George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I can, I would like to be heard on the motion.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Senator Barbara Boxer as we introduce legislation today to protect our coastlines from the harmful impacts associated with oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. In the past, we have successfully barred Federal OCS leasing in sensitive areas by attaching moratoria to annual appropriations bills. Today, the Interior Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee voted to lift that moratorium. It is very unlikely, I am afraid, that the final appropriations bill will include an OCS moratorium provision. As a result, hundreds of miles of Federal waters--and adjacent State waters--will be exposed to the dangers associated with offshore oil development. Our bill will bar Federal leasing and production when a coastal State, by law or order, establishes a moratorium on part or all of its coastal lands and waters. California recently enacted in a bipartisan effort, a law making all State waters off limits to new oil exploration. Our legislation would extend that protection into Federal waters. Federal officials should not override the decisions of coastal States that want to protect their offshore sanctuaries from the hazards of oil development. Those in the Congress who constantly cite the need for Congress to follow the wishes of State governments should have no problem endorsing the approach taken in our legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the concern with the cuts in the Medicare that are promised in the Republican budget that is now in the conference committee is that the simple fact is they are reaching into the Medicare system to make changes to slow the growth. They are using those changes and those savings that result from that to fund the tax cuts, half of which will go to the wealthiest people in this Nation. Yesterday the Republican conference of House Members met and they reconfirmed their commitment to that tax cut. All that can tell us is they are willing to put at risk the health care of the senior citizens that are on that Medicare system today. For those families who are concerned about their own health care and the health care of their parents, it simply means that that system will not be shored up. But among the wealthiest people in this country, the savings from Medicare will be taken away from those people and transferred to those wealthy, just as they are taking away the earned income tax credit for low- income people who go to work but cannot get above the poverty line. They are going to reduce the earned income tax credit and give that to the wealthiest people. This is the largest transfer of income and wealth from middle class to the wealthy in the history of this country, and it ought to be repudiated on Medicare and earned income tax credit.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. It gives me great pleasure today, together with my fellow cosponsors, to introduce a resolution commending Police Athletic Leagues [PAL] across this country for their excellent work on behalf of our Nation's youth. PAL was created over 50 years ago in New York City by Lt. Ed Flynn, who, faced with persistent gang violence, organized a baseball league to give kids an alternative to crime. PAL now has 246 local chapters in cities nationwide, including Jacksonville, Des Moines, New York, Denver, Dallas, San Francisco, and Seattle. And in my congressional district, there are PAL organizations in Benicia, Martinez, Richmond, and Vallejo. Three million kids participate in PAL's recreational and educational program, such as athletic tournaments, police cadet clubs, and computer training. Fifty years after its inception, the principal mission of PAL remains the same: Police officers volunteer their free time to work with youths in promoting trust and understanding in an atmosphere of cooperation. The kids benefit by receiving positive role models and learning life skills. The officers benefit by getting an opportunity to make a real, positive difference in kids' lives. Mr. Speaker, in my own State, PAL--called CAL-PAL--is easily one of the largest juvenile crime prevention programs in California, with over 50,000 kids participating. CAL-PAL includes over 25 chapters, each as varied as the towns or cities in which they operate. CAL-PAL has established itself as a viable, successful juvenile crime prevention program by focusing on athletic and other related youth activities. Their motto is ``Filling Playgrounds Not Prisons.'' PAL's long years of experience with kids shows that sporting activities help bring out the best in kids. Youth members of PAL learn to be part of a team--they learn how their individual efforts are part of a collective goal, they learn endurance and perseverance, and they learn that hard work leads to success. And above all they gain self-awareness and self-esteem, which are the essential building blocks of every child's personality, but are especially important to disadvantaged kids. PAL also serves the purpose of cementing positive relationships between kids and police officers, a relationship that is based on mutual respect and deep admiration. Clearly, we need to do all we can to reduce crime among our youth. Although crime in the Nation has subsided somewhat in recent years, violent crimes committed by juveniles has surged. PAL is certainly no substitute for tough crime fighting strategies and policies. But police athletic leagues, acting in concert with these policies, are out in the field everyday attempting to turn back the rising tide of crime by providing constructive activities for kids. PAL's police officers deserve our support and our commendation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last week when Senator Bob Dole made his statements about Hollywood, it was unfortunate that they were made in the context of a presidential campaign, because his remarks were immediately analyzed and seemingly split into two camps, deciding whether or not it was an attack on Hollywood, justified or unjustified, and whether or not Hollywood should defend itself, justified or unjustified, and that seemed to end the debate. You could take sides on whether or not that attack had taken place or not. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a very fundamental mistake for Hollywood or anyone else in this country to believe that because that speech appeared in a political context and was analyzed mainly by political analysis and analysts, pundits who deal with the political people in this country, to believe that his remarks do not represent a concern in this country about the level of violence in the media, in all of its different forms, in music, in films, TV, and a concern that is one that is shared by millions of American families, and a concern for many of us in public life. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the issue would not get down to the issue of censorship, or picking our favorite stars, or deciding who bankrolled the good movie versus the bad movie, but I would hope that we would have the possibility of having a national conversation in this country about the future of our children, about the impact of the media on our children, on our families, on ourselves, because none of us are immune from this. It is not just young, impressionable children who absorb the hours and hours of violence that are now portrayed on TV, in the movie theaters, and in our music. It happens to all of us. It makes statements about our society. I think we have to have this discussion. I do not think you can end this discussion by denying the power of this media, all of a sudden saying we have no impact, or suggesting that it is the only reason, or the cause of many things that we do not like in our society, because it is not. These are all multifaceted problems. I think we should do it with an understanding that this is a country that loves its movies, love its moviemakers, its songwriters and its performers. We recognize the creativity, we recognize the agility, the ability, the fascination that they can create. We also, in loving them, recognize that they are powerful; that music can pick up our spirits, it can lower our spirits. It can excite us, it can soothe us. A film is designed to invoke emotions, to create a result, to get a response. When you listen to the great filmmakers of our time discuss how they put movies together, what they were thinking about, why they picked to do it this way, why music was added in this fashion, why this scenery, why this color, why black and white, why this, why that, why that lighting, it is all designed to move people in the viewing of that medium, designed to get a reaction, to get a response, to create an atmosphere, and they successfully do it. they have been doing it as long as the movies have been around. You listen to them discuss that, and you appreciate that they understand the power of their medium, the power to move a Nation, the power to move a Nation's children, to excite us, to fascinate us. They know they can do that if you give them an hour and a half of your time, if you give them 2 hours, if you give them a subject. It does not matter if it is fantasy or animation, it does not matter if it is in a historical context or a completely fictional context, they know they can do that. That is the tribute, the genius. The same is true with songwriters. They know they can move a Nation to its feet. They know they can move romance, where romance maybe was not. We have to recognize that. However, [[Page H5745]] they have also got to recognize that when it becomes unpleasant and the outcomes are not what we desire, in some instances, or what some of us do not desire in a pluralistic society, they cannot run away and say ``Oh, we could not be responsible for that, because after all, it is just a movie.'' No, you cannot take that genius and understand and know what you have created, and then deny it the next moment, to suggest it has none of the impacts for which you designed it in this movie, but it could not have any impacts over here. In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that we would not let this get down to who is getting the advantage and not getting the advantage in presidential politics, but we would bring this as a national conversation about the future of our children. I hope to have more to say on this to their body, to my constituents and to others, but I think we need this conversation without jumping to a conclusion, but understanding the responsibilities, the powers, and the obligations that go with this medium and with those of us in public office.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but they are somewhat off target. The fact of the matter is that in these issues before the committee, which I have now sat on for 20 years, my position has always been that the Federal Treasury and the Federal taxpayer, whether it is in my district in California, in the Western United States or anywhere else, is entitled to fair market value for the resources. Most of these pieces of legislation that have made it to the floor the gentleman from the well has voted against for, I am sure, other reasons than those reasons, but the fact is we have voted, whether it is in water subsidies, mining subsidies, timber subsidies, and tried to regain for the people some control over those, that has been my historical record, and it has happened no matter without question where the project existed or elsewhere, and so the gentleman's arrow is somewhat misplaced at this point, but I appreciate his support for the concept that I am expressing here and expect his vote on this amendment because that road to Damascus was started with one small step, and the gentleman can take it here today. I am sure the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] will have some other literary reference at some point----

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment has been previously explained in the debate, would provide for an appraisal of the fair market value of the 60 acres and facilities that the Federal Government would transfer to the State of Iowa for the continued use of a fish hatchery at Fairport, IA, a national hatchery. The purpose of this amendment, as I stated previously and with the previous amendment, is to try and assure that we have some ability to recapture the Federal investment in this facility as we transfer it to the State of Iowa. As I said earlier, we operated this facility for 44 years. Previously the State took it over at one point determining it was in such interest to the State that they would then run the annual operating expenses of this to continue to provide for the feedstocks that are developed at this hatchery, and now they seek to gain clear title to the facility. I have no problem with the State gaining clear title to that facility, the State taking this over and the Federal Government getting out of this business. It all sort of makes sense. My problem is I think, when we exit there, when we turn over this 60 acres of real estate, that we owe it to the public to get an appraisal and to get fair market value for this facility, and the amendment also provides for the offsets for the moneys that the State has put into improving that facility during their tenancy in that facility. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a favorable reporting of this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, the amendment is not large, but the principle is important, and that is that we are now living under a zero-sum situation within the Federal Government in an effort to balance the Federal deficit, and that is what makes some of the things we have done in the ordinary course of business in this Congress in the past not possible in the ordinary course of business today because we have that mandate to meet. The fact is, yes, we have transferred fish hatcheries in the past and we did not charge the States. That is before we were living under these rules of today. The gentleman from Iowa cites a number of transfers between agencies of the Federal Government which he suggests is analogous to this, and the fact of the matter is it is not. The California desert was created out of Federal lands currently owned. The fact is the moneys that go into the hatchery in California are there because Federal actions have devastated the fisheries in that general area in the northern part of the State. And the fact is this hatchery, once it is transferred, will continue to receive Federal funds for its operation, as do many of the other hatcheries. So this is not a question of Iowa only. There will be Federal funds, $2 million a year, to go to the State for the operation of this and other hatcheries. The fact is the Federal Government operated this hatchery for 44 years, and I do not see anybody complain about that. Yes, Iowa operated it for 22 years. The point is this: We have 60 acres on a prime piece of land next to the Mississippi River that we could call this surplus. We could put it out and let it go. We are doing the State of Iowa a favor because we are continuing the hatchery program by making this available to them so that they can continue to have a program which, like the gentlewoman from Arkansas said, is a vital interest to that State for sport fishing revenues, recreational revenues, for all the revenues the State receives from those efforts, and apparently also for the people who live in the small town. The point is this, though, in the transfer of that we ought to receive for suggestion is it is only $717,000. The fact is, again, we do not know that. It has been suggested it might be as much as $2 million. But $717,000 is half again as much as all of the taxes that an average family will pay to the Federal Government after working a lifetime. So we hear very often, and I think quite correctly, that from time to time we have got to check what we have been doing before. This gentleman has, in this Committee of Natural Resources for many years, forced the receipt of fair market value in land exchanges and land trades and land transfers to levels of local governments, and I have been doing that for 20 years. And in most cases that is what the Federal law requires. In this particular case, we simply are desiring to make a gift to the people of Arkansas, the people of Iowa, the people of Minnesota to a program that we hear is vitally important to them, very, very helpful to their economies, and simply saying the taxpayer will walk away from it. All I am suggesting is we ought to get an appraisal. We ought to find out fair market value. This is not an attempt to gouge. We will give them credit for the improvements they have put into the facility, and everybody will be happy in their work as we transfer this facility. Again, I would say that there is tremendous local benefit to the transfer of this project, the facility, to the State, ongoing benefit in terms of their economy, in terms of, I believe, this hatchery is even used in the private sector in aquaculture and other commercial ventures, and all I am saying is when you have got that, you know, we constantly go before town hall meetings, people, what do they say to you all the time? ``Why don't you run the government like a business?'' And the point is we ought to run the government like a business. And in this case, when you transfer an asset, what tenant would be able to go and say, ``I would love to fix up this building so I can do a better job in this building; I am not going to do it if I don't own it, but you have to give it to me for free.'' I have never met that landlord, except the U.S. Government, that would say, ``Oh, okay, take it for free, and then we will be on our merry way.'' I think that is the point, is that that we have got to make this effort, as I said before; there will be a rationale made for each and every one of these projects coming out of this committee. Some of them are far grander than this in terms of transferring the assets that the people of this country have invested into the projects or the ideas or the purposes of a single region. I think we ought to make some effort to provide for the recapture of that investment. We are not talking about recapturing the money that was spent for 44 years. We are not talking about recapturing the Federal money that will be spent after this. We are not talking about capturing the Federal money being spent today in this or any other hatchery. We are talking about the fair market value for the real estate transaction of this facility to the State of Iowa. I think it is a very, very small thing to ask in behalf of the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Majority, soon to be minority.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess like my budget cutting tendencies, they were well kept secrets around here, but I just wanted the gentleman to know as the staff on your side knows, I never both brought a bill to the floor from this committee under a closed rule. They were always open rules. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], who sits behind you can testify, we had the most open rule and the longest debate in the history of the Congress. I want to commend the minority for, hopefully, what will be an increasing commitment to open rules because I think it is the only way to do business. But I knew it was a well-kept secret.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that as consideration for the fish hatchery conveyed to the State of Arkansas, that the State pay the Federal Government the fair market value based on an updated appraisal. That payment shall not include the value of any capital improvements made by the State. The amendment also strikes the clause in the bill which would have the property revert to the Federal Government if not used by the State as a hatchery. In other words, the State would receive clear title. The amendment gives the State the option to pay cash equivalent to fair market value or to exchange property with the Fish and Wildlife Service which must be useful for promoting fish restoration and management. If the State pays cash, the amendment provides that the proceeds would be deposited in the sport fish restoration account which is better known as the Wallop-Breaux Fund. Every State receives Wallop- Breaux funds which are dedicated to improving sport fishing opportunities. The amounts devoted to fish restoration are decreasing, so this amendment will help assure that all of our constituents continue to benefit from this fund. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier in the general debate on this legislation, I think this is simply a matter of equity for the taxpayers, that they receive some semblance, and hopefully will receive, in fact, fair market value for these Federal assets that the Federal Government has built and developed, when they transfer them to the State. It also provides the additional benefit that the funds received not only will return to the Federal Treasury, but they will help fund those portions of the Federal programs and cooperative programs between the States and the Federal Government that come under the Wallop-Breaux funds for the improvement of this Nation's sport fisheries. Again, the amounts of money are not large, but I think the principle is sound. I think the principle is fundamental as we continue upon our legislative journey, living under the hard cap of going to a balanced budget in the next 7 years. Every committee, every Member of Congress, and all of our constituencies are going to have to make sacrifices to deal with that. Quite clearly, we have been transferring these assets for the past 20 years. That has become what we believe is normal. These are not normal times. We believed that highway demonstration projects were normal up until this year. They no longer are normal, because we cannot justify the expenditure of those moneys and the need to balance the budget and to meet higher priorities of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I would hope, again, that the Members of Congress would support this amendment to provide for a return of fair market value to the taxpayers of the Nation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, those who have spoken already quite properly represent the presentation of this legislation and they, in fact, are not controversial. I do have an amendment to the legislation that would require that prior to the transfer of these facilities, prior to the transfer of title from the Federal Government to the State government that the Federal Government would get an appraisal as to the fair market value and the State would in fact pay the Federal Government in the fair market value for these assets. The fact is that we have been transferring these assets historically for many, many years from the Federal Government to the states without questioning the value of the property being transferred or the Federal taxpayer investment in these properties. But today is not the same as it has been in the last 20 years. That is, this is the first Congress that is operating under a firm target of balancing the Federal budget in the next 7 years. We see a whole hose of programs that are being cut, some much smaller in value than the value of these hatcheries, but the point is this, that no longer are we in a position simply to transfer assets of the Federal Government and receive nothing in return at a time when we are trying to balance the budget. So the amendment that I will offer to all three of these bills later on is an amendment to require an appraisal and a fair market value assessment, crediting the State with the cost of some of their improvements that they have made and then making sure that the State either pay the Federal Government in cash or in in-kind contribution for that fair market value. I think this is fair to the taxpayers of the country. I think it is fair to other committees that are making cuts in very vital programs and that we ought to do our share. The value of these assets, of these hatcheries, we really do not known. There are no current appraisals of these. Appraisals were done in 1983, back in 1979. We have comparable sales in some cases for much smaller parcels adjacent to these lands that were transferred earlier that have been sold in some cases for higher value than the appraised value of the hatcheries. Let us remember that in fact when the hatcheries are, they have been run for the benefit of the States, so the fact that the State has been running this at their cost should be no mystery to us or surprise us because in fact the State has been the beneficiary of the programs being run there and the State will continue to do so. If the Federal Government is going to back out of this and we are going to turn these assets over, I think the least that we can do is ask that we return to the Treasury some ability to recapture the cost that the Federal Government has spent on these assets. Finally, let me make this point, Mr. Chairman: This is only the beginning of a whole series of assets that will be coming to the floor seeking transfer from the Federal Government either to the private sector and/or to other segments of the Government. I think it is very important that we understand that when we do make these transfers to these other entities, that we ought to make some effort to try and recapture the fair market value of those assets. There will be assets developed in the energy area, in the mineral area, in the timber area, in a whole range of programs that the Federal Government is currently engaged in, mainly throughout the western United States, but in some cases, as we see with these hatcheries, in other areas of the Federal Government. I would hope that Members would support these very commonsense and very-fair-to-the-taxpayer amendments asking for fair maket value.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, National Park rangers and BLM rangers and other Federal law enforcement officers are daily subjected to threats of violence and danger. The men and women who protect our resources and our citizens deserve our respect and our support, whether they wear the uniform in the streets of our cities or in the desolate back woods of our public lands. However, we see a Bureau of Land Management law enforcement ranger in Montana responding to knife assaults, a BLM ranger in California coming upon a drug deal that is turning into a shootout, guns are fired at BLM vehicles in New Mexico, and the list of violent incidents are growing: 29 homicides, 110 cases of arson, 166 weapons violations, and hundreds of more serious offenses on BLM land every year. That is why Americans are shocked to hear about Members of this House calling for the disarming of law enforcement officials or suggesting that those who violate public laws have an irrational fear of their government. Now they are getting very specific. The Chairman of the House Committee on Resources, in a letter to the Committee on Appropriations, has called for zero funding of BLM resources protection of law enforcement and huge cuts in law enforcement in the Forest Service. The Members of this House should stand with law enforcement.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think it is very important that we consider it. I would hope we would pass it. The gentleman is right. It is not a perfect world, but we have got to strive to make it a better world.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post reports that apparently in the consideration of the ethics case against the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], that the committee has arrived at a deadlock on whether or not to turn the case over to an outside independent counsel to study the facts and render a finding to the committee. Apparently the five Republican Members of the committee, according to the Washington Post, voted against doing that. When they did that, they broke a 15-year bipartisan tradition in this House of taking the tough ethics cases that have unfortunately, from time to time, been referred to the committee, and turning them over to an outside counsel, so we can get a full rendering of all of the facts and all of the issues before the Ethics Committee in an impartial fashion. That has been done on a bipartisan basis since 1979. Now we find, in the case involving the Speaker, that that apparently will not be the case. The chairman and others will not vote. I think it is important to understand that the Republican Members of the Congress have an ongoing relationship with the Speaker of the House. They have contributed to his campaign, he has contributed to theirs. They have campaigned for him, he has campaigned for them. They have been the recipients of moneys that have been commingled and intermingled. These charges are serious. The public deserves better. The House of Representatives deserves better. We deserve an outside counsel.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the budget that the Republicans are supporting and will probably pass today is the greatest raid on the wealth, the income and the assets of working people in this country. It is going to mean that their day care is going to be more expensive going to be fewer school books to teach their children when they enter school. It means that nutrition, as we have already seen, is going to go up dramatically for those working families that have their children in child nutrition programs. Student loans are going to be more expensive. If they are trying to take care of their elderly parents in nursing homes, that is going to become more expensive because of the Medicaid cuts and quite certainly, as we have all heard here now, a $1,000 increase in the Medicare to the elderly. Why? Because Republicans simply chose not to address the tax breaks for the wealthy that they insist on clinging to. They chose not to address, as we read in this morning's paper, the $25 billion in corporate welfare where huge corporations, wealthy corporations are taking the taxpayers' dollars from working families. One of the previous speakers said they could pay off the debt in 30 years. Yes, working families in their country will shoulder the burden for paying off the debt, but the billionaires will not, the corporations will not, and the wealthy of this country will not share that burden, because you have chosen to put the burden on working families of this country.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, the minority whip, for raising this issue. I want to say to my colleagues that not only is it a question of members of one committee deciding to participate in debate on the floor on the budget or on the Clean Water Act or other measures, but we also have the situation where members of the Committee on Resources will be engaged in markup on the bill while at the same time their committee will be engaged in offering bills on the floor of the House under the current schedule. That disenfranchises members of the committee from one of those two debates. They cannot participate and represent their constituent views in committee, or they cannot participate on the floor and represent their constituent views on those bills presented on this floor. The same holds true for each and every member. This disenfranchises Republicans and Democrats alike, because if we have to go to committee to participate, we cannot be heard on the budget debate, we cannot be heard on the clean water debate. These are major, controversial, important actions, taken by this Congress. I think the minority whip has it about right, that they seek to submarine this debate. The reports are coming in from the precincts. The American people are terribly upset by what the Republicans are doing to Medicare, what they are doing to student loans, and as we saw, what they were doing to student nutrition. The fact of the matter is, the public does not like this plan, so what is their proposal? To disenfranchise Members of Congress from participating in this debate, from echoing the views of their constituents back home, and to try to keep them locked up in committee activity that is nowhere near as urgent or as important as the budget debate and or the clean water debate. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] of the committee for taking this time. I think we have reason to be deeply concerned about the cuts that are envisioned in the Republican budget that will be presented to the Congress tomorrow. And that is because it withdraws the historic level of support for education by the Federal Government of the efforts to better educate each generation of our children. When I went to school, I was assured that the school that I attended and the programs that it offered would be sustained by an ongoing level of financial support that was steady and that could be counted upon. Today that is no longer true. But more importantly, just supplying money to education, the Federal Government has supplied leadership, and it has supplied leadership in trying to work on those programs that take young people as they graduate from high school, as they are in high school, and move them to the world of work. Yet that is being cut in this program. What does that program mean? It means for some 70, 75 percent of young people who graduate from high school but do not plan to go on to higher education, that they will be able to transition, that they will be better able to take their place in the American economic system, a job that we do not do terribly well currently. Employers tell us that all of the time, that young people upon graduation are not fully prepared to transition from school to the American economic system. That means that they are less productive. That means that they are more expensive for employers, and we ought to make sure that that does not continue. The program designed to do that is in fact being cut. Goals 2000, where we seek to obtain world-class standards of curriculum for the students of this country so that we can compete, so that our industries can compete, so that our students can compete on an international basis because every politician has gone home to his or her district and told these young students that they will not only be competing against their colleagues in school, against the people in their own city or their own State but they will be competing against the entire world, and if America is to succeed economically, it requires a highly educated, a highly trained work force that will be able to adapt to the work places of the future. For that reason, we have got to have world class standards as children move through our education system so that they can take their place in that work force so they can provide the kind of economic dynamics that this nation needs to compete internationally. Yet what we see, only a year or two in that program, programs started under President Bush, continued under President Clinton are now being cut and eliminated. That is not the way to the education future. What is also rather startling in this budget proposal is that it continues an attack on children. In this instance, it continues an attack on almost every level of education being presented to children. In the Head Start Program, as my colleague from Hawaii pointed out, we see cuts where we know we have the ability to dramatically influence the future and the direction of that child's education program, those programs are being cut. We see programs at elementary and secondary education being cut. And for those students who seek to go on to higher education, what do we learn in this budget? We learn that we are going to substantially increase the cost of that higher education, what for many young people and their families means either it is going to take much longer to get that education, the education is going to have to be stretched out, or they simply will not get as much of that education that they would have otherwise, when it was affordable. Why are we doing that? We are doing that for the sole purpose, not of education policy. This is not driven by research. How can we have a better education system at the elementary and secondary level? This is not driven by research how we can have a better postsecondary education at the college level, at the technical school level. This is driven by the desire to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country in a disproportionate amount. How do they secure the moneys to do that? They do that by cutting these programs. And the tragedy is, as these programs are cut from our elementary schools, from our middle schools, our junior high schools, our high schools, that most of these school districts, almost without exception anywhere in the country, whether they are urban or rural, whether they are suburban districts, will not have the ability and do not have the ability to make up for these cuts. So what that means is, although the Federal dollars in total are not that great compared to what we spend in the Nation, they provide vital dollars that link together the educational efforts in our cities and in our rural areas. When those dollars are gone, there is very little opportunity, if any, in the district that I represent. Most of the schoolboards run an exact day-to-day operation trying to figure out how to pay for their programs, how to make the fiscal year work out and how to keep the quality of their programs up. They are losing that battle. And now in the middle of that battle we hand them fewer resources to deal with that issue. What does that mean? That means that children that would have had the opportunity of better trained teachers, of smaller class sizes, of better curriculums, of better technical materials and the availability of technology, computerization, and other programs will simply have that postponed or will go without. That means, in fact, that the education of the children of this Nation is going to suffer. It need not be that way. If the Republicans would simply stop trying to provide these tax cuts to the wealthiest of their constituents and understand that we would be much better investing that money in the children of the future, in the students who are currently in school, to make them more productive, to make them more literal, to help them understand the fundamentals of reading and writing and computing and critical thinking and to put money into the training of their teachers, that is when we reap the bounty as a nation. We do not reap the bounty as a nation by simply giving those who do not need a tax cut a tax cut for political purposes. We ought to be very careful when this budget comes under consideration on the floor over the next 2 days in the House of Representatives. I would hope that the people that we would represent and those who serve on school boards and those who volunteer in the PTA and those who volunteer in the classrooms and those who teach our students would become engaged in this debate, because this debate is about more than money. This debate is about whether or not the Federal Government will continue to provide direction and provide technology and will provide expertise and will provide research and resources to better the education system in this country from what it is today for the next generation. This is more than about money because it really is about the quality of that education. Because if we starve a system that is barely getting by in most localities today, if we withdraw these Federal dollars, quality is what will be compromised. It will come in the form of a larger class size, it will come in the form of the field trip postponed, it will come in the form of the computer not purchased, it will come in the form of the training for teachers that is postponed, but it will come in the form of reduced quality for our children. Mr. Speaker, this generation owes the next generation more than that. We owe them better than what we are about to hand off in this budget. before us, with the cuts in Medicare, with the cuts in student loans, with the cuts in education, with the cuts in agricultural programs. But let us understand that when we lose the opportunity to educate the children of this Nation, very often that opportunity is lost forever. We ought not to be doing that. We certainly ought not to be doing that in the name of social progress or trying to kid the American people that they and their families and their children and their communities will be better off after these cuts in education are made because it simply is not so. It will not turn out to be so, and it diminishes the future and the horizons that these young people, who are capable of so much more than we are even asking of them today, it diminishes their futures and their horizons. They are entitled to more than that and they are entitled to better treatment than this Republican budget gives them that we will debate on the floor tomorrow. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking this time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I do so because the gentleman from Florida gave a very compelling speech here. It just did not happen to be accurate. Because the reason we have the Clean Water Act, the reason we have the Clean Water Act was not because of 40 years of overregulation. It was because of 100 years of people abusing the waterways of this Nation, abusing the airways of this Nation, abusing the natural resources and lands of this Nation that the taxpayers unfortunately now have had to come back and clean up much of that mess. Without the Clean Water Act, without the Clean Air Act, there was no industry that walked into the Congress and said, I am going to voluntarily clean up the air in the San Francisco Bay area or in Los Angeles or in Cincinnati or in Philadelphia. There was no industry that walked in here and said, I will voluntarily take our sewage, our toxic materials from the steel mills, from the chemical mills, from the refineries out of the bays, out of the rivers, nobody did that. They fought this measure tooth and nail. They have been fighting it for 30 years. But what has been the net result? The net result is we have the cleanest industry and the most efficient industries in almost every segment of manufacturing, of doing business in the entire world. The auto industry is now more efficient and it is cleaner. And when you read the business journals, you will understand that much of that innovation, much of that technology, much of that efficiency came about as a result of having to comply with RCRA, with clean air, with clean water. Why does Dow Chemical now recycle what used to be toxics that were taken off their site, or duPont? Because of the efficiencies that were built in and the cost that was built in when they could no longer dump it in the river, when they could no longer dump it in the land, when they could no longer dump it in people's backyards, when they had to think about how to do it. What happens now? We refine more oil out of every barrel. We refine more materials and refine more products that are used in exports, that are used in products in this country than ever before. Why? Because it was subsidized before. It was subsidized by throwing it into the river, by sending it up a smokestack and not caring what happened. If Members want to see what happens to those nations that chose another route, that chose not to have clean water in the 1960's and 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, go to Eastern Europe, go to Asia. You cannot breathe. You cannot go outside of your hotel. Citizens cannot live. They cannot grow vegetables. Lands are taken out of circulation. No, this is a monument to success. Wonderful speech by the gentleman from Florida. It simply was not accurate. It simply was not accurate. It was a bunch of anecdotal crap that cannot be supported on the record.