George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment, tweetable or not.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I understand what the gentleman is talking about, but there is a clear distinction. We can go back to the photographs. The gentleman has seen it. I have been out in the area. I have witnessed it. This does not rise to the occasion of a trail or road. This rises to the occasion of random activities and riding through areas that are repeated time and again. That is the kind of protection that we are trying to provide in this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. In all cases we are not talking about roads. We are talking about ORV activity that does not in all due respect rise to the occasion of a road, but it rises to the occasion of degrading the area. This is not a fight over the county roads and who owns these roads. This is about a lot of activity that takes place like in the term off-road vehicle.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is right.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is referring to his amendment. This is not about precluding that as the gentleman characterized. The gentleman's amendment goes to wildnerness study areas and to roadless areas. There is obviously a reason for that. One, you should not be punching into these roadless areas; and, two, the other one is that the reason it is a wildnerness study area is because it is under study as to whether or not Congress in the future will so designate it. If you are running around it on ORVs, it is never going to be designated.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and he has been a wonderful supporter of the environment. This is different than the process that he might be familiar with, as the gentleman said, in Maryland or even in many parts of California any longer. The threshold for wilderness is very, very high. That is why we go through extensive studies.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration and great respect and high regard for my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), that I rise in support of the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Lands Transfer Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 356, the Wellton-Mohawk Transfer Act. The Wellton-Mohawk has fully repaid its project costs. The district and the bureau signed a memorandum of agreement 2 years ago that covers the details of the transfer of title. The project facilities that will be transferred under legislation no longer provide benefits to the United States, and it is appropriate that the local district assume full responsibility for these facilities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 support of this legislation to change the boundaries of the Coastal Barrier Resource System Unit established under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act known as NC01. I believe that it is important that we contain the so-called technical corrections bills that we have seen in our committee to address those problems that are clear inaccuracies. I believe that this legislation does that. And it is also incumbent that those of us on the committee not use those technical corrections to go for unintended changes and make sure that they are held at a minimum. I think that this legislation does that. We see a lot of efforts from time to time to use boundary changes to do more than make these technical corrections, but this legislation does not do that. I think that this is consistent with the original intent of the Congress, and I urge passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 strong support of H.R. 3176, to provide for the study of the deterioration that has taken place on Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has properly explained the legislation. I want to commend and thank our colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for bringing the deterioration of this refuge to the attention of the committee. I think I and most members of the committee were very disappointed to learn the extent to which this refuge, the largest freshwater pond in the entire State of Hawaii, could have reached such a degraded condition. I think this legislation will be important in turning that around, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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 strong support of H.R. 3535, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act that is authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who just spoke in the well. 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 Federal waters in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean, as well as waters of 11 coastal States, it remains unregulated in the Pacific. As a result, and because of the strong demand and the high price of shark fins in Asia, the harvest of shark fins in the Pacific has increased over the past 7 years by more than 2,000 percent. More than 60,000 sharks were caught and killed in 1998 alone, and 98 percent of those sharks were killed simply for their fins, or less than 5 percent of their body weight, and then the shark was dumped overboard to die. This is wrong. It is culturally wrong. It is morally wrong. It is certainly wrong in terms of the laws of conservation and maintaining this species. 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 fisherman 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. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act will not prevent U.S. fishermen from harvesting sharks, bringing them to shore, and then using the fins or any of the other parts of the shark. Instead, it would simply prevent cutting off of the fins and disposal of carcass at sea, or the transport or landing of fins harvested in this manner by another fishing vessel. This is good legislation. The House should support it. We should put an end to these kinds of very narrow and greedy practices by some nations that devastate, in this case, the shark species, but it is rampant in other parts of the world with respect to other species. This is a good legislation. The House should support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, after more than 38 years of distinguished service to the independent union movement and to public employees, Henry L. Clarke will be retiring from Public Employees Union, Local One, and I rise to honor Henry and to celebrate his lifetime commitment to unionism. In the early years of Henry's career, he was hired by the American Federation of Teachers to help organize the teachers in New York City. Henry was a part of a small team of progressive labor activists who organized the entire teacher work force, the largest single group of teachers in the United States at that time. He continued to work for the AFT until 1962 when he was hired by the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Employees Association as the General Manager. Under Henry's skifful organizing efforts, membership in the Association grew from 634 members to 2,100 members in 4 years, and the local agencies represented expanded to include school classified employees, city and special district employees in addition to the employees of Contra Costa County. In 1969, the Contra Costa County Employees Association voted to disafffliate from the AFL-CIO and under Henry's leadership formed Public Employees Union, Local One. The membership has grown over the years from fewer than 1,000 members to over 12,000 members. The success of this growth is based upon the basic principles instituted in the formation of the union--the members have a voice in how their union is run; the union organization is founded upon democratic principles; the members have open access to the General Manager and the staff, and members freely participate through broad representation on the union Board of Directors. Mr. Speaker, Henry Clarke has been an inspiration and mentor to other ``independent'' labor organizations throughout the State of California, and he was instrumental in developing and insuring support for a statewide legislative council. Henry has earned a reputation for being a formidable political force and also a respected and beloved advocate on behalf of his members. Henry Clarke has built Local One on a foundation of honesty and integrity and forged professional relationships and friendships with elected officials, administrators and members. His powerful representation of his members has always reflected his compassion for working men and women as well as his insight into the needs of the community and the public served by Local One members. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that my esteemed colleagues join me in saluting Henry L. Clarke, an example of honesty, integrity, and outspoken, effective advocacy on behalf of the working men and women he has so ably represented for nearly 40 years.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the people of Martinez, California, lost a great friend and a fixture in the community with the death of Charlie, the beloved golden retriever and member of the Ross family. Mr. Speaker, the relationship between Gene Ross and his dog, Charlie, was wonderful to behold. They went everywhere together. Whether Gene was running in the hills of Alhambra Valley or the trails of the Sierra Mountains above the Tahoe Basin, Charlie was always at his side. And if you walked or ran with them, you could listen to their constant conversation. During summer vacations at Donner Lake, Charlie would dive into the chilly water where others were timid. He especially loved it when the kids were in the water, so he could look after them and swim with them. As friends and family gather for the upcoming traditional Fourth of July festivities at the Ross cabin, this year will be different. This year just before the fireworks start, we will not kid Gene as he talks to Charlie to calm him down about the fireworks and then puts him in the bedroom with the radio on so he won't be frightened at the explosions. In all those years together Gene could never convince Charlie not to be afraid of the fireworks. Mr. Speaker, downtown Martinez and all the friends of Gene and Marge Ross are going to miss both Charlie and the special relationship that they enjoyed. Following is a letter that Gene wrote that was published in our local paper: [From the Contra Costa Times, May 2000] Main Street Pooch Won't Be Forgotten Dear Gary: On Monday we suffered the loss of our believed golden retriever, Charlie. Charlie was a fixture on Main Street in Martinez. He went to work with me every day for 14 years and had so many people that loved him. This is our way of letting them know about him. Last Friday, Dr. Ruth Adams, our veterinarian, diagnosed Charlie with a fast-growing bone cancer. There was no hope of saving him, only of keeping him happy for the few remaining days. Charlie loved greeting visitors to our office, visiting with clients (as long as they didn't try to sit in ``his'' chair) and going down Main Street with me to take care of business. He brought a smile to everyone's face. He ran in Briones Park with our running group, Rob, Peter, Paul and myself, for 14 years. His excitement over our long runs never altered. If we ran 10 miles, he ran at least 15, always checking back to make sure we weren't lost. He loved hiking in the Sierra, swimming in Donner Lake and cheering on our bocce team. His energy was boundless. He talked, really ``talked'' to my wife, Margie, every night to let her know how our day at the office went. And always with two or three tennis balls in his mouth. He let our two little grand-daughters cuddle and climb on him with such patience. On Monday he went to the office with me for the last time. By noon I could see that he was not doing well. I took him home to my wife who ``talked'' to him. He told her he was in pain and that it was time. She gave him medication to ease his pain. As he wagged his tail and held his tennis ball in his mouth, we held him close, and Dr. Adams eased him into the world where his puppyhood friends, RJ and Morgan, waited for him at the Rainbow Bridge. His tennis balls are still scattered around the house. Not to tell us he is coming back, but to tell us he will always be with us. Thanks to all of Charlie's friends who have been so supportive and kind. And to you, for letting us share our loss. Gene Ross, Martinez.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the committee amendment to H.R. 297, the bill to authorize the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is designed to provide replacement or supplemental water supplies from the Missouri River to areas in southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa, and southwestern Minnesota serving up to about 180,000 people. This region has seen substantial growth and development in recent years, and we know that future water needs in the area will be significantly greater than the current available supply. Many residents in the project area have water of such poor quality it does not meet present or proposed standards for drinking water. Many communities rely on shallow aquifers as the primary source of drinking water, aquifers which are very vulnerable to contamination by surface activities, including large hog farms. Why do we not clean up the hog farms? Lewis and Clark Rural Water System will provide a reliable source for supplemental drinking water. I urge my colleagues to support the authorization of this project with a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 297. Mr. Speaker, the committee amendment includes several additional provisions affecting water resource activities of the Bureau of Reclamation in Northern California. I have no objection to these provisions. In fact, I want to thank the committee for including title 3, the ``Treatment of Project Costs For Sly Park Unit,'' which will provide for the Secretary to exclude these costs in excess to be repaid by the Sly Park Unit beneficiaries from the pooled reimbursable costs of the Central Valley Project until such time as the facilities are integrated into the water supply yield to the Central Valley project. This will provide a correction of an inadvertent oversight that could prove costly to a number of urban water districts in California. I think that this is a proper resolution of this issue.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations with China. China should not be rewarded for its domestic and international record of abuses of workers, religious leaders and democracy activists, nor for its repeated abrogations of international treaties. An annual review of this Nation's trade status as opposed to permanent certification such as this bill would provide is a critical means by which China and other nations can be held accountable for their actions. We need to do this since as The New York Times noted today, China is not known for its strict adherence to trade agreements. In fact, it is known for exactly the opposite. Granting permanent normal trade relations with China as well as the country's accession to the WTO represent another missed opportunity to incorporate strong protections for human rights, worker rights, and environmental rights in trade agreements. I agree that expanded trade under the right terms can raise standards of living for all; but I will continue to fight for fair agreements that ensure that standards to protect the environment, workers, and human rights are not compromised in the process. Unfortunately, granting PNTR will only exacerbate the race to the bottom where corporations can circle the globe looking for and pressuring for the lowest standards, setting up low-wage sweatshops, dumping their pollution, and creating unsafe conditions for the public. This race to the bottom pus countries with higher standards at a disadvantage and makes new environmental and workers protections harder to enact. Most supporters of PNTR and WTO acceptance for China admit that China continues to be a rogue nation. Even the Clinton Administration's own briefing book in favor of PNTR for China says: ``China denies or curtails basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, association, and religion.'' But proponents argue that economic engagement will ultimately result in a more democratic system there. I disagree. China's pattern of violating the rights of its own people has continued despite the increased economic ties of most favored nation status that Congress has granted year after year. The State Department's most recent Annual Country Report of Human Rights report states that China's human record has ``deteriorated markedly throughout the year as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent.'' The first report of the congressionally chartered United States Commission on International Religious Freedom noted that ``Chinese government violations of religious freedom increased markedly during the past year.'' The Commission recommended against Congress granting PNTR until China makes demonstrated and substantial progress in respect for religious freedom. The National Labor Committee issued a report on May 10 that gives a picture of the unacceptable working conditions that flourish inside many factories in China making goods for US companies like Wal-Mart, Nike and Huffy. The NLC found factories making goods for American companies where workers were being held under conditions of indentured servitude, forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days a week, with only one day off a month, while earning an average wage of 3 cents an hour. Even after months of work, 46 percent of the workers surveyed earned nothing at all-in fact they owed money to the company. The workers were allowed out of the factory for just an hour and a half a day. And when the workers protested being forced to work from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week, for literally pennies an hour, 800 workers were fired. There is no credible reason to believe that conditions like these will be improved by giving up our right to review to China's trade status. The U.S. bilateral negotiating position with China would be crippled if the country were granted PNTR and admitted to the WTO. Our large trade deficit with China, expected to be over $60 billion this year, potentially gives the U.S. significant bargaining power to enforce and strengthen our existing trade laws. But this bargaining power would be further limited by the WTO. Some have argued that parallel legislation or a side agreement will remedy the problems I have discussed. But, we have been down that side agreement road before and it is not pretty. It is filled with the raw sewage and other environmental destruction that lines the border with Mexico under the NAFTA side agreement. Finally, China's history of failing to comply with trade agreements leads me to view new agreements with a skeptical eye. China has broken nearly every agreement--from market access to prison labor to intellectual property rights--it has made with the United States. For example, in 1992 and 1994, China signed agreements that it would not export products made by slave labor to the US and would allow visits of US officials to any suspected site. But, the State Department's Human Rights Report specifically finds that: ``in all cases [of forced labor identified by US customs], the [Chinese] Ministry of Justice refused the request, ignored it, or simply denied it without further elaboration. This is not a record worthy of further trust. I believe that China should be held accountable for its widespread abuses. Granting China special status as a trading partner is the wrong way to accomplish that goal. I urge my Colleagues to join me in opposition to PNTR for China.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I join with my colleagues in congratulating the people of American Samoa. I support the passage of this resolution, which expresses the sense of the House on the occasion of American Samoa's centennial celebration of the raising of the U.S. flag in their territory. I am delighted to be a cosponsor, and I know many of our colleagues express their support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for all of the work that he does in the Congress, not just on behalf of the people of American Samoa and this resolution and so many other activities that he has engaged in, but he also shoulders a large responsibility in our Committee on Resources, both on many, many Native American issues and on our public lands issues, and I thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to greet the people of American Samoa with a warm Talofa and offer my support for the passage of H. Res. 443 which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives on the occasion of American Samoa's centennial celebration of raising the U.S. flag in their territory. I am delighted to be a cosponsor to this resolution and congratulate people of American Samoa on their continuing relationship with the United States. One hundred years ago, the flag of the United States of America was raised on the South Pacific Islands of Tutuila and Aunu'u, what is now widely known as American Samoa. It was an act of friendship and understanding on behalf of the traditional chiefs of those islands that a new relationship with America would be beneficial for their people. For America, the sentiment was mutual. The warmth and charm of American Samoa was not first witnessed however by Americans. Archeologists estimate that the settlement of the islands that comprise American Samoa occurred six hundred years before Christ. And for the next three thousand years, the inhabitants became stewards of the land and masters of the seas. In 1768, a French explorer was so impressed with the sailing skills of the natives that he named the islands ``L'Archipel des Navigateurs'' or the Navigator Islands. In 1785, French navigator Jean Francois La Perouse commanded an expedition to explore the Pacific. Two years later, in 1787, he landed on the shores of the northern coast of Tutuila. This is the first recorded landing of foreigners on the islands of American Samoa. This encounter marked the ``opening up'' of American Samoa to the outside world and they became regular stops along trade routes of whale products, sandalwood, and beche-de-mer to China. In 1839, the U.S. began to formally acknowledge the need for a relationship with the islands of Samoa. Recommendations from Navy Commander Charles Wilkes, who visited Samoa, to have a structured relationship with Samoa gave rise to increased visits from the U.S. military. Eventually, in 1878, a ``treaty of friendship and commerce'' with the people of Samoa was ratified by the U.S. Senate. Thus, the beginnings of America's connection with the people of Samoa were rooted in peace, friendship, and an interest towards improving their economy. One hundred years ago, on April 17, 1900, this relationship deepened. It is why we are on this floor today--to recognize and celebrate this anniversary with the people of American Samoa. Through a treaty of cession, American Samoa was brought into the American family and has remained a valuable asset to this nation. Their service, sacrifice, and contribution to the continuing experiment of democracy is to be commended. In turn, our nation continues to assist the development of their economy while always being mindful of the importance of tradition and culture to their people. American Samoan society of years past remains, much as it is today, with the leadership and affairs of the island and people entrusted to elders and high chiefs. They are the politicians and the negotiators for the people. The respect and trust accorded to their elders is an aspect of their culture that has stood the test of time. Despite the influence of westernization, the wisdom and leadership of their elders has kept their culture, traditions, and language intact. As members of our American family, men and women of American Samoa have served in our military, contributed to the cultural diversity of our American community, and they continue to play a part in the political discourse of our nation. As much as American Samoa has enjoyed its relationship with the U.S., we should be equally grateful for their participation in our democracy. Surely, America would not be who she is today without the contributions made from the people of American Samoa. It is an honor and a personal privilege to join the people of American Samoa in their centennial celebration and I commend them for their demonstrated patriotism throughout the past one hundred years. I encourage full support from my colleagues for the passage of H. Res. 443.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.