George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, just when you might have thought you had heard it all about the limitless greed of the special interests for more subsidies and favors, along comes the oil and gas industry, bellying up to the bar for a few more billion from taxpayers. This time, it's called a royalty holiday: Forgiving oil companies from paying royalties to taxpayers--who own the oil and gas--in cases where the lease is in deep water. enticement or tax break, industry would be unwilling to sink an offshore well in deep water, thereby necessitating the royalty holiday to encourage exploration in otherwise unattractive areas. But you would be wrong. Indeed, the industry press is replete with reports of growing interest and activity by industry in deep water areas. According to a March 13, 1995, article in the ``Oil and Gas Journal,'' written by senior editor A.D. Koen, ``Improved economics, better technology, and growing experience are converging in the Gulf of Mexico's ultradeep water areas to fuel a new era of U.S. offshore development.'' The author describes the factors contributing to this surge in Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] development: ``Companies taking the plunge into deeper water credit better economics with providing the impetus to begin exploiting discoveries. Lower finding, development, and production costs make some of the gulf's larger reservoirs in very deep water competitive with many other offshore prospects, United States or non-United States in any water depth.'' Deep water reserves in the gulf are providing to be larger and more profitable than originally projected. According to a December 7, 1994, New York Times article, deep water reserves are thought to hold 50 percent more oil than the giant Prudhoe Bay fields in Alaska, as much as 15 billion barrels. In the November 21, 1994, issue of Forbes magazine, Shell and British Petroleum officials stated that they could develop the first 500 million barrels from the 2,933-foot deep MARS field in the gulf at a cost of only $3 per barrel. Thus, even though the deep water fields are expensive, they are large enough that the per barrel production cost is exceedingly low, generating plenty of profit and reducing any justification for royalty relief or tax breaks. Moreover, the technology is constantly improving, as noted in the Wall Street Journal on January 25, 1995: ``Industry executives believe tension leg-platforms can be affordable in water as deep as 6,000 feet.'' As a result of these disclosures, it was with some consternation that I read in the March 24, 1995, edition of The Energy Daily that some congressional leaders and some officials in the administration are supporting a proposal to reduce substantially royalties owed on deep water oil and gas leases on public lands in the Gulf of Mexico. The new legislative proposal, S. 158, would provide a royalty holiday for producers that drill in deep waters in order to ``revitalize the domestic oil and gas industry.'' Under this ill-conceived scheme, the U.S. Department of the Interior would forgive all royalty payments owed to the Federal taxpayer until all drilling expenses have been recovered. This royalty relief, in addition to the extremely favorable tax treatment the oil and gas industry already enjoys, would make for a very generous gift during a time of fiscal constraint. According to a Congressional Research Service analysis provided to the Natural Resources Committee last year, the current effective tax rate for oil and gas companies is 17 percent, and independent oil and gas producers are estimated to enjoy an effective tax rate of zero, due to the benefits of depreciation, depletion allowance, alternative minimum tax, and other tax credits which the industry is allowed under current law. Last week, many of us in this House were shocked when we heard Republican Members use animal analogies to justify cutting off aid to poor- and middle-class families. Not only were these arguments offensive, they highlight the hypocrisy in the Republican approach to Government. If the majority truly want to end the cycle of dependence, why not do so for the richest in our society, not just for the poorest? Why, at a time when working people are increasingly living on the economic edge, do we need to give multibillion dollar tax breaks to multinational energy conglomerates to do what they are already doing: drilling for oil? And, never satisfied with a limited corporate tax break when a bigger one will do, some in Congress now are planning to expand the unneeded royalty relief to environmentally important waters in Alaska. The American people are not interested in cutting social welfare programs in order to pay for corporate welfare. They are justifiably tiring of high-priced lobbyists securing lucrative tax breaks and special treatment from the Republican leadership while those too young, too poor, or too weak are told they must sacrifice more. The oil industry is already proceeding with and profiting from deep water development without additional royalty relief. We shouldn't be bribing them to do what they are doing already. The royalty holiday is a paid vacation for the oil industry, and a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in 1980 I was the principal House author of P.L. 96-272, the landmark law that reformed Federal foster care and adoption laws, and established both a priority for preventive service and legal protections for foster children to assure them access to services and an appropriate foster placement. In addition, this important law provided Federal supports for adoption of children who could not be returned to their natural families. The Republican welfare reform bill passed narrowly by the House last week is unfair to many, but none more so than the foster children who have no one to turn to but government for essential care. By eviscerating P.L. 96-272, the Republican bill will return us to the sorry situation prior to its enactment when States and even the Federal Government were unable even to tell us the number of children in foster placement, let alone the appropriateness of those placements, what services were being offered to the child and the natural parents, and what the long-term plan was for that child. Foster children today enjoy far better legal protection than prior to 1980, but many States still need to be pressured to comply with the law's safeguards for these most vulnerable of children. In fact, nearly half of the States are today under court order, or have been sued, for violating the law. Yet despite the general sympathy for moving programs back to the local government, many of these entities recognize they cannot manage a foster care program on their own or without the support and guidance provided by P.L. 96-272. Indeed, organizations like the National Association of State Legislators and the National Association of Counties are on record as opposing the way the Republican welfare bill undermines the foster care policies of the last 15 years and places children at risk. It took 5 years of hard effort, working with States, children's organizations, the courts, and many others to achieve the major reform of 96-272. Yet foster children were barely recognized in the debate over the welfare bill of 1995. Let us not make foster children again the forgotten children. Let us not throw out important and valuable reforms based on some half-baked ideological crusade. I am hopeful that the Senate, which played a key role in the development of 96-272, will again intervene to save the safeguards that have improved the foster care system, and helped hundreds of thousands of children have a better chance at permanency and success.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the welfare reform legislation we have been considering this week has critical implications for our Nation's children. Coupled with the rescission package this body passed last week, and the promise of further cuts in programs for our children to pay for tax cuts for the richest percent of Americans, we are facing the complete dismantling of the safety net for children. This past weekend, I held a town meeting in my congressional district to seek the views of those from the front lines who deal with troubled children on a daily basis on the consequences of the welfare reform package pushed by Gingrich and the Republicans. The rescission proposals. I heard from a broad spectrum of people--children's advocates, the educational and medical communities, professionals in child care and child protection services, the mayor of our largest city, parents and children themselves. The picture they painted was one of abandonment--abandonment of the Federal commitment to supporting children and families. In these times when entitlement has become a dirty word, they graphically reaffirmed why entitlements exist, and how critical they are to the well-being of the children of this Nation. They also confirmed that we will be shortsighted, indeed, if we cut the fiscal lifelines that mean education, jobs, innovation, training, in our low-income communities, and our children will suffer more.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in light of the continuing debate about increasing Federal fiscal responsibility, it is extremely important that we recognize those programs that offer a substantial national return on the Federal investment. One such initiative, the National and Community Service Program, is a successful Federal program which provides volunteer placements for young people who choose to perform thousands of hours of work serving their country in return for educational assistance. Unfortunately, this program is also one of the many victims of misplaced Republican budgetary cuts. As my colleagues are aware, the National and Community Service Program took a large hit in the recent House-passed rescissions bill. In response to this action, I would like to draw your attention to Mary McGrory's article in today's Washington Post which complements the program as a ``model enterprise.'' The article describes ``rampaging Republicans'' in the House who would like to eliminate National Service even though the program is overwhelmingly supported by both Democratic and Republican Governors across the Nation and by the communities that are recipients of the valuable work performed. In 1994, approximately 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers worked to confront unmet human, educational, environmental and public health needs. Roughly 350 of these volunteers worked in eight units of the National Forest System to combat the severe backlog of maintenance, improvement, and rehabilitation needs--work which is important but far from glamorous. The task undertaken on our public lands are those which are too undesirable or too costly for Forest Service personnel or contract employees to perform. Yet, this work directly benefits all Americans. Some of the AmeriCorps' accomplishments in the national forests include: In San Bernardino National Forest, in California, AmeriCorps volunteers have taken important steps to prevent erosion by rehabilitating 12,000 acres of land burned by fires; In Six Rivers National Forest, also in California, National Service volunteers have rehabilitated 3.5 miles of hiking and horse trails and reforested and restored wildlife habit on 10 acres of land which was once a gold mine waste area; Volunteers planted 2,390 trees in several campgrounds, enhanced fish habitat, built a nature trail, and improved timber stands in the Rouge River National Forest in Oregon. AmeriCorps volunteers have also improved overall forest health on 55 acres by pruning second growth trees; In Washington's Olympic National Forest, AmeriCorps volunteers have maintained 4 miles of trails, rehabilitated campground sites, completed handicapped access in six recreation sites, completed restoration of two historic sites, surveyed species habitat, and pruned 120 acres of timber stands; In the Arizona National Forests, volunteers maintained 15 miles of trails, rehabilitated 10 campground sites, improved wildlife habitat on 300 acres, and obliterated 2 miles of road, returning the land to its natural state; and AmeriCorps volunteers improved paths and maintained roads in Bienville National Forest in Mississippi. These accomplishments represent only some of the projects AmeriCorps participants have completed. Elsewhere across the Nation, AmeriCorps volunteers have performed emergency response work to mitigate the effects of floods, fires and earthquakes, cleaned-up our urban areas, increased disaster prevention efforts and worked with citizens to improve their quality of life. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues remember that the entire Nation reaps the benefits of the National Service Program. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 23, 1995] Crib Death for National Service (By Mary McGrory) The House Republicans' strangling of national service in its crib has to be seen not as a criticism of the agency's performance but simply as another expression of the party leadership's notion that no government program is worth a damn. If they were going by performance, the Republicans might have to applaud AmeriCorps as a model enterprise. It is modestly funded, locally directed and dramatic evidence that American youth is not cynical or self-serving. AmeriCorps has had rave reviews from coast to coast for its 20,000 volunteers, who are doing things nobody else tackles, everything from helping to build housing for the poor and tutoring inner-city school pupils to cleaning polluted streams in Baltimore's watershed. A case in point is Howard Hogin, a 1994 graduate of Georgetown University. He is living in a cramped barracks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. He spent September fighting forest fires in Idaho and much of the fall in helping build a riding ring for disabled children. Now he's trying to clean up Maryland's polluted steams. He hopes to pay off his college loans, AmeriCorps pays its workers a minimum wage and an annual $4,725 toward college expenses. Service is in Hogin's genes, and by his family's standards, he is a big success. His parents are both social workers and his ancestors experienced big trouble, like the Irish famine and the Holocaust. He says lots of his Georgetown classmates have the same impulse to leave the country a better place but ``just can't afford to do it.'' Hogin is tactful about the mugging AmeriCorps suffered when the House cut $416 million, or 72 percent, from its $575 million budget. He was voted outstanding teenage Republican in his high school class. ``I understand that we have tremendous deficits and the taxpayers are heavily burdened, but if we give up what is best about America, what kind of a legacy do we leave?'' No such considerations figured in the thinking of House Republicans. The rap on AmeriCorps was not just that it was a government program, it is Bill Clinton's favorite program. Said Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon, ``It's get-even time.'' It is also get-nervous time for the rampaging Republicans. They are winning victory after victory on the floor, but they are losing in public opinion. They have long since maintained that they know exactly what Nov. 8 was about, that the country wanted government to be shrunk and ordinary people, especially the poor, to pull up their socks. But a recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows that the public thinks Republicans have gone too far. And in his effort to save programs for the poor, Clinton has picked up some unexpected allies; the Roman Catholic bishops. They were reserved about him during the campaign because of his abortion rights stand. But they think now that pitiless Republicans pose a worse threat of increased abortions. The Republicans' greatest tactical mistake was to meddle with the school lunch program, a popular and scandal-free operation that has helped many a hungry child get through the school day. In vain, the Republicans protested that they had not cut the funds but merely slowed the increase in the growth rate. Nonetheless, the ranks have begun to wince in the iron corset of the contract, and this week, 102 members rebelled against tax breaks for the rich. The Democrats, who have been having their best week since the calamity of Nov. 8, were sporting ``Save the Children'' neckties on the House floor. Eli Segal, the chief executive officer of the National Service Corps, has been summoned before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs for a discussion of the 1996 budget, which since the House action stands at $159 million, a sum that prohibits serious action. He has been traveling the country inspecting the workers, deriving solace from moderate Republican governors who are keen about the corps' activities in conflict resolution, environmental cleanup, tutoring and other contributions to urban peace. They agree with him that pulling the plug after less than a year is bad practice. Segal's hope is that they will transmit their enthusiasm to their brother moderates in the Senate, which has become the haven for storm-tossed programs. Republican Christopher Shays of Connecticut was the only member of his party to vote against the amendment that mortally wounded national service. He is a Peace Corps alumnus and believes passionately in the importance of youthful involvement. ``A colossal mistake,'' he calls his party's action. ``I hope the president has the fortitude to veto the bill. I would support his veto.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I want to strongly associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] a woman of great strength and of great principle. I want to associate myself with her remarks and promotion of her amendment, because what her amendment does is promote child nutrition over the Republican alternative that slashes $7 billion from child nutrition programs, $2 billion from the School Lunch Program, $145 million in 1996 alone. It promotes work over the Republican proposal where CBO says none of the States, none of the States can make the work program in the Republican bill work for people on welfare. It promotes child protections for children who are abused over no Federal protections in the Republican bill. It promotes protection for severely disabled children rather than throwing them off of the SSI rolls, seriously disabled children with mental disabilities, with physical disabilities, children suffering from cerebral palsy and other afflictions like that. No, the Republicans throw them off. What we cannot stand about the Republican bill is its cruelty, its concerted attack on America's children. Whether they are infants, whether they are in the womb, whether they are toddlers, whether they are in child care, whether they are in school, the Republicans attack them. That is what we cannot stand. But we have a choice. We are going to have a choice in a few minutes to vote for the Mink substitute, a substitute that promotes work, promotes child protection, promotes child nutrition. That is what Americans want. They want people on welfare to go to work. And yet the Republicans have constructed a dynamic that is not favored by the people in the States who run work programs; it is not favored by the WIC directors; it is not favored by the school lunch people. And these are supposedly the people that know best because they are closest, and they are saying do not do what the Republicans want to do to nutrition and to work and to the women and infants and children's programs. Stop the cruelty, stop the cruelty, and vote for Patsy Mink.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson is right this morning when she says that the charges against Speaker Gingrich are not frivolous. The fact is from across the country the evidence and the calls for an investigation are mounting up. In this last week the Baltimore Sun, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune all raised questions about Speaker Gingrich's actions as Speaker and his service in the House of Representatives, raised questions about whether or not he has violated the gift rules in receiving gifts from corporate interests, whether or not he has violated the use of his staff in the production of his book and production of his TV show and his classroom, whether or not he violated the rules of this House by peddling his tapes on the floor of the House. These are serious questions. Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, the chairman of the Ethics Committee, is quite right. These are not frivolous, but they also are so serious that they should call for a special counsel to provide for an independent investigation of whether or not the Speaker is peddling his office, his position, and his power.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Eleven amendments. A further parliamentary inquiry: As I understood the rule, originally those amendments could have been brought up for 20 minutes of debate on each amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his amendment. I think this is what we were trying to do in the conference committee last year with Senator Metzenbaum, and I think we got some bad advice from HHS on some language. I just want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it has become very clear that the Republicans do not want a debate or a discussion on this bill because they understand how quickly and clearly the American public is coming to understand what they are doing, how terribly mean they are being to children of this Nation. This goes far beyond pregnant women and young children. This goes to disabled children, to abused children. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] was absolutely right. The block grants here for Federal protection of children, abused children, are greatly diminished, and those children are placed at risk. There is no guarantee of that funding being there. If Members read the letter they received from the American Bar Association, it simply states that we are now taking the most vulnerable children in this Nation, that now have the Federal protection, where we have gone into the court, and we have over 20 States who now have their foster care systems run by the courts because the States have refused to administer the system for the protection of these children. Those are the States that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] wants to give more say to, fewer protections for these children. Those are the very States that the gentlewoman wants to give these children back to. Those States, like the District of Columbia, they cannot find their children. States like New York, they cannot find their children. Why? Because they refuse to comply with the law. It is not the Federal law, it is the law they refuse to comply with, so now we are going to take these States with a history of abusing these children. We have all been treated to the headlines of children being killed, maimed, sexually abused, scalded, burned, axed up, all of this? Why? Because they have some notion that the States can do it better, the very same States that are constantly in court for failing to protect the most vulnerable citizens. That is why they do not want to discuss this amendment. That is why they gave away the debate time. That is why they put these amendments into a block grant, because they refuse to discuss what this bill does, far beyond the question of mothers on welfare: what it does to disabled children, what it does to abused children, what it does to children in child care, all of which has nothing to do with welfare reform as the American people understand it. No wonder they are trying to hide the facts from the American public. No wonder they refuse to debate this bill. No wonder they do not want to talk about this bill. No wonder they do not This was supposed to be one of the most important parts of the contract. Yet when it came to the most important part of the contract, you chose to close down the debate. You just continued to close down debate. I don't get it. You said you wanted open rules, you said you wanted free debate, and now you are closing it down because you don't want America to find out what you are doing to the children of this Nation.

Mr. MILLER of California. And now those 11 amendments have been collapsed into one en bloc amendment, and the debate time is only going to be 10 minutes a side?

Mr. MILLER of California. So we have 10 amendments?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, is the debate time going to be expanded since it is now covering--is there just going to be 10 minutes a side? Could we do 20 minutes a side? I mean these amendments----

Mr. MILLER of California. Could the Chair inform us? As I understand it, there are some 10 amendments that are going to be offered en bloc.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair?

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. What the Republicans would do because they did not provide the increase for the commodities program, they would suggest the commodities is really taken care of, so there would be money left over to take care of after school and summer breakfasts, but there is, as is apparent readily to anyone in the audience, of course nothing here in the commodities program, and the commodities are a key component and that is why when Republicans say they are going to give a 4.5 percent increase for the nutrition programs they did not figure in the cost of commodities into their escalator. And once again there we find out that the block grant they talk about to feed American children is not fully covered and children now go without the commodities portion of that program.

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is quite correct. What we see here is the block grant. This is what you need, this is what you are trying to cover. This is the block, ladies and gentlemen, that you have to cover to take care of America's children. You have got to provide lunches for children who need lunches, you have to have food assistance in order to provide the commodities and fresh fruits and vegetables necessary so you can have a healthy lunch, and an after school and summer program because many children unfortunately, when school is out they still require food. It is necessary that they eat, they are still hungry. And of course the breakfast program has become more and more important as we see this is the key if children learn in the early hours of their school day and this is what is necessary. But unfortunately you will see here that the Republicans do not do that. If you take care and provide full funding for lunches and you provide full funding for food assistance, and you do the breakfast program, you can see that the block grant does not cover the block because there is no funding available for summer programs which so many of our children rely on.

Mr. MILLER of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, America is asking the question that Congresswoman DeLauro just answered, and that is how is it that the Republicans can say they are not hurting the School Lunch Program when they take over $2 billion away from the School Lunch Program and over $7 billion away from the nutrition programs for the children of this Nation? The fact of the matter is they cannot. They cannot fulfill the promise of this Nation to feed hungry children, to take care of children in need, and at the same time remove these funds. The mythical increase as she referred to simply does not provide for the element of growth in the program that takes into account the ever increasing cost of food, the increasing number of children unfortunately in this country who continue to be eligible for this program, and what happens in the downturn in our economy. So the result is that in fact the school breakfast program, the lunch program, the after school program, and the commodities program simply cannot be taken care of.

Mr. MILLER of California. That is really similar if I were to cut your wages by $20,000 and then say I am going to give you a 4\1/2\- percent increase over the next 5 years. You start out in the hole, and you never get well, and because they do not provide a 4\1/2\-percent increase on inflation, on the price of commodities, the price of food, the increase in enrollment, the 4\1/2\ percent turns out to be fraudulent. Under the Republican program, you can do this. You have no lunches, no food assistance, no afterschool program, and no breakfast. What a shame, shameful thing for America's children who were expecting a block grant to take care of their needs. The plates will be available after the show.

Mr. MILLER of California. Well, your school district could take another action. It could take away the breakfast program and provide the commodities that are so terribly important for the school lunch program where they make because there is no increase in the food assistance, they would have to take that from the breakfast program or one of these other. No matter how you move around the plates, of course, what you see is that the Republican proposal for child nutrition in our school lunch programs simply does not cover the needs of the children currently enrolled. And we are now estimating that almost 2 million children that otherwise would be served will not be served because one of them, it is just sort of like musical chairs. One of them is going to show up for one of these programs. There is not going to be funding for that program. They are going to go unserved. That estimate is now 2 million children in the next 5 years.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sadly note the passing of one of the great people of our time, Ed Roberts, the former secretary of rehabilitation of the State of California, the cofounder of the Center for Independent Living, and the founder of the World Disability Institute. I knew, admired, and worked closely with Ed Roberts throughout my entire adult life, in Sacramento, and as a Member of the House of Representatives. Ed was as dedicated, insightful, determined, and skilled as any person I have ever met in public life, and his singular contributions to the disabled community throughout America is, simply stated, unparalleled. Ed deeply understood the need for the law, and for government, to defend the rights of those who had neither power nor influence. And he forced dramatic changes that broke children. I wish to submit for the Record the following editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle paying tribute to this great American, and good friend. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 18, 1995] The Transcendent Life of Edward Roberts ``What I want and a lot of other disabled people want is to live, to experience, to be a part of society. And that's nothing extraordinary. So when we do things and do become successful, it doesn't make us different from any other successful person.'' Even though it was not what he was seeking, Edward Roberts died a hero at age 56 this week, having lived up to such admiring sobriquets as ``the Gandhi of disability rights'' and ``the Cesar Chavez for the handicapped.'' A budding athlete who became a paraplegic at age 14 from polio, Roberts was an in-your-face kind of guy because society gave him no other choice. When his principal balked at graduating Roberts from high school because the teenager hadn't completed required physical education courses, Roberts fought the decision with such vigor that the principal was forced to relent. When a counselor at the state Department of Rehabilitation sided with the University of California in denying Roberts admittance to Berkeley because the school had never had a wheelchair-confined student who required a respirator and iron lung, Roberts argued until he was enrolled. He lived at Cowell Hospital and later organized successfully for dormitory housing for disabled students. He co-founded the Center for Independent Living at Berkeley, which promoted the idea of integrating disabled people into the mainstream and making available to the disabled such essentials as housing, transportation and wheelchair-accessible ramps and curbs. The establishment of 400 similar centers nationwide followed. Roberts' longtime work received official affirmation when Governor Jerry Brown appointed Roberts to head the California Department of Rehabilitation in 1975. He was a familiar sight in Sacramento in his motorized wheelchair, and his presence alone helped many lawmakers understand for the first time the needs of people who desperately seek independence--despite not being able to use either arms or legs--and yet are constantly stymied by thoughtless policies. In 1984, Roberts received $225,000 in a MacArthur Foundation ``genius'' award for his work with the disabled, and he created the World Institute on Disability, an Oakland- based think tank on disability issues with a $3.3 million budget. Roberts' life was not only heroic, because of the many personal obstacles he overcame, but in the end, transcendent, because of the way he helped transform the way we think about and act toward disabled people. ``As an international leader and educator in the independent living and disability rights movements, he fought throughout his life to enable all persons with disabilities to fully participate in mainstream society,'' said President Clinton. ``Mr. Roberts was truly a pioneer . . . His vision and ability to bring people together should be an example for all Americans.'' A memorial service will be held at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow at Harmon Gymnasium on the UC Berkeley campus. Memorial endowments have been set up for Roberts' son, Lee, and for the institute. Contributions may be sent to the institute at 510 16th Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we will be debating this week in the House that will be offered to us by our Republican colleagues is the most comprehensive and the most focused assault on poor children in this country that we have witnessed in the past 30 years. It is not that the press has got it wrong, it is that the press has started to explain it to the American people, and as the American people have started to understand it and started to see its components, they are starting to reject it. Because, while all of us agree about welfare reform, and every Member has said that on the floor and clearly the public agrees with welfare reform, the public is starting to ask what is it about welfare reform that requires you to take severely disabled children who suffer from cerebral palsy and other disabling diseases, what is it that requires you to take them off of the rolls so that their parents, many of whom are single parents, who are struggling to work and to keep their children at home and out of an institution, what is it about welfare reform that requires you to abandon these children? What is it about welfare reform that requires you to repeal the child welfare protection for abused children, who need protective foster care so that they can be rescued from families that are dysfunctional and disabled in terms of their ability to take care, and many times lash out and injure these children and in some circumstances kill these children? What is it about welfare reform that required the Republicans to do that? What is it about welfare reform that required the Republicans to rip away from working poor parents who have struggled to get off of welfare but now need child care to stay off of welfare so they can contribute to the well-being of their family, and with a little bit of lighten the load on the Government and retain their dignity? What is it about welfare reform that told the Republicans to rip that away from those working parents? What is it about welfare reform that asks them to rip away $7 billion from the child nutrition programs; in our child care programs; in our school lunch programs; in our women, infants and children's programs? I appreciate that they say that all of these programs are there, but none of them are mandated. None of them are provided to these children who need these programs, who are enabled to have these programs, because of circumstances beyond these children's control. What is it about welfare reform that says that if a child happens to live in a State that suffers from an economic downturn, that they may not get their school lunch because there will be no entitlement for that child, a child who finds himself in a family that is now, because of an economic downturn, unemployed, and yet the family seeks to hold itself together? What is it about welfare reform that demanded these kinds of harsh actions? What is it about welfare reform that no longer provides an entitlement to a pregnant woman at nutritional risk to protect her pregnancy for the healthy birth of her newborn infant and to care for that infant when they have been medically certified at nutritional risk and the likelihood of giving birth to a low-birth-weight baby, babies that have a 30 or 40 percent greater frequency of coming back and needing help later with special education, with remedial education, because of the brain development they suffered? What is it about welfare reform that demanded that? You talk about people who spend generations on welfare, and yet you are creating the very children who are going to be candidates for welfare because of your inhumanity, because of your callous nature, and because of the war you wage on the poor children of this Nation. What is it about welfare reform that requires you to treat the children, to punish the child of a young woman who has a child out of wedlock under the age of 18, to punish that child and to rip away the resources? Sixty percent of all of the pregnancies in this country, no matter what your class, your status, no matter what your financial well-being, 60 percent of all of the pregnancies in this country are unintended. Half of them are resolved by abortion. Half of them are resolved by abortion. So what do we do? We tell individuals if you have an unintended pregnancy, we are going to make your life more desperate, more complicated, more hostile to bringing that child into this world. That is not welfare reform, that is a war on America's children, on the poorest of America's children.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1158. This legislation constitutes a mean-spirited and ill- advised attack on the well-being of our children and the health of our environment. While cutting deep into programs which benefit the less fortunate in our society, H.R. 1158 leaves the fat cats and corporate welfare beneficiaries unscathed. Because my time is limited, I will focus my remarks on a few of the objectionable provisions in this bill. At a time when we hear much rhetoric about family values from the Republican majority, this bill rescinds $25 million from the special nutrition program for women, infants and children, one of the most cost effective and beneficial Federal programs. We should be spending more money on the WIC Program, not taking away desperately needed assistance to mothers and their children. At a time when the Republican majority is preparing to end Federal welfare programs under the guise of encouraging work, it rescinds $2.3 billion from Labor Department job training programs which help young people to obtain meaningful work. At a time when the Republican majority talks about creating an opportunity society, this bill rescinds $1.6 billion in education program funding, shutting the door on our children. At a time when the Republican majority doesn't mention the word environment in their contract because they know that the public overwhelmingly supports laws which protect our environment, this bill contains a blank check to ravage our national forests under the banner of salvage sales. In their rush to judgment, the majority didn't even bother going through the proper committees and include this authorizing language only through a waiver of the House rules. At a time when the Republican majority takes great pride in defending property rights, this bill snubs private property owners who are willing sellers of their land by decimating the Department of the Interior's land acquisition budget. the Park Service is underfunded and uses that as an excuse to oppose new park acquisitions, this bill rescinds $22.8 million from the park construction budget. At a time when the Republican majority wants to increase the role of State and local governments, this bill eliminates the urban park and recreation fund's entire budget of $7.4 million. Mr. Chairman, this bill is riddled with misguided cuts and missed opportunities to cut subsidies for corporate welfare. I have introduced H.R. 721, the Public Resources Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, which would recover more than $3 billion a year lost through unjustified subsidies for timber, mining, grazing and water. While H.R. 1158 guts environmentally beneficial programs it completely ignores these environmentally destructive subsidies and the rule precludes any consideration of the provisions of my legislation. Finally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1158 is flawed because it contains special interest provisions which are utterly irrelevant to deficit reduction. As just one example, the committee report accompanying H.R. 1158 includes language which is intended to bypass the Resources Committee and repeal section 3601(C)(1) of the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act. That section required a study to address fish, wildlife and habitat concerns in the San Joaquin River and is objected to by certain heavily subsidized irrigation interests. While it is obvious that report language can not repeal a statute and this report language is not enforceable and non-binding on the Bureau of Reclamation, it does reflect the extent of the feeding frenzy that the subsidized special interests engaged in with cooperation from the Republican majority on this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Yates amendment to strike the Taylor Timber Salvage Language. We have all heard the old adage that you have to spend money to make money but the timber salvage provisions of H.R. 1159 turn this into a case where we will be spending money to lose money. Nominally, CBO shows that such sales will bring in $134 million, a far cry from the $1 billion in receipts proponents were touting just 2 weeks ago. The other side of the CBO analysis which bill proponents will not be speaking about is that salvage is direct spending, and thus the money goes right back out. The taxpayer loses under the Taylor Salvage Language because whatever profitable sales that are not only needed but required to achieve the unrealistic cut in excess of 6 billion board feet called for in the bill. Further, since the estimates of revenue do not even count such significant costs as purchaser road credits the treasury will never see a dime from these sales. Looking at savage from the question of forest health, what kind of perverse logic says that to make our forests healthy, we have to suspend not just every environmental law but every law dealing with forestry management and administrative procedure. What little judicial review there is in the bill, is made meaningless since all salvage actions are deemed to satisfy APPLICABLE LAW. Not content with this the Taylor Language goes on to USURP the role of the judiciary by lifting existing injunctions, prohibiting future injunctions, and dictating to the court when and how it may consider appeals. Proponents of the salvage provisions have taken a complex forestry issue and boiled it down to a simple solution. That is to fight fire and insects with chainsaws. It is a discredited policy that is being resurrected under the guise of an emergency. Is the Taylor Salvage Language forest health or hype? If proponents are truely interested in forest health, why are they mandating a specific, but unrealistic, cut? The answer is that this amendment is all about the cut and the notion that a dead tree is a wasted tree. Proponents both inside and outside of Congress who for years advocated fire suppression at any cost are now seeing that cost. But instead of owning up to it, they view it as an opportunity to bypass sound science and management and embark on a cutting frenzy. The use of thinning, pruning and prescribed burns are not even considered because that would diminish the all-driving cut. This whole notion reminds me of the General in the Vietnam War who said they had to destroy a village to save it. That is what we are dealing with here. Look where this cut will come from. In their rush to get the Taylor Language out, proponents would open designated national wild and scenic river corridors to logging. In what appears at a minimum to be a serious oversight but perhaps is a devious design, wilderness study areas in Montana and Colorado are protected but not in Idaho. The vast amount of logging will occur in roadless areas and we are not talking about helicopter logging here. No, the widely scattered nature of fire and infestation means that heavy equipment will be brought in to punch scores of new roads with machinery roaming over a forest floor disturbed by fire and highly susceptible to damage. If we are serious about forest health, and we should be, the Taylor amendment is the wrong answer. It has no place in this bill both from a procedural and policy standpoint. The Taylor Salvage Language is a bad deal for the taxpayer and the environment. I urge adoption of the Yate's amendment to strike this ill-conceived language from the bill.