George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary on this side, today we rise in strong support of this legislation but we must also say that we consider this legislation an insult in the sense that it provides only 3 additional months for protection under Chapter XII of the Bankruptcy Code. While I seriously doubt anyone will vote against this bill, it is shameful that we are being asked to play games yet again with the future of family farmers in America as we are witnessing one of the worst farm crisis since the birth of Chapter XII more than a decade ago. No one disagrees that Chapter XII should be made permanent. No one. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in the other body by Senators Grassley and Daschle and in the House by our colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). Those bills also increase the eligibility of threshold from the current $1.5 million in aggregate debt to $3 million and give certain tax debts nonpriority status if the debtor completes the plan. The National Bankruptcy Review Commission recommended increasing the threshold and making Chapter XII permanent, and all three provisions in those bills have been endorsed in a joint statement by the Commercial Law League of America, and National Bankruptcy Conference and the National College of Bankruptcy. Unfortunately, it seems that the secret shadow conference has betrayed family farmers and will not include all of these provisions in the final bankruptcy legislation that is now lumbering through the process. This stealth conference, which excludes the minority and makes decisions with industry lobbyists outside public view will, we are told, attempt to sneak its work into an unrelated conference report. No member of the public will have an opportunity to review this secret bill before the vote. Anything could be in it. We will not know until it is too late. In fact, the sponsor of this legislation introduced a measure earlier in this Congress which would have extended Chapter XII by 6 months past the sunset date rather than merely by the 3 months in this legislation. He then introduced a bill granting only an additional 3 months. Evidently this more modest effort found favor with the Republican leadership. It attracted the cosponsorship of the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Commercial and Administrative Law and was given a fast track. Today we are repeating that farce by extending Chapter XII for another 3 months. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) attempted to make Chapter XII permanent when the legislation was considered in the Committee on the Judiciary and was stopped by a procedural technicality, and that is the reason that we have this legislation here today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation but I must say it is simply inadequate to address the farm crisis that is confronting so many families in America today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for offering this amendment. He has outlined the kind of damage that the committee budget does to the National Marines Fisheries Service. I would just point out that the budget for Fisheries Stock Assessment and Management programs will hinder our conservation efforts and hurt the commercial fishing industry on our Pacific Coast. In California, where we are facing the collapse of our groundfish stocks, the ability to collect data and to fund an observer program will be critical to the survival of this fishery and the fishing industry. But this is not just a West Coast problem, however. Throughout the United States, fish stocks have become depleted, wetlands that are important nursery areas for young fish stocks are being destroyed and damaged due to pollution and human encroachment. At such a critical time, it seems illogical to cut the programs that fund the ocean and marine science that will lead to a better stewardship of our oceans and the sustainable use of these ocean resources. This modest amendment is far below the administration's request for what they thought was necessary for NOAA. I urge the Members of Congress to support this amendment. This can have a long-term, devastating impact on the commercial fisheries, which are basically made up of small business people running their boats, running their family operations; and if we cannot keep these stocks up into healthy populations, then those people will be put out of business and they will lose their livelihood for themselves and their families and for their communities. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for offering the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, although, I do not think that withdrawing from WTO is the best course of action right now, the organization must be dramatically reformed to continue to enjoy U.S. support. In addition to incorporating labor rights and environmental protection, the WTO needs to become far more transparent to operate in full public view. Dispute settlement proceedings need to be opened to the public. Civil society needs to be allowed into the process. Developing countries need to be able to fully participate. But lack of transparency is not just a problem in the WTO. It is a problem in the U.S. relationship with the WTO. Trade policy in this country operated behind closed doors, only a few special interests making decisions for the entire country. Most of the advisory committees that guide the President of the United States on trade policy are made up solely of industry representatives. The meetings are closed to the public. The process is not transparent. It is not democratic, and it is not right. The recent court decision said that two Forest Industry Sector Advisory Committees need to include environmental representative. That is what the court says in terms of the public's right to know. This is progress, but it is not enough. There are still too many committees on tobacco, on chemicals, on all aspects of trade, that are comprised only of industry representatives. And even in a few instances where labor or the environment is actually represented, it is simply a token effort. Labor, human rights, environmental, and the public need an equal seat at the table. Before the U.S. decides to challenge another country's health or environmental standards as a barrier to trade, we need an open and transparent process. That means before the U.S. lobbies against the EU plan to protect kids from toxic toys, there should be public involvement. The U.S. agency should not just be doing the bidding of industry, they should be representing all Americans. That is what transparency is all about. I urge my colleagues and the administration to push for greater transparency in the WTO and also in our process here at home that leads up to these trade agreements.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for his remarks, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for the amendment, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his support, and the others who have spoken on this amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment. Unfortunately, I guess a point of order has been raised against it. But I agree, I would hope that the authorizing committee would report this legislation out so that these Filipino veterans would get what is in fact due to them under the promises that we have made, and I look forward to working with the others supporting this matter.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, earlier this evening some were fortunate enough to go over to the Library of Congress and listen to a young teacher, the California teacher of the year.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, she was head of the New York corporation, the Americorps Corporation. I believe the gentleman was from Buffalo. They had been taking about what they had been able to do in terms of AmeriCorps volunteers in the classrooms to help with these difficult schools, to help with students and to reclaim these students' lives because of the attention these AmeriCorps volunteers were able to provide, two young students who were turning their lives around. She wrote a rather remarkable book about the Freedom Riders and what happened in Long Beach, and she is now out replicating that in schools of education and with AmeriCorps volunteers all across the country. Yet, we are saddled this evening with seeing that is zeroed out, and obviously it is a national program zeroed out in this budget, zeroed out in California, in New York, in the State of Washington. It is a tragedy that we would not capitalize on the resources that these young people in the Americorps Corporation bring to civic life in America. I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for his comments on AmeriCorps and for the case that he has made. It is essentially unbelievable, for those of us who know the role AmeriCorps plays in so many of our communities, as the gentleman points out, whether it is mentoring our children or helping our communities with substance abuse problems or working with communities to organize themselves and to make positive contributions. Recently in Vallejo, California, I had a chance to work with our community organization that is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called Fighting Back. AmeriCorps volunteers came in to help the community organize neighborhood cleanups and substance abuse programs. We have worked in a number of different programs around Vallejo. In each case, after we had finished spending the weekend in those communities cleaning up, getting rid of the junk, getting rid of the old cars, getting the shrubbery cut back and all the rest of it, the contacts and the calls to the police department plummeted in those communities. Where there used to be drug dealing on the street, where there used to be abuse in the families, contacts with criminal activity in the neighborhood, they went down by 30 and 40 percent in those neighborhoods because of the work of the AmeriCorps volunteers to go in, to organize community watch programs, neighborhood watch programs, programs for schoolchildren, programs on substance abuse. There were dramatic changes in these neighborhoods basically run by volunteers with the coordination AmeriCorps brings to those. Talk about cost-effective, in terms of just the savings to emergency responses, in that one city we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars that has been saved in that effort because of AmeriCorps volunteers. To zero out their funding is just to simply turn our backs on these communities, and to turn our backs on young Americans, for the most part, but older Americans, too, who are doing what we say is the best of what we want in our citizens, and that is to volunteer. These are people who come in and coordinate and get those kinds of community involvement that we all aspire to in our own communities. So I thank the gentleman very much for raising this issue and discussing this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers, whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains, on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this, may continue the viability of the basin. This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species; and, therefore, they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan, they in fact are in a better place than what they would be.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman on tuna dolphin, the Government did not follow the law. They failed to do the studies but went ahead with the action and the judge said, no, the law says you have to do the studies, do the studies.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. Mr. Chairman, this amendment and this debate is really about America's lands. It is not about the lands that any one Member of Congress controls. It is not about the lands of any one State. It is about the lands of this Nation, the great public lands that belong to all of the people of this Nation. This summer, millions of Americans will set off with their families to visit our wilderness areas, to visit our national parks, to visit our national monuments, to visit our historical sites, one, because they want to enjoy the historical aspects, the cultural aspects of these great lands, of the tradition of our country, of the history of our country. They want to share that with their children, with their grandparents, their grandchildren. Many of them will remember when their parents took them on such a trip. Because of the bold actions of this President, the vision of this President, of this administration, to think about the future, to think about the threat to these lands, they will be able to do that, and their children will be able to do that, and their grandchildren will be able to do that. They will be able to visit the pinnacles of the midcoast of California whose protection is enhanced because of the enlargement of that monument. They will be able to visit the 3,000-year-old Sequoia trees that reach 300 feet into the air because this President made them a national monument. Because if we do not do this, we go back to the old management regime, if my colleagues believe what the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) said, that everything just goes back to the way it was. The way it was, we were cutting the Sequoias. We were destroying the environment of the Sequoias. The Sequoias, the cathedral trees, the largest of the largest were threatened by the actions around them. That is why this President took his action. This is a gift. This is a gift to our Nation, just as Yosemite was a gift to our Nation, just as Glacier was a gift to our Nation, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades. This is a gift to our people, of having the foresight to go in, whether it was Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt or President Clinton, to go in and understand the threat and the need to preserve these lands, to understand that this country is filling up with people, that California is filling up with almost 35 million people, and that they want a place to go and to take their families so that they can recreate, that they can enjoy the history. Because of the actions of this President in southern Oregon, parts of the Oregon Trail will be preserved so people can go there and undertake and look at the remarkable actions of the people who had the courage to set out from the Mississippi River to settle the West. A member of my family walked that five times, bringing young people to the west from Missouri. A member of my family set out and he walked that first group, his children, as a wedding gift, because he thought they were too young to cross the country by themselves. They were 15 and 16 years old, they were married and they were going West. They ended up in Eureka, California, where this President had the foresight to protect the Headwaters Forest, the great cathedral trees of the redwoods on the North Coast, like the great cathedral trees of the Sequoias. This amendment should be rejected because this amendment is an attack on our culture, our history, our legacy, and the great environmental assets. If my colleagues go to a foreign nation, their people will talk about our national parks, the so-called crown jewels. Talk to the businesses in these areas, and they will talk about the economic engines that wilderness areas, that monuments, and that national parks become for the business communities and for local communities. This amendment should be rejected and America's wild lands and America's great environmental assets should be protected. Announcement By the Chairman

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, in most of my public life, I have been involved in the health care of Indians both in the Congress and before I came here. And it is rather sad to stand here tonight and tell my colleagues the status of health care of Indians in this country. When we compare them to all the races in the United States, the Indian people suffer a death rate that is 627 times higher from alcoholism, 533 times higher from tuberculosis, 249 percent higher from diabetes, 71 percent higher from pneumonia and influenza. It is the saddest state of health care that we have in the United States. There is no other population that compares to this. But do my colleagues know what they should not do to people who suffer from these health care problems, to people who have a death rate that is 627 percent higher from alcoholism, 533 percent higher from tuberculosis, 249 percent higher from diabetes, and 71 percent higher from pneumonia and influenza? They should not take those people and use them as a political pawn. They should not do it. They simply should not do it. They did not have the courage of their newfound convictions to put full funding for them in the budget or to even put this $22 million in the budget. But here tonight, in their crusade against the arts and the humanities, they are prepared to enlist the Native Americans of this country, the grand tribes of the grand nations, and to use them for cannon fodder in their crusade against the arts. I ask my colleagues to think about a community they might come from where they have a 627 percent higher death rate from alcoholism than everywhere else in the Nation and think about if what they would do to those people is to use them. In a terribly cynical, cynical approach to deny the arts their money, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) her amendment, and the due process in this House, I do not think we should do this. It is tempting; it is exciting to put one over on the Democrats. We get one up. We get back to where we were. But in the end, we have used these people. I sit on the Committee on Resources. I sat there my entire time in Congress. And when we built the great water projects of the western United States, they always had an Indian component in it, water was going to go to the Indians, Central Arizona project. Up there in the Dakotas, water is going to go to the Indians. Do my colleagues know what? Thirty, 40, 50 years later, the Indians are still waiting for the water, folks, but the white folks all got their water. They are still waiting for the water in Arizona. They are in court. Of course, they have to go to court to get their water, they cannot get it in Congress. Quinten Burdick, the last thing he did was come to me and said, can we strike a deal to finally give the water to the Indians? We flooded their lands 30 years ago. Time and again we have marched out the Indians of this country from the Indian nations and used them for political purposes. Tonight we march out the most unfortunate, those who suffer from these kinds of health care problems. And my colleagues have not found it in their heart in the last 6 years to deal with them. Budgets below the President. The President has not done a great job, either. But let us not suggest that this is the answer. Put the politics aside. Recognize that they lost an amendment earlier today. Recognize that there may be, the bill has got a long way to go, there may be in fact money for the arts. I do not know whether there will be or not. But let us not do this to the Indian nations of this country.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Let me say to the gentleman that that debate between him and the President, this President, or any President, between the Committee on Appropriations, and any administration is an honest debate. That is about priorities. This is not about a priority. This is about a political trick. Fortunately, the chairman is not engaged in it. And we appreciate that.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever he wants to say.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had total chaos.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has this exactly right. The Indians had this right to unilaterally engage in gaming as a result of the Cabazon tribe. This Congress came and stepped in and created a process which would involve the States to try to develop compacts for class 3 gaming and, therefore, restricted the rights of the Indian tribes. What we have now seen is that in those States and in my own State for several years where the Indians have had that right, they have worked on that right, the States have simply refused to negotiate in good faith with those tribes. We recognize that the States have sovereignty, and that is exactly what IGRA was designed to do, as the gentleman from Arizona said. It was designed to create a basis in which we could deal with the impasse between those tribes. That is what was attempted in this case. The States sued. We developed a sovereignty. And that is the point in which the Secretary is supposed to do it. The States have now come along and sued as to whether or not the Secretary has any authority to do this. And this is again tampering restriction with the rights of the tribes under IGRA and under the basic rights in the Cabazon case. I would urge that we oppose this amendment.