George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago, America lost one of its legends with the death of Dale Earnhardt at the Daytona 500. In the best tradition of NASCAR racing, in the tradition of Junior Johnson and King Richard, Richard Petty, we lost a hero. We lost a person who understood competition maybe better than anyone we have ever seen; a person who understood that every day was about going out and seeing whether or not he could be a winner. Dale Earnhardt won 76 times over these 26 years. He won seven Winston Cup championships. And it was for that reason that he was called ``the Intimidator,'' because everyone knew, if they tuned in to a NASCAR race, if the Number 3 was still on the track toward the end of the race, he was going to spend all his time trying to figure out how to win that race. It did not matter if he was down a lap or if he was in the back of the pack; everyone knew he was going to try to edge his way forward. Sometimes he did it by bumping people gently, sometimes he bumped people roughly; but the fact was he felt it was open for anyone to win that race. He was not a great fan of managed competition or people deciding the rules and the regulations under which NASCAR would be run. He did not like the restrictors, the aerodynamic restrictions on design. He thought it ought to be just raw competition, as those people who went before him in the NASCAR races. That is why he was a hero to millions and millions of people in this country and all over the world. That is why when I called my son to talk about the accident afterwards, he talked of how he and his wife sat there with tears in their eyes as they realized that he had died. And other members of our family who had been great fans of his over many, many, many years suffered the loss along with his family and all of his fans. Yes, we truly lost a great hero. We truly lost a wonderful role model and example for so many people about playing every day for real and about competing in the best form and with great gusto. We will miss the Number 3. We will miss the Intimidator. But we know he leaves us a legacy, and all of those drivers who follow him, as with his son, Dale Earnhardt, Junior.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce the California Reclaimed Water Act for the 21st Century. I introduced almost identical legislation in the 106th Congress (H.R. 5555). The dry winter we are experiencing in California should be a reminder that water shortages and drought are quite normal in our State. I strongly believe that investment in reclaimed water technology--water recycling--can help us ``drought-proof'' many of our community water supplies in California. Projects that recycle water result in a net increase in available local water supplies and can decrease the need for water that must be supplied and often imported from other sources. Because wastewater for recycling is available even when other water supplies are diminished, recycled water can assist in providing a long-term, reliable, local source of water even during droughts. Our farmers, urban dwellers, sport and commercial fishing interests, tribes, mountain communities and environmentalists all seek a more reliable and a more certain water future. Recycled water plays an important part in meeting California's water needs today and will play an even more important role in the next several decades. About 3 percent of the water supply in the San Francisco Bay Area is now recycled. Water managers hope that eventually as much as 40 percent of the water will be recycled, perhaps as much as 500,000 acre-feet per year. California cities need planning help and financial assistance to find markets for the recycled water, and to construct the treatment and conveyance facilities needed to get the treated water to identified markets. Recycled water can be used for irrigation of golf courses, parks, school lands, business campuses, and highway medians, and for groundwater recharge, wetlands development; and industrial purposes. We have to start thinking about recycled water as a critical component of the water supply picture in California. Californians and government agencies have recently affirmed their support for water recycling, first with the passage of the California water bond last year, and more recently with the approval of the CALFED water agreement which broadly sets a course for California's water future. Water recycling and reuse is a major element of both these new actions and policies. The Federal government's support for water recycling was initially authorized in the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992. The Bureau of Reclamation's so-called ``Title XVI'' program originally approved financial assistance for planning, design and construction of four water recycling projects in California. More projects were approved in 1996. The legislation I introduce today builds upon these Congressional efforts, voter ballot initiatives and agency studies. The bill authorizes a series of new Title XVI water recycling projects and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with various water districts throughout the State on water recycling activities. Specific projects included in the bill are: Castaic Lake Water Agency; Clear Lake Basin Water Reuse Project; San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Project; Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project; San Pablo Baylands Water Reuse Project in Sonoma, Napa, Marin and Solano Counties; State of California Water Recycling Program; Regional Brine Lines (salt removal) in Southern California and in the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Clara Valley areas; Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination Demonstration and Reclamation Project; and the West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration Program. These projects will have the capacity to produce hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of useable water. Each acre-foot of recycled water produced by these projects will reduce the demand in California for imported water from the Bay-Delta and the Colorado River. Unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation water projects, these water recycling projects require a majority of funds to be locally provided. Consistent with Title XVI limitations on recycling projects as authorized in 1992 and 1996, the projects proposed in my bill require 75 percent local funding. Federal cost sharing is limited to 25 percent. Moreover, this bill specifies that none of the funds can be used for annual operation and maintenance costs. Those annual expenses are the responsibility of the local water districts or management agency. I strongly believe that water recycling will continue to play an important and growing role in total water management strategies to provide a safe and sustainable water supply in California and in many other parts of the country. The water recycling projects authorized by the legislation I am introducing today are part of a long-term solution to some of California's most difficult challenges. Water recycling is not the only solution. But, water recycling and water reuse can play a significant part as these projects can be designed, built, and placed in service within a short time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing The Independent Order of Foresters, High Court of the California North/Nevada North, on the occasion of their 43rd Quadrennial Session, for their commitment to providing fraternal and community services to their members and the northern California and Nevada communities. The concept of Forestry originated hundreds of years ago when people formed groups called Friendly Societies to provide help for one another in times of distress. Based on the spirit of brotherhood and the desire to help in times of need, each family contributed to a fund from which they could draw when emergencies arose. In 1874 in Newark, NJ, a group of people carrying on these early traditions of mutual aid and fraternity started the Independent Order of Foresters. Today, the 35,000 members of the California North/Nevada North IOF play a variety of roles in our neighborhoods and communities. IOF members are involved in youth scouting and athletic activities, fund- raising for nonprofit organizations, and confronting child abuse through community education and direct service to children and families in crisis. These are people who care about and are engaged in their communities. This past year, the IOF has sponsored numerous organizations, including the Solano and Contra Costa Food Bank, the Make A Wish Foundation, the Atkinson Youth Center, the Young Life Capernium, Meals on Wheels, the Boys and Girls Club Shelter for Battered Women and Samaritan House, Young Life, the Yellow Brick House, Silver Dollar Court, and the Children's Crisis Center. The California North/Nevada North IOF meets February 24, 2001, to celebrate their years of commitment to their families and communities. I know I speak for all Members when I thank the IOF for their positive contributions to our communities and wish them continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague Mr. Kildee and other Democratic members of the House in introducing the Excellence and Accountability in Education Act, a comprehensive K-12 education reform bill. Along with proposals last week from President Bush and from Senator Joe Lieberman and Representatives Tim Roemer and Cal Dooley, this is the third education proposal unveiled so far this year to improve America's public schools. All three proposals share a great deal in common. Our schools are in a crisis. The school system, in too many instances, is failing to properly educate all of our kids. Frankly, it is nothing short of a crime that we have tolerated failing schools for so many years. But I believe strongly that this year is going to be different., For many years, we have debated whether we have the will or the wallet to really fix our schools. I believe we are now at a time in history when we have both the will and the wallet to improve public school education. We have a President who has clearly indicated he has the will to impose real accountability and fix failing schools. But we must also provide real resources to get the job done. There is no point in misleading parents and schools by telling them we will help but without providing the investments that are necessary. This must be an honest process with respect to the policies and the resources that must go with them. In exchange for the recourses we are going to demand accountability. That will be a winning formula if we give it a chance. That is what we do in this bill today. In the last Congress, Mr. Kildee and I, and other Members of Congress, worked to enact many of other policies included in our bill. I am energized and encouraged that there now appears to be a great deal of agreement across party lines and political sectors on what is needed to improve public school education for all children. There is widespread agreement that if we provide adequate resources to schools and in return hold them accountable for meeting high standards, that all children, no matter their background, can have the opportunity to succeed in school. Such widespread agreement did not exist even one year ago. Here is what our bill would do. Our bill would hold schools accountable to high standards. It places particular emphasis on closing the ``achievement gap'' between different groups of kids--rich and poor, minority and non-minority. this is something President Bush and I both believe in strongly. Our bill would provide the greatest amount of resources of any proposal yet to help schools meet their standards. And our bill will continue to target resources on the most vulnerable children in the most difficult schools. Our bill provides real money in return for real reform. For example, we would double funding for the Title I program, boost funds to the lowest performing schools, and provide funds to improve assessment and accountability systems to make them fairer and more accurate. Let me clear about the differences between our bill and the approach taken by President Bush. Our bill would not divert public funds from public schools to private and religious schools, through vouchers or through any other means. Neither would the Lieberman/Roemer/Dooley bill. The issue vouchers, in my opinion, is a non-starter. Nor would our bill dilute or eviscerate key local education programs, such as the After-School and Safe-And Drug-Free Schools programs, school renovation, and the e-rate program that funds school and library Internet connections. I am open to discussing with my Republican and Democratic colleagues what we can do to streamline federal education programs at the state and local level. But he history of reduced funding and weakened accountability that comes with block grants suggests that we should approach this issue very cautiously. I want to add that our bill places greater emphasis in certain areas where the President places less and where we hope to work together to find agreement, specifically, in the areas of: raising teacher standards; creating financial incentives such as loan forgiveness and pay bonuses to attract teachers to high-need schools; improving state and local assessment and accountability; and investing more resources. I think the Miller/Kildee bill is the best approach in terms of committing new resources to schools, targeting effective programs, and holding schools accountable to high standards without abandoning them. I am encouraged by the beginning of this Congress and this new Administration. I take the President's commitment to education and to working with Congress very seriously and I look forward to making a difference this year for all children.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to re-introduce, along with my colleague Mrs. Roukema, the Younger Americans Act. Last September, we introduced this bill with our counterparts in the Senate and a vast national coalition of supporters including former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell and America's Promise, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the National Urban League, America's Promise, the Child Welfare League of America, the United Way, the National Mental Health Association, and others. We knew then that we would not have enough time in the 106th Congress to pass the legislation. But we did want to signal the strong support of a bipartisan coalition in both the House and Senate and of a broad array of national and grassroots organizations. I look forward now to working with them to pass this legislation in the 107th Congress. This is landmark legislation that will dramatically increase after-school opportunities for youth by providing them with adult mentors, education, sports, and volunteer activities. As any parent or teacher knows, the best way to keep kids out of trouble and help them learn and grow is to keep them busy and give them opportunity. Today's bill is an historic opportunity to dramatically expand safe and exciting programs for children and youth after school, a time when too many kids suffer from a lack of activity and adult supervision. A recent Urban Institute study found that one in five young people age 6-12 are left without adult supervision after school and before their parents come home from work, a critical period during the day to keep youth both positively engaged and out of trouble. Thirty-five years ago, Congress made a decision to help seniors and passed the Older Americans Act. In doing so, Congress launched a series of highly effective local efforts that have improved and enriched the lives of our nation's elderly. It helped pay for senior centers, Meals on Wheels, and community service programs like Green Thumb. For too long, however, Congress has ignored the needs of our nation's young people. It has failed to make the issues of young people a priority and has failed to make an adequate investment in their development and well-being. Our new bill attempts to correct that oversight. Today, we seek to repeat the success of the Older Americans Act by funding a national network of high-quality programs tailored to the particular challenges faced by youth today. Too often, we find that public programs for young people focus on the problems of youth and promote piecemeal policies that seek to redress negative behaviors like juvenile delinquency or teen pregnancy. But the evidence shows that the most promising approaches to helping young people are those that foster positive youth development, build social and emotional competence, and link young people with adult mentors. This is the future of youth social program in the 21st century and it is an approach we seek to advance through this legislation. The Younger Americans Act will help coordinate and fund youth- mentoring, community service through volunteerism, structured academic and recreational opportunities, and other activities aimed at fostering the positive educational and social development of teens and pre-teens. Under the bill, the federal government would distribute funds by formula to community boards that would oversee the planning, operation, and evaluation of local programs. Funding for local programs in the initial year would be $500 million, and would rise to $2 billion in 2006, in addition to matching funds provided by local and state governments and the private sector. To qualify, each local program would be required to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated system of youth programs with the following five general components: ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured activities; access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health; opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and, opportunities for community service and civic participation. Thirty percent of funds would be targeted to youth programs that address specific, urgent areas of need such as urban and rural communities that currently lack sufficient access to positive and constructive opportunities. I want to thank all of the members of the coalition behind this bill for bringing us together. I applaud their work on this legislation and the work that they do every day in each of our local communities. I want to express special appreciation to all of the young people from these associations, who have rightly played such a key role in drafting and advocating for this legislation. Congress has enacted many worthwhile programs to help young people. But the bill we are introducing today has a different message. Our bill responds to the tremendous desire of young people to have the greatest opportunity possible to be active, creative, and productive citizens in our society, rather than receiving society's help only after they are in trouble. Kids are asking to be given a chance to make a difference in their own lives. We are saying that that is exactly what Congress can and should do. I am confident we can make that happen. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1761, a bill that provides for water conservation and water supply improvements in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin. Projects such as canal lining, improvements to pipelines, installation of water meters will be eligible for financial assistance under this legislation. As we have seen in all the western States, projects like these can substantially improve the efficiency of existing water supplies and may even eliminate the need for additional new water supply projects. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), for all their work and effort on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for all of their work. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), subcommittee chairman, for their efforts to bring this to the floor. I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for managing it today on the floor. I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating David S. Burgess on the occasion of his being honored this month on National Human Rights Day by the Benicia Healthy Cities Task Force for his lifetime achievements of social justice. David S. Burgess, a resident of the city of Benicia, CA, since September 1990, has been honored by the publication of his biography, ``Fighting for Social Justice.'' David represents the best of Christian social activism in our times, having given so much of his time, talent, and treasure to building a more just and caring society for more than severn decades. Dave's commitment to social justice began in his teens and continued throughout his activist student years at Oberlin College and Union Theological Seminary in the late 1930's and early 1940's. He and his bride, Alice, worked side by side with, and ministered to, migrant workers in southern Florida and New Jersey in the early 1940's, learning first-hand about life on the edge, life without hope, antiblack cruelties, and company indifference to workers' basic needs. Continuing to conduct farm camp church services, Dave became a labor union representative in the hope of making a practical difference. Through the next few years he combined his role as a minister and budding farm labor champion, assigned to locations by his church. He finished seminary and was organized into what became the United Church of Christ in 1943, ready to jump in as a full- time Christian activist on the union front. Between 1944 and 1947, he worked with tenant farmers and sharecroppers in New Jersey and Arkansas to revive hope by strengthening unions that had been bullied into silence. He learned to work with plantation owners, the victimized poor, Pentecostal preachers, members of a complacent middle class, and conservative mainline congregations. Dave's diplomatic and fund-raising work in Arkansas resulted in his saving from a second assault 579 workers' homes, which had been built by the Farm Security Administration in 1940 with the assistance of Eleanor Roosevelt. His success in saving the Delmo Homes brought visitors--labor officials, columnists, and church workers--seeking the secrets of his success. Dave then accepted a job from the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) as chief organizer for the textile workers' union in South Carolina. He fought hard, not only against the companies His acquaintance with Victor Reuther led to Dave accepting the job as the CIO's labor attache to the American Embassy in India, where from 1955 to 1960 he helped the now combined AFL-CIO as it attempted to strengthen India's steel unions. Dave became the chief of the India- Burma division of the United States Agency for International Development in 1961, where he worked on a recommendation for United States aid in education, agriculture, public health, and industrial development that became the foundation for United States foreign aid policy in Indonesia for the next three decades. In 1963, Sargent Shriver asked Dave to head up the first Peace Corps program in Indonesia, a job fraught with challenge as the country was in political turmoil. He returned to work in the Peace Corps offices in Washington, DC, where he successfully opened up the Peace Corps to blue-collar workers with practical and manual skills. Dave was the area director and deputy regional director of UNICEF in East Asia from 1966 to 1972, in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. His work focused on improving the welfare of poor children, youth, and mothers, supporting grammar schools, training teachers, and establishing rural health centers. In his last 2 years in the area, Dave worked in war-torn, flooded Bangladesh, getting food and medical supplies to mothers and children. He ended his UNICEF career as a major spokesman for the organization in both the United States and Canada, changing its public image from that of an emergency relief agency to one with the broader mission of bettering long-term health care and improving the quality of life in poor countries. As pastor of two blue-collar churches in Newark, NJ, through the 1980's, Dave returned to his early mission of working for racial integration and saving low-income housing. As executive director of the Metropolitan Ecumenical Ministries for 6 years, Dave focused the group's energy on the problems of racism, poverty, and injustice. His proudest achievement in Newark was saving the remaining 6,500 units of public housing after 812 of them had been dynamited by the city, with plans to raze the rest. Moving to Benicia, CA, after a heart attack, Dave devoted himself in the 1990's to establishing low-income housing in his new hometown. He founded the nonprofit Affordable Housing Affiliation, which has broken ground for a small cooperative complex that is the first low-income housing built in Benicia in nearly two decades. On December 10, 2000, many friends and family members will be joining Dave as he is honored on National Human Rights Day for his commitment and dedication to the issues of social justice, poverty, discrimination, inequality, and the needs of working people. I know that every Member of this House joins me in thanking Dave for his many decades of devoted service and the significant contributions that he has made to this nation and to the City of Benicia. Dave's life has been a truly remarkable and admirable journey that will stand as a lesson to present and future generations on the important difference that one person can make in our society.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to this Contempt of Congress resolution. When there are so many important issues such as energy and health care and education policy which have languished in this Congress, it is ridiculous that this vendetta is taking the time of the House. The crime charged in this resolution is the refusal of three witnesses to answer certain questions from Republican members of the Committee on Resources. Let's be clear: these three individuals have worked to assure that the taxpayers receive a fair share of the royalties from oil companies drilling on public lands. Those same oil companies, who have never received a Republican subpoena, have shortchanged the taxpayers by billions of dollars in royalty under payments, as most recently evidenced by a total of $438 million in settlement payments in litigation which inspired the committee's investigation. We should be spending our time and resources in Congress on issues that really matter to the American people. We should not use the vast powers of Congress to punish those who helped to blow the whistle on the oil company rip-offs and who, understandably, refused to cooperate with a rogue committee operating without regard to the House rules. And we should not be burdening the U.S. Attorney, who has plenty of work to do combating serious crimes, with an ill-conceived contempt resolution based on an investigation so procedurally flawed that the criminal charges would not survive judicial review. Let's start by making it clear what this contempt resolution is not about. The question before the House is not whether the arrangement between the project on Government Oversight and two Federal employees to share royalty underpayment litigation awards was illegal or even improper. Federal employees have been allowed, under certain circumstances, to participate as whistle blowers in False Claims Act litigation. In this case, the POGO arrangement is under active investigation by the Department of Justice. But no one has been indicted, no one has been tried, and certainly no one has been convicted. For Congress to prejudice that process with premature conclusions of illegality would be irresponsible. So, let us be clear what this resolution is about. The real question before the House is whether three individuals who were subpoenaed as witnesses by the Committee on Resources should serve up to a year in prison for violating a Federal criminal statute. As is the case with all criminal statutes, the three individuals cannot be convicted of Contempt of Congress unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Before we consider a resolution that could subject three citizens to criminal jeopardy, let's look carefully at the case the committee has brought before the House. The courts have held the congressional process in strict scrutiny, and in 1983 acquitted the last person charged by the House with contempt. In this investigation, the Committee Republicans have repeatedly failed to follow the House Rules. For over a year, they ignored House Rule XI governing investigations despite Democratic objections. They further violated House Rules by curbing the rights of Democratic members to question witnesses at hearings. They abused those witnesses by, among other things, not allowing them to make opening statements at hearings, despite Democratic objections. One Republican member called the Department of the Interior employee a ``common thief'' prior to his appearance before the committee. In short, as we detail in the Dissenting Views, this partisan investigation has been biased, unfair, and was a rogue operation that violated the Rules of the House and of the committee. Moreover, the committee Republicans failed to demonstrate--either to the witnesses or the Democratic members--a clear nexus between the questions and the purpose of the investigation. Specifically, they failed to establish a foundation for the questions that make them ``pertinent'' for purposes of applying the contempt statute to refusals to answer. And the courts have insisted that questions must be ``pertinent'' at the time they are asked of a witness at a hearing. After the fact rationale is not sufficient. My point in mentioning the procedural flaws in the committee' investigation is to show that there are many reasons for members to be very cautious before concluding that these three citizens are guilty of Contempt of Congress. And unless members are convinced that the committee's process can withstand judicial scrutiny and the statutory elements of contempt have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should not vote for this resolution. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, October 31, 2000. Stop the POGO Persecution Dear Colleague: Today the House will unwisely reconsider the resolution (brought up on the floor last Friday and withdrawn by its sponsor) that charged three individuals with the crime of Contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with a Committee on Resources investigation. This rare exercise of congressional power could subject these individuals to criminal prosecution and up to one year in jail. This charge was prompted by the Project on Government Oversight's (POGO) decision to share $767,200 of a $1.2 million False Claims Act settlement with two federal employees who had long worked to curb underpayments of royalties owed to the United States by oil companies. Faced with multi-billion dollar allegations of royalty rip-offs, 15 oil companies have reached settlements with the Department of Justice totaling $438 million. The Department of Justice is investigating whether the payments by POGO were inappropriate or illegal actions. Despite that review, the Resources Committee Majority has duplicated DOJ's effort and issued dozens of subpoenas, held multiple hearings, and consumed nearly two years and many tens of thousands of dollars searching for additional evidence of wrongdoing by POGO and its associates while proclaiming their alleged guilt. And what about the oil companies who have paid $438 million in settlement for cheating the American people--and especially children whose schools utilize royalty payments-- out of the money they are owed? The Committee Majority has let the oil company misconduct go scot free: ZERO--Hearings on oil royalty underpayments; ZERO--Investigations of oil royalty underpayments; ZERO--Subpoenas issued to oil companies. ZERO--Condemnation of oil company royalty rip-offs. To bring the full power of the committee down upon three individuals who have worked to curb oil company fraud without any effort to address billions of dollars in fraudulent underpayments is a blatant misuse of the Committee's resources and the Congress' time. For the House to further condemn these individuals because they declined on advice of counsel to respond to questions which were not pertinent in an abusive investigation which was not conducted in compliance with House rules, is beneath the standard Congress should use when employing the weighty hand of criminal contempt. If the Majority insists on further discussion and votes on the Contempt resolution, we strongly advise you to vote ``No'' and protect private citizens and whistleblowers from such misuse of Congress' prosecutorial authority. Sincerely, George Miller, Edward Markey, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Bob Filner, Carolyn Maloney, Robert Underwood, Jay Inslee, Janice Schakowsky.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has accurately described the contents of this legislation and we urge the Members of the House to support it. This package includes several bills that have passed the House already this year. These include measures to conserve striped bass and other Atlantic coastal fisheries, as well as provisions to improve our understanding of marine mammal strandings around the United States, including the strandings of gray whales which has been a significant problem on the California coast. Finally it includes a few technical measures and a vessel conveyance to American Samoa that is supported by the Administration. I am aware of no opposition to this package, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great plea for bipartisan behavior on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats. Yet as we see the Congress respond where we have a bipartisan agreement on a Patients' Bill of Rights, to control the HMOs, to guarantee people the health care they need, on the minimum wage to make sure the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans who are working at that wage will have the ability to provide for their family, on campaign finance reform, on common sense gun safety provisions, and now on workplace safety, each and every time we achieve that bipartisan agreement, we have the Republican leadership coming in and blowing up those agreements. They come in the back door, they come in the middle of the night, they come after everybody has left and they blow up these agreements. They find some way to kill it even though a bipartisan majority in the House and Senate support these measures. They blow them up. They are our legislative terrorists. They do not play by the rules. They do not accept the will of the majority. They do not accept bipartisan agreements. They do not accept written agreements that have been entered into the record. They do not accept any of that. Because they are terrorists. They are legislative terrorists. They have made a decision. It will be their way or no way. They could have chosen to side with the American public and protect the workers, the 1,500 workers a day that are disabled because of injuries, because of repetitive motion, workers who will not be able to pick up their children at the end of the day, workers who will lose their earning capacity to provide for their families, whether or not Halloween is as nice as it could have been or whether Christmas will be as nice or whether or not they will be able to buy school supplies for their children because their hours have been diminished because of that kind of injury. And each and every time we have reached an agreement to protect these workers in the workplace, they come in in the middle of the night and blow those agreements up. They disenfranchise Members of the House, they disenfranchise their own committee chairmen, they disenfranchise their committee members, because they apparently have the right, the supreme right to overrule any decision, any agreement that is democratically arrived at in the House or in the Senate. The time has come for the American people to understand that these Republicans leaders could have chosen to stand with Americans against the HMOs so they could get health care, to stand with low wage earners so they could provide for their families, to stand with those workers who are threatened by this illness every day. Every day 1,500 workers. They could have stood with the public interest in campaign finance reform. But when they had a chance to choose, each and every time the Republican leadership has chosen the narrowest of special interests, the narrowest of special interests against that of the public interest of American workers, American families, and American children. This is a sad day for this Congress. It is a sad day for the legislative process. But I guess it is a healthy day for Republican legislative terrorists.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1670 by Senator Gramm and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). I urge the House to support this measure. S. 1670 is an Administration proposed, introduced by Senator Graham, to expand the boundary of Ft. Matanzas National Monument in Florida by including three tracts of land totaling approximately 70 acres. Two of the tracts of land, which are located adjacent to the National Monument, were donated to the United States in the mid-1960s. However, no legislative authority existed at the time to include these properties in the Monument boundary, nor was any effort made since then to do so. The third tract of 1.6 acres has been administered as part of the National Monument but is not technically within the boundary. This noncontroversial bill passed the Senate on October 5, 2000. It is supported in the House by Representative Fowler, who has introduced a House companion measure (H.R. 3200). Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, although I must tell the gentleman that I am going to ask for a vote on this legislation because I am concerned about how these bills are being presented at this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this package of ocean and fishery related bills. This package includes the coral reef conservation legislation passed by the other body. The environmental health and condition of our Nation's coral reef resources are in a state of serious decline due to a combination of factors including polluted run-off and marine debris. Consequently, it is critical for the Congress to establish a comprehensive program at the Federal level to support scientific research, mapping, monitoring and restoration activities on the State and local level. I note that this package also includes a provision to direct the National Marine Fisheries Service to initiate a new scientific study concerning the eastern population of Pacific gray whales. For reasons that are poorly understood, hundreds of Pacific gray whales have washed up on the California coast over the past two years-- either in an emaciated condition, or dead. The increased frequency and number of strandings has generated great concern among marine mammal biologists in California, and up and down the Pacific coast. We need to better understand why these strandings are happening, and I urge NOAA to initiate this important study as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5461, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. Shark finning, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has pointed out, is currently one of the most visible and controversial conservation issues in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. While the practice of finning has already been banned in Federal waters of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean, as well as waters in 11 coastal States, it remains unregulated in the Pacific and this legislation is designed to address that problem. Again, I support this legislation; but I want to continue to express my concerns about the manner in which these bills are now being presented, given what has happened to the parks package. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5461, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. Shark finning is currently one of the most visible and controversial conservation issues in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. While the practice of finning has already been banned in the Federal waters of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Carribean, as well as the waters of 11 coastal states, it remains unregulated in the Pacific. As a result, and because of the strong demand and high prices for shark fins in Asia, the harvest of shark fins in the Pacific has increased over the past seven years by more than 2000 percent. More than 60,000 sharks were caught and killed in 1998 alone, and 98 percent of those sharks were harvested only for their fins--or less than 5 percent of their body weight--while the remaining 95 percent of the shark was tossed overboard. Not only is this practice wasteful, many critics consider it to be morally and culturally wrong. In addition, shark finning is inconsistent with U.S. policy both domestically and internationally. In the United States, it is contrary to the Magnuson Act which requires fishermen to reduce bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. Given that 85 percent of the sharks caught are alive when they reach the boats, prohibiting the finning of these sharks will reduce bycatch by significant amounts. Abroad, the United States has participated in and promoted shark conservation through the United Nation's fisheries committee where specific guidelines on shark conservation have been adopted. Those guidelines include a provision that countries should adopt methods to prohibit finning and encourage the full use of dead sharks. For the United States to promote these measures internationally while continuing to allow shark finning in its own waters would be hypocritical and could undermine our efforts to achieve international conservation. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act will not prevent United States fishermen from harvesting sharks, bringing them to shore, and then using the fins or any other part of the shark. Instead, it would simply prevent the cutting off of the fins and the disposal of the carcass at sea, or the transport or landing of fins harvested in this manner by another fishing vessel. It also encourages the Administration to enter into discussions with other nations where shark finning still occurs to try and bring this practice to an end not just in the United States, but around the world. The bill is identical to language that passed the other body earlier this month, and I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a package of 16 bills that was originally put together on a bipartisan basis. It now appears that this package is starting to spin apart a number of items in this package of bills that have already been sent to the President. The Upper Housatonic, the Saint Croix Island, which we just passed, Salano was passed on to the President yesterday or today; and now we are kind of left with a couple of bills here that I think are losing the ability to be taken up in the Senate. The Natchez portion of this legislation will be passed in a separate bill today, and at that point what we are left with is essentially the Boxer-Radanovich bill where we are taking the Senate language and sending it back in this package, which is going to make it very difficult to get that language passed; and I am concerned that what we should be doing is taking that Senate language which is in this bill, we should be taking that Senate language and passing it as a separate bill and sending it down to the President so we can properly protect the Sequoias. There is no controversy around that legislation, and for that reason I am concerned that this package is starting to appear to be a dead end; but it is going to be a dead end, I think, with some unfortunate results if we do not pass the Sequoia protection legislation, which we could do immediately since, again, there is no controversy. But to do it in this fashion as part of this package with the other measures taken out of this package, I think there is a strong likelihood that that will fail to get Senate consideration in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.