funding for the education of Indian children in public schools, the bill still eliminates funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for adult Indian education, services to children with disabilities, remedial instruction, gifted and talented student grants, and scholarships for Indian students. Under this bill, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget is $101 million below the President's request and the Indian Health Service's budget is $96 million below the President's budget. The IHS budget does not take into account any growth in population or cover inflationary costs. The BIA budget significantly restricts funding for Self-Governance and Self-Determination contracts, water rights negotiations and settlements, new school and hospital facilities, tribal courts, and community and economic development. In addition, the report accompanying the bill penalizes tribal self- determination and economic growth by directing the Secretary of the [[Page H 7134]] Interior to prepare a means-testing report for Indian tribes with gaming revenues. Further, the report directs the Secretary to ignore the law and halt the distribution to Self-Governance tribes of their rightful share of administrative funding. These actions demonstrate the attitude of the new Republican- controlled Congress toward Indian country--that it's all right to forget the fact that our Nation signed treaties with Indian tribes promising the delivery of these very services; that it's all right to ignore the fact that our Nation has a legal trust responsibility to protect the well-being of the Indian tribes. We should never forget that these tribes have already borne more than their fair share of budget cuts in the past 200 years and we owe more to them than this bill provides.