George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to what the gentlewoman says because she makes a very important point. Again, going back to accountability, going back to public accountability, most parents would be shocked at the qualifications of the people who are teaching their children science and math. As just was found here, in good school districts there is a less than one in four chance that that math and science teacher is properly qualified to teach that subject. In poor schools within those districts, the odds get much worse. Most parents believe that the teacher that is standing in front of their child is, in fact, qualified. Unfortunately, especially in this field, that is simply not the case. That is why I think it is important that when we provide for this waiver, that the person responsible for preparing the waiver is prepared to publicly state how it is they are doing and what they are doing to meet the requirements for teacher professionalism in math and science, because the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) makes a very important point, and it would be shocking to most parents but it is simply a dirty little secret about the qualifications of people teaching math and science in the United States. Announcement by the Chairman

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if we continue to allow people to have interim assessments and then they can change the assessments, then we do not know how they are doing year to year, how they are doing test to test, we are right back in the same old muddle we were in before. I am all for the flexibility side. I think it is a place we ought to go. But I think we should be hardheaded about the accountability side. This is not an insignificant amount of money. It may be an insignificant amount of money or some people suggest it is with respect to all educational dollars. It is still $50 billion. Maybe it is only going to be 45 after the budget fights, but it is a lot of money in anybody's realm. I think these are the questions. Finally let me say this. This is our only chance to find out how all students in America are doing, be they poor, be they African American, be they Hispanic, be they Asian. This is our only opportunity to do that. That is what we said we wanted to do. We said we want results. You cannot get the results necessary with the underlying legislation without this amendment on accountability. I would urge my colleagues to support the Miller-Kildee amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding. I would just say that I would follow on to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has said. We ought to learn from the 30 years. For 30 years, the Federal Government has been enabling very sloppy tactics, a lack of accountability. We have simply evaporated on accountability. We ought to do it right this time, because we are making a dramatic change in direction with respect to flexibility. I think it is the right change to make, but we ought to be able to look our constituents and parents and teachers and students in the eye and say that we have in here public accountability, to try to assure that, in fact, we do it right, because we have not done it right in the past. I only wish that so many people who spoke against this amendment would have in fact read the amendment because they characterized it in so many ways it has nothing to do with what this amendment does. I would ask, for the first time, to put teeth into accountability. Let us find out how all of our children are not doing, it is not just some of the children, and vote for the Miller-Kildee amendment. I urge the passage of this amendment.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for bringing this special order to the floor, as well as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). We obviously are paying tribute to a great American and a legend in terms of his membership of this House, Mo Udall. He was one of the few Members of Congress that ever was able to enjoy a national constituency because of the issues that he struggled with and the leadership that he provided. He was able to change the face of his home State, Arizona; to change the economics of that State because of his interest in western water policy and his involvement there. We sit in a Nation today where the eastern most point is named Point Udall and the western most point is named Point Udall. And in between Mo Udall fought titanic struggles, titanic struggles over the public lands of the United States, in the lower 48, in Alaska, to make sure that, in fact, the great environmental assets of this Nation were protected and preserved for future generations. He took lands that were going to be subjected to dynamiting and desecration and he fought to save those lands. These were not easy battles when he fought them. These were titanic struggles against powerful mining companies and powerful oil companies and powerful timber companies, and he was there in the forefront. He did not fight for 1 year, he fought for many years. He fought until he had succeeded. And, now, many areas of this country enjoy a better economy, they enjoy protection of their rivers, their forests, their public lands because of Mo Udall. Native Americans enjoy much greater involvement in the government of this Nation, in their ability to govern themselves, to have much more say over how this government treats them and involvement in the policies accorded them. Those are the gifts that he gave this Nation. But he also gave this body and gave the political system in this country the gift of his humor and his wit. He would treat his enemies and his friends alike. He would answer them with gentle humor very often, subtly pointing out the failure of their arguments and the failure of their point of view, but he did it in such a fashion that he took to heart the idea that in politics, you ought to try to disagree without being disagreeable, clearly a change from what we experience today. But that was the gift that he gave us and that is why so many of us enjoyed being around him. I was fortunate enough to succeed Mo as chairman of the House Interior Committee and when I did, we named the hearing room for him. We thought it was fitting when you look back on his environmental legacy, his legislative legacy that clearly it was a tribute that he deserved, somewhat modest compared to his legacy, but I think it is one that is quite properly deserved. I also think that it must have been enormously satisfying prior to Mo's passing away to know that his son Mark would be serving in Congress and his nephew Tom would be here with him. I only wish that he would have known that they had been selected on the Interior Committee, the Interior Committee that he gave so much standing and dignity to. Finally, you cannot end a discussion of Mo Udall without a Mo Udall story. Of course the one he told most often on himself was the business of when he was campaigning in New Hampshire, he went into a barber shop and he announced, ``I'm Mo Udall, I'm running for President,'' only to be greeted by the response, ``Yeah, we were just laughing about that this morning.'' That is exactly how he so disarmed audiences all over this country, who came sometimes with preconceived notions but they left the room loving him. He fought a titanic struggle in Alaska, a huge struggle over the preservation of public lands. He was not well-liked in Alaska. They told him never to come back, that he was not welcome there. I had the opportunity to travel with him on his last trip to Alaska and the reporters asked him at the end of the trip, after we had visited the State and many of the areas that were in controversy, and a reporter asked him, ``How did the people of Alaska treat you, Congressman Udall, this trip, compared to when you were here before?'' He says, ``Oh, it's much better now. They're waving good-bye with all five fingers. It's much better now.'' That was from a man that it was a true pleasure to serve under in the Committee on Resources that clearly was a member of this House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, did you hear the one about the Republicans who think that we ought to privatize Social Security because the interest earned on Social Security trust funds is too little? Now, they have a plan this week, the interest on the trust funds is so little that they are going to take it away from the people that paid into the trust funds. They have a plan where they say they are going to save Social Security, that they are not going to touch the principal of the trust funds or 70 percent of it, 60 percent of it, something like that. But what they are going to do is they are going to take away the interest. So working men and women in this country pay in their hard-earned dollars through the FICA tax into Social Security, it earns interest that they are supposed to be the beneficiaries of, and along come the Republicans and they are going to steal the interest. I hope America is watching closely when this legislation comes to the floor, because while they say they are going to protect the principal, lo and behold we see that John Kasich and others have a proposal to take it and use it for tax cuts or to take it and use it for spending proposals that they have. If you are going to protect Social Security, you got to protect the principal and the interest.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I want to thank the committee for bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, but let us understand that this resolution is only the beginning. It pledges all of us to save Social Security. That pledge will also have to include a decision not to invade those Social Security trust funds. This week, on the cover of Barron's Magazine, they have the headline which screams to people in Washington, D.C. This week, the Dow Jones financial magazine says there is no budget surplus. And they are quite correct; there is no budget surplus. There is only money that is in excess in the Social Security trust fund, and whether or not we save Social Security will depend upon the decisions we make in this Congress about whether we are going to break the budget caps that restrain spending in this Congress; whether or not we are going to invade these trust funds for a whole range of spending proposals that are currently before the Congress. If we do that this year and if we do that before 2001, every dollar we spend will come out of the Social Security trust funds. Because Barron's has it right. There is no other surplus. There is only the Social Security trust funds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Representatives Kaptur and Strickland, and our other cosponsors, in introducing the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act. Our nation's juvenile justice facilities are increasingly overcrowded, unsafe, and inadequately staffed. We need to reform our juvenile justice system to ensure that it preserves the basic rights and human dignity of the children and youth housed in its facilities and that it does not become a dumping ground for youth who would be better served in mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. Too many young people are being punished--rather than treated--for their troubles. Treatment and other services simply are not available when they should be, and as a result children are literally churned up inside the juvenile justice system. The particular characteristics of criminal acts of individual juveniles require us to have a range of appropriate responses. Alternatives to incarceration will not work for all youth. But we need to ensure that even those youth who do serve time in correctional facilities are safe from abuse and have access to appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment. Unfortunately, this is not currently the case. Each year, more than one million children come in contact in some way with the juvenile justice system. Over 100,000 of these youth are detained in a correctional facility. The rate of mental disorders is significantly higher among the juvenile justice population than among youths in the general population. Federal studies suggest that as many as 60% of incarcerated youth have some mental health disorder and 20% have a severe disorder. In my home state of California, a recent study by the California Youth Authority found that 35% of boys in its custody and 73% of girls need mental health or substance abuse treatment. In an article published in March of last year, reporter Fox Butterfield wrote in The New York Times that ``jails and prisons have become the nation's new mental hospitals.'' In the article, Dr. Linda Reyes, a psychologist and assistant executive director of the Texas Youth Commission called the incarceration of adolescents with mental disorders ``tragic and absurd.'' ``The system we have created is totally ineffective,'' said Dr. Reyes. Many youngsters in the juvenile justice system have committed minor, non-violent offenses or status offenses. The incarceration of these youngsters is often the result of inadequate local mental health services. These youngsters, their families, and society, could be better served if we made available appropriate local mental health, substance abuse, and educational services as an alternative to incarceration, particularly for first offenders and non-violent offenses. Such services have proven more effective than incarceration in preventing troubled young people from re-offending and are less expensive than prison. In the long run, they are even more cost- effective to us as a society, because they increase the odds that a young person will become a responsible, productive, taxpaying citizen rather than a permanent ward of the state. Last November, Amnesty International released a report indicating an increasing problem of youthful offenders being subjected to physical abuse and a lack of appropriate services. The report documents incidents in which youth were shackled, sprayed with chemicals, over- medicated, and even punished with electro-shock devices. Amnesty International also found that 38 states housed juveniles in adult prisons with no special programs or educational services. Youth in these adult facilities are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and eight times more likely to commit suicide than children in juvenile facilities. One incident in Amnesty's report involved a youth from California named Nicholaus Contreraz. At last count, the California Youth Authority's correctional institutions held 25% more youth than their specified capacity; but the state also sends hundreds of children to out-of-state facilities which would not be licensed under California's own state laws and which receive very little oversight from the authorities responsible for placing children in them. Nicholaus Contreraz died in March of last year at one such facility, while staff forced him to do ``push-ups,'' despite clear signs of his poor physical health. His body was found with 71 cuts, bruises, and abrasions. California has since stopped sending children to this facility and action has been taken by the state of Arizona against the individuals responsible. Perhaps if we had clearer rules and better oversight, however, conditions like those that contributed to Nicholaus' death would never occur, or at least would be corrected before they resulted in fatalities. Tragically, however, no such system is now in place. The bill we are introducing today, the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act, would help create alternatives to incarceration, particularly for first-time non-violent offenders, and improve conditions in youth correctional institutions by: Providing funds to train juvenile justice personnel on the identification and need for appropriate treatment of mental disorders and substance abuse, and on the use of community-based alternatives to placement in juvenile correctional facilities. Providing block grant funds and competitive grants to states and localities to develop local mental health diversion programs for children who come into contact with the justice system and broaden access to mental health and substances abuse treatment programs for incarcerated children with emotional disorders. Establishing a Federal Council to report to Congress on recommendations to improve the treatment of youth with serious emotional and behaviorial disorders who come into contact with the justice system. Strengthening federal courts' ability to remedy abusive conditions in state facilities under which juvenile offenders and prisoners with mental illness are being held. Our bill addresses important issues in the lives of our nation's young people and for all of our society. As Michael Faenza, President of the National Mental Health Association has said, ``Treating young people, with or without mental disorders, in dehumanizing ways is not the answer to question of crime prevention and public safety. And it's not the way to make children productive, law-abiding, and caring citizens.'' I look forward to working with my colleagues in enacting this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, together with 33 House co-sponsors and our colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Robert Torricelli in the other body, I am introducing today the Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000 Act, historic and sweeping legislation to restore our national commitment to America's resources. Resources 2000 is designed to redeem the solemn pledge made over 30 years ago to reinvest the profits from offshore energy production in our public resources. Billions of dollars have been produced from those offshore lands; and yet Congress and past Administrations have failed to live up to the initial bargain that pledged a sizable portion of those dollars to resource protection for future generations. Not surprisingly, those resources have deteriorated over the years. The bill we introduce today--with the enthusiastic support of our nation's leading environmental, wildlife and historic preservation organizations--fulfills that promise of steady, certain and adequate funding. Resources 2000 will provide permanent, annual allocations for high priority resource preservation goals; acquisition and sound management of public lands, parks and open space, marine and coastal resources, historic preservation, fish and wildlife, and urban recreation facilities. Our bill provides states, local communities, farmers and others with the resources they need to plan and manage our irreplaceable assets. Funding for our legislation is taken from part of the over $4 billion currently provided annually to federal taxpayers in revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling. The legislation does not increase revenues from oil and gas drilling and does not impose any new taxes or royalties. And unlike the other OCS revenue bills under consideration, Resources 2000 creates no incentives for additional leasing or development of offshore oil and gas: not in current areas, and certainly not in areas covered by legislative moratorium. Our bill also contains a far more equitable distribution of revenues than other bills which lavish more than half percent of the public's money on a half dozen states and shortchange the rest of America. I am delighted that we are joined in introducing this bill not only by over 20 members of Congress, but also by many of the most broad- based, grassroots environmental, parks, and wildlife organizations throughout this country, including The Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, National Parks & Conservation Association, Preservation Action, National Audubon Society, Center for Marine Conservation, US PIRG, National Recreation & Park Association, Police Athletic/Activities League (P.A.L.), National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, and Scenic America. The effort to provide these funds on a permanent basis in an idea whose time has come. Five years ago, I called for permanent, full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to preserve our parks and public lands for generations to come. If we can do it with Social Security and with the Highway Trust Fund, we should be able to do the same with the fund the American people were promised to protect our national environmental treasures. I particularly commend the Clinton Administration for recognizing the importance of this initiative in its budget request for the fiscal year 2000. We are committed to working with the Administration and with the sponsors of other congressional initiatives--Senators Mary Landrieu (D- LA) and Frank Murkowski (R-AK), and my own chairman Congressman Don Young (R-AK) and his co-sponsors--to craft legislation that restores our resources' legacy, preserves our national environmental heritage, protects our coasts, and is enacted on behalf of the American people during the 106th Congress. Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000 (Authors: Congressman George Miller/Senator Barbara Boxer) Permanent Protection For America's Resources 2000 is a bold initiative to provide long-promised funding from offshore oil resources for the acquisition, improvement and maintenance of public resources throughout the United States: public lands, parks and open space, marine and coastal resources, historic preservation, fish and wildlife. Resources 2000 will provide permanent, annual funding for high priority resource preservation goals: Land and Water Conservation Fund (Federal): $450 million One-half of the annual $900 million allocation of the LWCF would be dedicated to Federal land acquisition purposes. These funds would be used to acquire lands or interests in lands as authorized by Congress for our national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and public lands. Land and Water Conservation Fund (Stateside): $450 million One-half of the annual $900 million allocation of the LWCF would go for matching grants to the States for the acquisition of lands or interests, planning, and development of outdoor recreation facilities. Two-thirds of the funds shall be allocated by formula of which 30% shall be distributed equally among the States, and 70% apportioned on the basis of the population each State bears to the total population of all States. One-third would be awarded on the basis of competitive grants. Modifies the requirements of the State Plan in order to be more flexible in meeting the purposes of the Act. Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery Program (UPARR): $100 million Matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate recreation areas and facilities, provide for the development of improved recreation programs, and to acquire, develop, or construct new recreation sites and facilities. Historic Preservation Fund: $150 million Funding for the programs of the Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places, and administer numerous historic preservation programs. Allows up to one-third of the funds for priority preservation projects of public and private entities, including preserving historic structures and sites, as well as, significant documents, photographs, works of art, etc. Lands Restoration: $250 million Provides funds to undertake a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation, and protect public health and safety. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Fund: $100 million Creates a dedicated source of funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the purpose of implementing a private landowners incentive program for the recovery of endangered and threatened species and the habitat that they depend on. Monies would be used by the Secretaries to enter into ``endangered and threatened species recovery agreements'' with private landowners, providing grants to (1) carry out activities and protect habitat (not otherwise required by law) that would contribute to the recovery of a threatened or endangered species or (2) to refrain from carrying out otherwise lawful activities that would inhibit the recovery of such species. Priority will be given to small landowners who would otherwise not have the resources to participate in such programs. Living Marine Resources: $300 million Funding for the conservation, restoration and management of ocean fish and wildlife of the United States. Two-thirds of the total would be available to coastal states (including Great Lakes States, territories, and possessions of the U.S.) for the development, revision, and implementation of comprehensive ocean fish and wildlife conservation plans. Funds would be allocated to the states by a formula that gives two-thirds weight to a state's coastal population and one-third weight to the length of a state's shoreline. Minimum and maximum grants sizes will be utilized to ensure equitable funding among the states. To be approved, a state ocean fish and wildlife conservation plan must provide for: an inventory of ocean fish and wildlife and their habitat; identification and prioritization of conservation actions; monitoring of plan species and the effectiveness of conservation actions; public input; and periodic plan review and revision. The remaining one-third of funds would be awarded by the Secretary of Commerce as competitive, peer-reviewed grants for living marine resource conservation. High priority would be given to proposals involving public/private conservation partnerships, but any person would be eligible to apply for a grant under this provision. A maximum grant size will be established to ensure that a small number of large projects do not consume the bulk of the funding in a given fiscal year. Native Fish/Wildlife Conservation, Restoration, Management: $350 million Permanent appropriation for the conservation of native fish, wildlife and plants. It amends the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA, 16 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) to make funding available to the states for the development and implementation of comprehensive native wildlife conservation plans. To be approved, a state's plan must provide for: an inventory of wildlife and its habitat on a state-wide basis; identification and prioritization of conservation actions; monitoring of plan species and the effectiveness of conservation actions; public input; and periodic plan review and revision. Funds are to be allocated on a formula based one-third on the area of a state relative to the total area of all the states and two-thirds on the relative population of a state. States are eligible for reimbursement of 75 percent of the cost of developing and implementing state wildlife conservation plans. Federal funds are only available for plan development costs for the first 10 years. As an additional incentive, federal funds will pay for up to 90 percent of: plan development costs during the first three years; and conservation actions undertaken by two or more states. In addition, in the absence of an approved plan, the Secretary may reimburse a state for certain on-the-ground conservation actions during the first five years of the program. Farm and Range Land, Open Space and Forest Conservation Grants: $150 million Matching, competitive grants to state, local and tribal governments for purchase of conservation easements to protect privately owned farm and range land, open space and forests from encroaching development. To help communities grow in ways that maintain open space and viable agricultural sectors of their economies. Grants could be used to match state or local long term bond initiatives approved by voters to preserve green spaces for conservation, recreation and other environmental goals.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today forty seven of our colleagues join Mr. Spratt and myself in introducing the Insular Fair Wage and Human Rights Act of 1999 which will permit the U.S. territory of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (U.S./ CNMI) to be treated more like a state under certain provisions of law. Along with the privilege of flying the American flag, the CNMI has the responsibility to live within the mores of the United States; and the United States has the responsibility to assist the territory with its growth in becoming a strong member of the American family. The taxpayers of America have supplied the U.S./CNMI with tens of millions of dollars in assistance over the years. The U.S./CNMI has failed to live up to its pledge to create a responsible government and a just society. The U.S./CNMI has morphed into an offshore sweatshop, wrapping itself in the American flag to circumvent quota restrictions and escape payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in duties on imported garments. The Congress cannot continue to irresponsibly ignore the worsening crisis or the exploitation of tens of thousands of foreign workers on American soil. The local U.S./CNMI government was granted temporary control over immigration and minimum wage in the 1970s. The U.S./CNMI has exploited this temporary authority to import tens of thousands of low-paid, contracted, destitute, workers from Asian nations to staff garment factories and virtually all other private sector jobs. The contract workers now substantially outnumber the number of local U.S. residents. These foreign workers pay between $3,000--$7,000 to recruiters in their homelands for promised jobs. They are led to believe they are coming to work at good jobs in ``America'' only to arrive in the U.S./ CNMI to find the jobs are not what they believed and in many cases that the jobs never even existed. Over 90 percent of all private sector jobs are held by foreign contract workers. The bill I introduce today will crack down on the enormous, mostly foreign-owned garment industry that employ thousands of foreign workers to sew foreign fabric into garments bearing the ``Made in USA'' label which is then shipped to the U.S. mainland quota and duty free. There is nothing about the U.S./CNMI garments that is made in America yet this year well over $1 billion worth of garments will flood the U.S. market, depriving the U.S. Treasury of $300 million and unfairly competing with stateside garment factories that pay the U.S. minimum wage to workers who work in safe factories under the protections of all U.S. labor and immigration laws. Numerous reports by journalists and the media, human rights workers, Federal agencies, religious organizations, and the administrations of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton have documented widespread human rights abuses suffered by indentured workers in the U.S./CNMI. After traveling to the U.S./CNMI last year and meeting with local government representatives, federal officials, private business owners, and foreign workers, I issued my own report, Beneath the American Flag, which details systematic exploitation that would be tolerated no where else in this country. That report can be found on the Resource Committee Democrats' web page at www.House.Gov/Resources/105Cong/ Democrat/Democrat.htm. And yet, despite this mountain of evidence, repeated requests to Chairman Young of the Resources Committee, and over 80 cosponsors, we have been unable to secure even a hearing on my reform legislation, let alone a markup. No Member of Congress would permit this situation to exist in his or her congressional district for one day. Yet we stand by, year after year, report after report, expose after expose, as the problems persist in the U.S./CNMI. The legislation I have introduced today will extend Federal immigration and minimum wage laws to the U.S./CNMI as well as require that the integrity and intent of the ``Made in USA'' label and duty and quota waivers be reinstated. Additionally, this bill will permit U.S. Customs agents the authority to inspect cargo and persons entering the U.S./CNMI for suspected illegal activity. I am hopeful that the delegation led by Congressman Young, which leaves for the U.S./CNMI and other Pacific destinations tomorrow, will meet with those who have experienced these deplorable conditions and that, upon the Chairman's return, he will finally agree to conduct impartial hearings on my legislation. We owe it to the taxpayers of the United States, to the textile workers of this country who are enduring unfair competition, and to the garment workers and other foreign workers in Saipan who are being forced to experience a distasteful and unrepresentative side of America.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. It is an important amendment, and I think it is very consistent with the underlying debate before us concerning unfunded mandates. Congress should be required to pay close attention to the effect of legislation on the environment and on public health just as it should be required to pay close attention to the impacts of its decisions on the private sector or the public sector as required in the previous legislation and the legislation before us today. This amendment is here because time and again we have seen matters of the environment and public health come before the Congress with little or no debate, in some instances with no underlying hearings. Legislative riders that deal with the fundamental and basic underlying environmental laws of this country are sneaked into the appropriations bill. With no debate at all attempt is made to weaken these laws concerning clean water, clean air, toxic waste, brown fields, forests, safeguards and food safety. Time and again these matters have been brought to the floor with no provisions in their rules for debate. Very often we find that they are hidden away in the report language so we cannot get to them when we debate them on the floor of the House of Representatives and we cannot vote on these matters directly. We very often find that we are limited in the time in which we can discuss them, and they have huge impacts on our natural environment and our public health and on taxpayers. That is why we need the Waxman amendment, so we will have the opportunity to discuss these critical issues in the light of day. There are two reasons why these changes in environmental laws are often not brought before the Congress in freestanding bills under the legislative rules that would allow free and open debate on the provisions. One is that the anti-environmental legislation would fail if it stood on its own in the light of day as a freestanding legislation. Yet it is that the majority party does not want to openly be seen as trying to repeal Environmental Health Protection Act, so rather than put up with the debate, put up with that characterization, put up with the facts of the debate, they put this into appropriations bill where the opportunities to debate are sometimes none and sometimes very limited. Instead the majority party tucks these into the largest bill, with the must-pass appropriation bills, into bills at the end of the session, with total disregard for the impact on the environment, and those are colleagues here in the House of Representatives. Very often again these legislative riders are sent over to us in legislation that comes from the Senate where again the opportunity is not debated. We may have debated these riders openly here on the floor of the House, we may have knocked out a number of these riders in the various appropriation bills, and then in the omnibus bill at the end of the year these riders are reinserted into that legislation, we are not given an opportunity to debate them, and the legislation is passed because it is an up-or-down vote. This is not a contest between unfunded mandates and the environment. In many instances these two situations rise separate of one another. But this is about whether or not, as we do the people's business here, we will have the opportunity to raise these environmental and public health issues and have free and fair debate on those issues. Over the last several years this has simply not been the case. Last year the omnibus appropriation bill was riddled with anti-environmental riders, preventing the tightening of the fuel economy stands, opening the coastal barriers to development, increasing logging and enabling oil and gas industries to escape paying what they owe the government. The Waxman amendment is also critical because many of times in the committee in which I serve, the Committee on Resources, legislation is passed regarding the actions to be taken by the Federal Government or private party, and the committee simply declares that those acts are sufficient under the Endangered Species Act or sufficient under the National Environmental Protection Act. The majority party in that case has made no showing that they are in fact sufficient under either of those acts. They simply declare without any debate, without discussion, without any vote that those actions are sufficient, and that is why we need the Waxman amendment. Historically, when we have taken these kinds of actions, when we added these kinds of riders, we usually have gone back and had to spend millions of dollars to try to make up for those mistakes and the errors that were caused because those riders were offered with no ability to debate them. The Waxman amendment is an opportunity to give the environment the kind of priority that the American people attach to the subject, to give it the same kind of priority that the proponents of this legislation wish to give to unfunded mandates, another very important consideration when this Congress legislates. These are not inconsistent, they are not at odds with one another. We are simply saying that the same kind of opportunity should be given for this kind of debate. In poll after poll we see that the American people self identify themselves as strong environmentalists deeply concerned about the environment. Even when we pit them against a tradeoff for jobs in a local area, they want the environment protected, they do not want national laws weakened. And yet we see contrary to those actions and those desires by the American people the efforts to slide in riders that are not open to the debate, and that is why I would encourage my colleagues to support the Waxman amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation to address the most important source of water pollution facing our country--polluted runoff. A major component of polluted runoff in many watersheds is surface and ground water pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), such as large dairies, cattle feedlots, and hog and poultry farms. Under current Clean Water Act regulations, CAFOs are supposed to have no discharge of pollutants, but as a result of regulatory loopholes and lax enforcement at the state and federal levels, CAFOs are in reality major polluters in many watersheds. My bill, the Farm Sustainability and Animal Feedlot Enforcement (Farm SAFE) Act addresses these deficiencies. Farm SAFE will require large livestock operations to do their part to reduce water pollution. The bill will lower the size threshold for CAFOs, substantially increasing the number of facilities that will have to contain animal wastes. It will require all CAFOs to obtain and abide by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The bill improves water quality monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting so that the public knows which CAFOs are polluting. Farm SAFE addresses loopholes in the current regulatory program by requiring CAFOs to adopt procedures to eliminate both surface and ground water pollution resulting from the storage and disposal of animal waste. The bill directs EPA, working with USDA, to develop binding limits on the amount of animal waste that can be applied to land as fertilizer based on crop nutrient requirements. In addition, the bill makes the owners of animals raised at large facilities liable on a pro rated basis for pollution caused by those facilities. Water quality in California's San Joaquin Valley has been degraded by unregulated discharges of waste from dairy farms. Contaminants associated with animal waste have also been linked to the outbreak of Pfiesteria in Maryland and the death of more than 100 people from infection by cryptosporidium in Milwaukee. Although considered point sources of pollution under the Clean Water Act, until recently little has been done at the federal or state levels to control water pollution from CAFOs. In recent years, many family farms have been squeezed out by large, well capitalized factory farms. Even though there are far fewer livestock and poultry farms today than there were twenty years ago, animal production and the wastes that accompany it have increased dramatically during this period. And although farm animals annually produce 130 times more waste than human beings, its disposal goes virtually unregulated. I am encouraged by recent efforts by the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to address pollution from animal feedlots. Many of the solutions proposed by these agencies, such as comprehensive nutrient management plans for livestock operations and limiting the amount of animal wastes applied to land as fertilizer are nearly identical to some provisions of Farm SAFE. But the Administration's proposal does not go far enough. It lets too many corporate livestock polluters continue to escape compliance with the Clean Water Act by setting the regulatory threshold too high and by not making the owners of animals raised by contract farmers shoulder an appropriate share of the responsibility for water pollution from these operations. Farm SAFE is very similar to legislation that I introduced last Congress. Although hearings were held in the Agriculture Committee on the issue of animal feedlots, the House took no action on my legislation, nor did the House take any other action to address pollution from animal feedlots. I hope that this Congress does not continue to ignore this growing national problem. The states are beginning to wake up, smell the waste lagoons, and take action. But they need our help in the form of uniform national standards. Much like when Congress stepped in the early 1970s to set uniform national standards for industrial pollution, similar standards are now needed for large point sources of agricultural pollution. Otherwise, the country will become a mosaic of differing levels of environmental protection, with farmers in some states, like North Carolina, disadvantaged by their states commendable aggressive actions to curb pollution from factory farms. This legislation will restore confidence that we can swim and fish in our streams and rivers without getting sick. It will do much to address our number one remaining water pollution problem--polluted runoff. I hope the House will join me in the effort to clean up factory farm pollution.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today and ask my colleagues to join me in mourning the passing of Officer James Williams, Jr. Officer Williams, a member of the Oakland Police Department and resident of Pinole, California, died in the line of duty on Sunday, January 10, 1999. Like all of his colleagues throughout law enforcement, Officer Williams put himself at risk for the sake of us all, and for his sacrifice we are forever indebted. He has earned our sincerest respect and gratitude, I know that I speak for every Member of this Chamber when I express our deepest sympathy and appreciation to his wife, Sabrina, and children, Alexander, Aaron and Arriana.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the tremendous energy and compassion displayed by a group of students from Richmond High School in Richmond, California. Seeing the devastation of Hurricane Mitch on the nightly news, these students took action and responded. As reported in the following article, their efforts brought together the entire Richmond High community in the spirit of giving, and the people of both Central America and Richmond, California, are better for it. [From the WC Times, Jan. 13, 1999] Richmond High gives loads after storm (By Mary Reiley) They collected boxes and boxes of food, clothing and over- the-counter medicines for adults and children who survived Hurricane Mitch, which devastated Honduras and Nicaragua in October. Students in Richmond High's Alma Latina Club and leadership class collected so many boxes that their large truck could not carry all the donated items to the American Red Cross. And it wasn't just the club and class members who contributed items and money. Students attending dances, sports and the annual Harvest Festival got in by bringing canned foods. Parents brought items on report card night, and staff members loaned their faces so students could pay to throw pies at them. Students and staff from Helms Middle School and West Contra Costa Adult Education also gave. ``It speaks well of the community that we can come together when there's a need,'' said Isidora Martinez-McAfee. She sponsors the Alma Latina Club and is the bilingual U.S. history and government teacher. Most of the students in her classes and the club are from Mexico or Central America, Martinez-McAfee said, so they felt a connection to the hurricane victims. When the club decided to send items from its annual canned food drive to Hurricane Mitch survivors, the leadership class rallied the student body to participate, said senior Maria Miranda, 18. She is a member of the leadership class and the student body's school board representative. Everyone enrolled in social science classes at the school, grades nine through 12, is required to complete at least 15 hours of community service. Membership in the leadership class and Alma Latina is not required. Kia Yancy, 17, and a senior said she would still have become involved if there were no service rule. ``Richmond High did a good deed,'' Kia said. ``We were looking out for the people in Central America.'' The leadership class member said it and the club worked together, collecting, bagging and boxing the goods and loading them on the truck at 7:30 a.m. Friday. They gathered enough to fill more than half a classroom with items, she said. Everything was delivered to the Red Cross for eventual shipment to Central America. Martinez-McAfee said the students are happy with the donations, but some are disappointed about reported delays in delivery. ``We hope it gets to where it's supposed to be going,'' Maria said. ``We wanted to help.'' The effort was worthwhile for students because it unified and helped show what is outside of school, Maria said. ``It gave them a sense of what's going on in the world, and it's healthy for the mind, too.'' she said. Nancy Ivey teaches the leadership class, plus social science and wood shop. She sees the students' efforts as a demonstration of one more way they set goals and achieve them. ``The students feel the school has a negative and false reputation,'' Ivey said. Farm Saephan, 16, junior class treasurer and member of the leadership class said, ``We're doing whatever we can to help people in need. It made us feel good about ourselves. The people (in Central America) and in need more than we are here.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that any reference to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) as a co-sponsor of H.R. 393, a bill to amend the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, to provide for the remediation of the Atlas uranium milling site near Moab, Utah, be deleted from the Record. His name was inadvertently included, and he has requested it be removed.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard from all of our colleagues, from the President of the United States and from governors across this land, education is the top issue on the public agenda and accountability is the order of the day. Parents and taxpayers want quality schools that show results in helping students meet high academic standards. The President says that he wants us to have world class standards so that students in the United States can compete in a world economy with the students and citizens of any Nation in the world, and I think that that is important. The Federal Government over the past three decades has spent some $118 billion in funding the Title I education programs, with rather mixed and variable results, and now we are looking to invest many billions more over the next five years. In fact, we will invest something in the neighborhood of $40 billion over the next five years in Title I, a program that is designed to help in the main educationally and economically disadvantaged children. But what is it we are getting for that investment, and how can we ensure that we will in fact get a better return on that investment of $40 billion than we received on the first $118 billion that we invested? We have been told by the Republican leadership of the House and, I believe, also in the Senate that the expansion of the so-called Ed-Flex bill will be one of the first items of their agenda in meeting some of the educational needs of this country. Currently there are 12 States that receive broad authority to waive many of the Federal laws and regulations with respect to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. My question is, I want to know, for the granting of that waiver for the additional flexibility to let school districts use this money in their best judgment for their best purposes, what is it they are telling us they are prepared to do on behalf of America's students and on behalf of the families that are so terribly concerned about the education of their children? They tell us that States are being held accountable under Ed-Flex for their actions and that they have put in place a procedure of accountability, and yet when we look at the GAO report that has recently been issued on Ed-Flex, we find out that that is not necessarily the case. We find out, according to GAO, that many Ed-Flex States, these 12 States that have been granted this authority, have not established any goals or defined only vague objectives. One State's plan, in exchange for flexibility in Federal dollars, says that they have a commitment to the identification and implementation of programs that will create an environment in which students actualize their academic potential. For that we are handing them millions of dollars, so that they can create an environment and the implementation of programs so that students will actualize their academic potential. No suggestion of how we would measure that or whether we know that is true. Yet we find a State like Texas which has said not only will they set out specific numerical criteria that are closely tied to both schools and districts and the specific students affected by the waiver; the Governor of Texas has said what he will do and what the State legislature of Texas has agreed to do and the Department of Education, in exchange for the flexibility under Ed-Flex from rules and regulations of the Federal Government, that he expects that the districts that receive the waivers under this act, that they will make annual gains on the State tests so that 90 percent, 90 percent of his students will pass the State assessment in reading and math. In addition, the Governor of Texas goes even further than that. He says that the districts must make gains so that at the end of that same five-year period 90 percent of the African American students will pass the State exam, 90 percent of the Hispanic students, 90 percent of the white students and 90 percent of the economically disadvantaged students. For that we have granted them a waiver and access to millions of dollars of Federal moneys for education. I am asking Members of Congress and the administration, which plan would you rather invest in? Would you rather invest in a plan that gives you numerical goals and standards and achievement for our students in this country, or would you rather invest in a plan that gives you rhetoric about some ephemeral goal that may or may not be achieved and no timetables and no standards as to how they will achieve that? If we are going to be the venture capitalists in improving education in this country with the limited Federal dollars that we have, that in this one program will provide over $40 billion, I think like any venture capitalist we ought to ask what is the return we are getting on that money, because there are a lot of uses for that $40 billion and every Member of Congress has a different priority. But we ought to be asking, what are we going to get back? The Governor of Texas has told us what we will get back is a 90 percent passage rate at the end of five years on a high-quality State test that will test their ability to perform in both reading and mathematics. In the other 12 States it is something in between. A lot of it is rhetoric, a lot of it is no goals and no accountability. The President stood here in the State of the Union and said that he wanted accountability, the parents wanted accountability, and clearly Members of Congress do. When the Ed-Flex bill comes to the floor, we should demand that it have provisions for accountability. We ought to at least demand something as rigorous as the Governor of Texas and the State legislature were prepared to put on the line in the name of education reform.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to name the Federal building in Oakland, CA after our distinguished former colleague Ronald V. Dellums. Ron came to Congress in 1971 with a plan to change the system and improve the Nation. In many ways he accomplished just that. He saved us from many weapons systems that we did not need, could not afford, and probably could not control. And more than any other Member of Congress, he helped to clearly illustrate how an overfed military budget was literally starving our children, our schools, and our communities. He brought the titans of apartheid to their knees and dragged a reluctant American Government along the way. He fought for the civil rights of all Americans. Ron Dellums was truly a unique Member of Congress. His passion was his fuel, but his passion did not blind him. He was clear, incisive, instructional, and inspirational. He was a tireless champion for peace and justice. Ron Dellums will always be remembered as one of Congress' great orators, colorfully and articulately dancing in the well of the House to draw support for his positions. Naming this Federal building in Oakland for Ron Dellums will serve as an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the challenges that our colleague championed. If we learn to carry the convictions of a more just society with us to work every day as he did, perhaps we will be able to make America an even better place and the world a bit safer. I would like to thank my colleague from California, Jerry Lewis, for his coauthorship of this bill, and the 104 members who are original cosponsors. In addition, I extend my thanks to the members of the House who approved this bill in the 105th Congress. Unfortunately we were not able to secure passage of the bill before the end of the session. But I introduce this legislation again today with confidence that it will reach the President's desk for signature. Ron will finally be recognized with a fitting monument for his 27 years of service to this institution and to our country. The people who will go in and out of this building with Ron's name on it can take pride in knowing that he cared about them, he fought for them, and he left a mark in Congress and in this country in their names.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, ten and a half million tons of toxic wastes generated by the now-defunct Atlas Mine are stored in a tailings pond located immediately adjacent to the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. These tailings are radioactive and contain high concentrations of ammonia, arsenic, lead, vanadium, selenium, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and other toxic metals left by the leaching process used to separate uranium from ore. The tailings pond, built in the 1950's, is not lined, and as a result, these radioactive and toxic wastes are seeping down through the aquifer into the Colorado River. Water from the Colorado River makes up a significant part of the drinking water supply for Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson, and is used additionally to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural lands. Moreover, the tailings pond, which has been designated as critical habitat for four endangered species, is situated between Canyonlands and Arches National Parks. Leaving a huge, leaking tailings pile adjacent to the Colorado River does not make sense. In the event of flood, the Colorado River could easily be contaminated. Lacking regulatory and financial alternatives, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is ready to approve the Atlas Corporation's inadequate plan to reclaim the site by simply placing a dirt cap over the top of the pile rather than by requiring removal to a safer location. This plan will not stop contamination of the Colorado River, which is expected to continue for hundreds of years. Moving the tailings will remove the source of the contamination. By placing the tailings in a more modern and technologically safe situation, the threats from earthquakes, high water, flooding will be eliminated. In every similar case under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy, uranium tailings have been moved away from riverbeds to lined and protected areas. Sadly, the NRC has seems determined to perpetuate rather than resolve this dangerous situation in the case of the Atlas site. The National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and many state and local government agencies have all expressed concerns about the quality of scientific data and information upon which NRC decisions have been based. Today, Reps. Filner, Pelosi, Gutierrez, and I am introducing legislation to require the Department of Energy to move the tailings to a safe location. Once this has been accomplished, the Attorney General would be charged with ascertaining the extent of the Atlas Corporation liability, and its parent companies, to secure reimbursement as appropriate.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later this year, on May 10, the General Mining Law will be 127 years old--yet, it remains on the books without change in regard to gold, silver and other ``hard rock'' minerals. Lack of Congressional action to reform this archaic law is indefensible--albeit a testament to the strength of the mining industry's influence on certain key Members who have consistently blocked any attempt to amend or replace the law during the past two Congresses. Written to encourage settlement of the West during the last century, the Mining Law of 1872 provides an automatic legal right to our Nation's hard rock mineral wealth to those interested in developing it. The law is long overdue for a major overhaul to save taxpayers and the environment from further losses. This antiquated relic allows mining operators nearly unlimited access to our Nation's hard rock minerals, no matter what other values (such as fish and wildlife habitat) may also be present. The law lets mining companies extract the minerals without paying a royalty or other production fee to the Federal Government. Finally, the lucky prospector who discovers gold or another hard rock mineral has the right to ``patent'' (purchase) the land and the minerals without paying fair market value. Since Ulysses S. Grant signed the law in 1872, American taxpayers have lost about 3.2 million acres of public land containing more than $231 billion in gold, silver and valuable minerals without benefit of royalties or other fees. This is corporate welfare that subsidizes both foreign and domestic mining companies and should be stopped. Under the 1872 mining law, the U.S. cannot collect a royalty or fee on the production value of hard rock minerals extracted from public lands. This differs from Federal policy toward coal, oil and gas industries operating on public lands, the laws and regulations of state governments, and leasing arrangements in the private sector. The U.S. collects a 12.5 percent royalty on coal, oil and gas (and an even higher royalty is collected from offshore petroleum development). The Federal Government collects production royalties on ``leasable minerals'' such as phosphate, potassium, sodium and sulphur. We also require a royalty on all minerals extracted from ``acquired lands,'' which are lands that the federal government has purchased, condemned or received as a gift. All western States collect a royalty or production fee from minerals removed from State lands, collecting between 2 percent and 10 percent on the gross income from mineral production. Besides a royalty, 10 western States also collect a severance tax on certain minerals extracted from any land in the States, whether it is Federal, State or privately-owned. On private lands, royalties are usually similar to those imposed on federal and state lands and are usually set at 2 percent to 8 percent of gross income. As Stuart Udall, former Secretary of the Interior, has noted, hard rock mining has made many men wealthy, built great corporations and caused cities to spring up in the wilderness. But this prosperity has come with a price. Over the past century, irresponsible and unwise mining operators have devastated over half a million acres of land--by acting without thought for the future or by simply walking away from played-out mines. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), mine wastes have polluted more than 12,000 miles of our Nation's waterways and 180,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs. Abandoned mines threaten public safety and health while creating long-lasting environmental hazards. Toxic mine wastes endanger people, destroy aquatic habitat, and contaminate vital ground water resources. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that clean-up will cost between $32 billion and $72 billion. The only mining law reform bill Congress has sent to the President in recent years was part of the fiscal year 1995 budget reconciliation bill that President Clinton properly vetoed in December 1995, for reasons well beyond the scope of the 1872 mining law. That reform proposal, which all of the longtime mining reform advocates opposed, would have reserved a 5 percent ``net proceeds'' royalty on future mining operations on public lands. But, it also provided so many exorbitant and absurd loopholes that most mines could have avoided paying the royalty. Therefore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored the royalty at just $12 million over seven years as compared to nearly $420 million attributed to the royalty provision passed on a 3-1 margin by the House in 1993. Today, I am introducing three bills, in addition to Rep. Nick Rahall's (D-WVA) comprehensive bill to reform the Mining Law of 1872. These three bills, identical to ones that former Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR) and I introduced in the 105th Congress would: (1) Impose a 5 percent net smelter return royalty on all hard rock minerals mined from public lands, eliminate patents, and permanently extend the rental fee, (2) Impose a sliding scale net proceeds reclamation fee on all hard rock minerals mined from lands that have been removed from the public domain under the 1872 Mining Law, and (3) Close the depletion allowance loophole on all lands subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Reservation of a royalty would mean that Americans would receive a fair return on the extraction of hard rock minerals from public lands. Imposition of a reclamation fee on lands removed from the public domain under the 1872 law would give the public a fair return on the value of hard rock minerals mined from those lands. All these revenues would be used to clean up the environment disaster we inherited from past mining operators. The majority refused to even hold hearings on these bills during the last Congress, instead focusing on crushing Clinton administration policies that would have made miners accountable for their actions and decreased the level of environmental destruction that accompanies mining activities. I therefore call on Chairman Young to allow these bills a fair and open hearing this year. Now is the time to act. The Federal royalty base is already small and is rapidly diminishing as mining operations go to patent. The GAO believes that nearly $65 billion worth of gold, silver, copper, and certain other hard rock minerals still exist in economically recoverable reserves on western Federal lands. But, the longer Congress delays, the smaller the royalty base will become as ever more mining conglomerates push through the patent process. Mining reform is long overdue. The effort to update the 1872 law has enjoyed vigorous, bipartisan support in the House of Representatives for many years. Public opinion--even in Western states with large mining activities--is strongly in favor of mining reform that includes a royalty that raises substantial revenues to be used for abandoned mine clean-up. Four out of five Americans support mining reform, according to a 1994 nationwide bipartisan survey. In 1994, the House and Senate came close during a Conference to crafting an acceptable agreement only to be derailed by the threat of a filibuster during the last days of the session. The mining industry and a few Senators have repeatedly blocked reform from enactment during the last decade. The 106th Congress should impose a reasonable net smelter royalty on hard rock minerals extracted from public lands, dedicating the revenues to cleaning up abandoned mine sites, permanently extend the $100 rental fee, and close the depletion allowance loophole.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as a result of recent surgery and because of the potential health risks of air travel at this time in my recuperation, I am greatly disappointed that I am unable to attend the session of the House of Representatives today as we consider one of the most serious actions we can take under the Constitution: not simply the removal of the President from office, but overturning the decision of the American people in twice electing him to that office. I urge my colleagues to vote against impeachment, and I would so vote were I able to be present in the chamber today. The partisan resolutions presented to the House by the Judiciary Committee are an affront to the American electorate and a repudiation of the Constitution. They trivialize the awesome act of impeachment. They mis-state both the law and the historical precedent. And they will inaugurate a season of recrimination, divisiveness and partisanship that will taint this House and this nation unnecessarily. No one in this Chamber, or in this nation, disputes that the President was terribly wrong in his actions. No one disputes that he was far less than candid in his statements in the Jones deposition, before the Grand Jury, and particularly, to the American people. No one disagrees that strong action by this House is justified to convey our disapproval, and that of the American people, with the manner in which the President has conducted himself in this scandal. But those are not the questions before the House today. The question is whether or not those actions warrant his impeachment and his removal from office. And the answer is ``no.'' While the majority of Americans are justifiable disappointed in the President, as am I, they have registered their views loudly and clearly that the President should not be removed from office. I have had the advantage, or disadvantage, of being in bed, recovering from surgery, these past two weeks, and I have used that opportunity to listen to Americans on television and radio from all over this country. They do not approve of what we are being forced to vote on today. Constituents who have contacted my office from the 7th district of California by phone, fax and e-mail over the past two weeks have overwhelmingly stated their opposition to impeaching the President over this matter. And they are correct. Impeachment was intended by the framers of the Constitution--and has been treated by every Congress since 1789 with one single, disreputable exception 130 years ago--as an extraordinary means of removing a president whose use of his Executive Authority poses an imminent threat to our constitutional form of government. Whatever you thing of Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal, providing false or misleading testimony in a resolved civil suit does not rise to the constitutional standard of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Nor does giving evasive answers to the Congress. We can object to such behavior; we should condemn such behavior. But Mr. Clinton's action in no way threatens either the institutions of our government or the Constitution. If we proceed in voting impeachment for misleading a Grand Jury about private behavior that has nothing to do with the exercise of presidential power, then this House must be prepared for the impeachment bar to be moved with impunity and recklessness in the future. Misrepresenting, or lying, or twisting the truth--none of them are acceptable behaviors by public officials, even when they involve private behaviors. But as we tragically know, deception is not unfamiliar in the corridors of the Capitol either. Let us exercise great caution in what we approve as a new standard for removing federal officials from office, because this House and this Congress could become ugly and bitter institutions. I urge the Republican leadership of this House to reconsider its unwise and partisan Rule that bars Members from having the opportunity to vote for a censure resolution in lieu of impeachment. The Republicans' argument that censure is prohibited by the Constitution is absurd. The House can pass a Resolution, or a Joint Resolution with the Senate, expressing its view on any subject, as we do with great frequency on subjects from the trivial to the deadly serious. There is absolutely no reason under the Constitution or the House Rules why a strong censure resolution, as has been proposed, should not be subject to debate and consideration by the House, especially since it is very possible that a bipartisan majority prefers censure to impeachment, as do the people of the United States. But the Republican leadership will not permit an open debate. They only want to allow debate on the inflammatory and legally dubious resolutions reported on a strictly partisan vote from the Judiciary Committee. And we know why. Because the extremist element in the Republican Part which has been trying for six years to force a popular, elected president from office by alleging scandal after unproven scandal--from Vincent Foster's alleged ``murder'' to Whitewater--is frustrated because those extremists have been unable to make any of the charges stick. In fact, Kenneth Starr's report never even accuses the President of perjury, and yet that is the basis for the most serious of the allegations contained in the impeachment resolutions. And so, even at this late hour, I call upon the Republican leadership to step back and let this House freely consider a variety of sanctions against the President for his reckless and unacceptable conduct. I urge you: do not cheapen the constitutional test for impeachment. Do not abuse the Constitution to overturn a national election. And do not ignore the will of the voters who have elected their President and continue to send an unmistakable message that they do not want their representatives, at the end of the year, in the last moments of a lame duck Congress, to take this historic and fearsome action that truly will injure our Constitution and our democracy for years to come.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I objected to the consideration of this legislation because I felt that the minority was being treated unfairly and that this was a political maneuver to pass this legislation and intended to hold this bill up. As a result of that I received a letter from Mr. Tom Udall who said that even though this may benefit his opponent he asked that we release this legislation so that it could be passed because of its importance to the State of New Mexico and to the Nation. It is an area that he is familiar with. The letter referred to is as follows: A Message From Tom Udall to House Democrats October 20, 1998. Dear Representative: I urge you to vote for S. 1132, the Bandelier National Monument Administrative Improvement and Watershed Protection Act of 1998 when it comes before the House of Representatives. This important legislation, which was introduced and has been championed by my good friend, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, is essential in order to better protect Bandelier National Monument, one of the crown jewels of our marvelous National Park System. The bill authorizes a 955-acre expansion of Bandelier, a critical conservation purchase that will secure the last unprotected parcel of the park's headwaters. Protecting this parcel will prevent destruction of this pristine natural area by development and will prevent impacts to Bandelier's water quality, quantity, and archeological sites. The area also includes Alamo Spring, which is sacred to New Mexico's Indian pueblos and must be safeguarded. Funds to acquire these lands have already been set aside by Congress. I know and cherish our state's natural heritage. I have hiked the canyons of Bandelier. These places must be protected for our families and children, and to preserve our quality of life. If I am elected to Congress in November, I shall be a strong voice for the balanced protection of the environment and the preservation of America's magnificent national parks and public lands. I understand there is good reason for Democrats to hesitate on this bill. It was not introduced early enough to be heard by committees in the House, and many contend that it has not received an adequate review. Moreover, the Republicans have refused to give fair consideration to Democratic bills in the final days of the Congress. Some may feel that passage of S. 1132 might benefit my opponent in the upcoming election. I believe that protecting Bandelier is not a partisan issue. More importantly, please believe me when I say that New Mexicans already know the truth about who should take credit for protecting Bandelier if S. 1132 passes Congress. My opponent has one of the worst anti-environmental voting records in the House of Representatives (he received a 8% score from the League of Conservation Voters). What may be achieved will be achieved in spite of him, not because of him, and the citizens of New Mexico know this. Protecting Bandelier can't wait. Please vote for S. 1132. Sincerely, Tom Udall, Candidate for the House of Representatives, 3rd Congressional District of New Mexico.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because, once again, the Republican majority is misusing the procedures of this House to deny the Democratic Members an opportunity to participate fully in the legislative process, which is our right. Last week the House voted down two resources bills that are now back before us today. These bills have only been recently introduced. They have never had hearings. They have never been subjected to review by the Committee on Resources, and they have never been debated or marked up. So this House is being called upon to vote to spend nearly $20 million on projects that we have never reviewed. They may be good. They may be wasteful. We do not know. The proponents of these bills never asked for a hearing. Or if they did, they never got them. They certainly did not make a case for these bills. Now, at the last hour, we are told we have to pass them, without full debate, without any amendment, without questions being answered. Why? Because everyone in this Chamber knows, for election reasons, pure and simple. Once again, the Republican leadership of the Committee on Resources and the House is demanding that only Republican-sponsored bills be allowed to come to the House floor. When they tried this tactic two weeks ago, the House overwhelmingly defeated their Omnibus Parks bill. And then we did what we should have done in the first place. We negotiated out an agreement where an equitable number of Democratic and Republican bills were passed. Now the Republican leadership is desperate to enhance the image of the vulnerable Members with terrible environmental voting records who did not do their jobs to get these bills considered in the normal procedure. These rules let them steamroll this House into passing legislation that was never considered by any subcommittee or committee of the House. And what of the promises of fair treatment? Request after request for consideration of Democratic sponsored bills, bills that have passed the committee, that have passed the Senate, just like the two we are presenting here today, are ignored. We are told the Democratic bills we have requested cannot be considered. Not the bill of the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green), not the bill of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), not the bill of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), not the bill of Senator Daschle, not the bill of Senator Landrieu. None of them. Just Republican bills for vulnerable incumbents. Does anyone doubt that politics is at work here? Let us look at the bill of the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green), a bill that affects only her district that was approved unanimously by the Committee on Resources, a bill without any known controversy. I have asked no fewer than five times that this noncontroversial bill be brought before the House and each time I am told that it cannot be considered, that it is out of our hands at the Committee on Resources. Whose hands is it in? We do not know. No one will say. Lo and behold, yesterday a story appears in the Virgin Islands Daily News quoting a Republican staffer of the Committee on Resources who denies that there has been any effort to block consideration of the bill of the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green). He claims delays are common at the end of session. He conveniently ignored that our committee passed over 30 bills last week, many of them having received less consideration than the committee-approved bill of the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green). What we are seeing is a stealth effort to kill Democratic bills while trying to pass unknown and expensive legislation simply to benefit marginal Republican Members. This House should not do that. We should oppose these rules because they are designed simply to silence the minority, deliver election year favors to vulnerable Republicans. We should oppose these rules because they are an attempt to misuse the rules of this House to prevent full consideration of this legislation at last hour and to prevent any Member of this House from offering an amendment to approve these bills. We should oppose these rules because they disenfranchise the entire Democratic Caucus of this House. This action does not suspend the rules, as they tried last week, but it does bend the rules to play partisan politics with taxpayers' money. We should vote no on the rules and we should vote no on the bills.