George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, once again, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), the subcommittee chair, has properly explained this legislation and the need for it. We support the legislation. The U.S. Forest Service has been acquiring lands in southeastern Ohio for the Wayne National Forest for many years. Typically, these land purchases are subject to reservation of the mineral estate by the seller for a term of 25 to 40 years. Upon expiration of the term, the mineral rights revert to the United States. However, until that term expires, the private owner of the mineral rights retains the rights to develop these minerals and many of them lease the rights to local operators who drill wells on the property. The private lessors have no rights to lease beyond the expiration of their mineral rights and thus the mineral leases expire with their reservations. However, producers in the Wayne National Forest were under the mistaken belief that they could simply continue operating under the same terms they had with the private lessors and simply pay royalties to the Forest Service. Under the terms of the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, the BLM could not offer noncompetitive leases to these producers. This was not acceptable to the local producers. In 1990, BLM attempted to resolve the problem through an administrative remedy that hinged on drainage compensation agreements. However, after executing seven such agreements, the Department's Solicitor determined that this method violated the competitive leasing law. In response, under the leadership of Representative Nick Rahall, Congress enacted, as part of the Comprehensive National Policy Act of 1992, authorization for the BLM to issue noncompetitive leases to the owners of ``stripper wells'' upon reversion of mineral interests. Most of the eligible operators applied for the federal leases. However, they continued to disagree with BLM's interpretation of the law. The producers contend that the new provision of law actually allowed continuation of their existing private leases, with no changes to the terms and conditions other than paying royalties to the U.S. instead of the former owners. The Department's Solicitor affirmed BLM's position that new Federal leases are required. And, the Department's Board of Land Appeals upheld this position. H.R. 1467 would prevent BLM from requiring the operators to post bonds or other financial guaranties which the administration opposes. But, the administration does not object to a legislative solution to for the operators in the Wayne National Forest if one can be found that requires the producers to enter into production and reclamation contracts with the BLM, as well as several other conditions. Since the Committee adopted such an amendment, we do not object to the House acting favorably on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3963. Here we are again, in the last days of the session, presented with a bill that has never cleared the Committee on Resources and violates the Budget Act and sets precedents on the use of and disposition of Federal resources. I understand why Senator Baucus and the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) have been in discussions with the administration on this initiative, and he has a letter from OMB stating they will not object. That is worth considering, but I believe there are still serious problems with this legislation. First, the bill sets up a bidding process for these cabin sites, supposedly to get fair and open bids on the property. However, the bill then sets terms and conditions that rig the bid so that effectively there is only one bidder, that just happens to be the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association. Next the bill takes any funds received from these sales and sets up a fund for the Federal, state and local management board, trust funds for the resources. I guess some would argue why we have the board or do not have the board, but I think, more importantly, that this is the conveyance of public resources, ostensibly to private hands. And yet, at the same time, when we look at the process to receive fair market value, it really precludes others from bidding on these properties, because if any bidder is other than the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association, that purchaser then has to provide for an option to purchase to the lessees, the existing lessees, and also for those who decide they do not want to purchase, it has to provide them continuance of the lease. Well, is highly unlikely that somebody who seeks to have one of these properties for their use and enjoyment would bid in that process and therefore, then by default, what we have is Canyon Ferry being really the only bidder in the process, and they also get the benefit in that situation of fully depreciating, excluding the value of the improvements on that property. However, under existing Federal law at the end of their lease, the value, if there are cabins or improvements, would revert to the Federal Government as it would in the private sector. If one makes improvements on lease property, generally those enure to the property owner. So, I think for those reasons that this legislation should undergo further consideration. I also think because of the fact that we have, scattered throughout the public lands in this country, hundreds of thousands of inholdings, lease holdings and all the rest, that we ought to make sure of what we are doing here, prior to setting a precedent on how we would convey those properties either to existing private owners or on a bid process, or whether in fact they should revert to the people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that once again we yet have to again extend the time for the budget to be completed for this country. It is unfortunate because we come down to an item that is so terribly important to America's families and to America's children, and, that is, the issue of school construction, whether or not we are going to try to end the process by which children are being educated in storage rooms, in split-up gymnasiums, on the stage of the school auditorium, in the janitor's change rooms as they try to reduce class sizes and as they try to avoid those parts of schools in many cases that are unsafe for children to go. We think that the Federal Government ought to help these school districts. They can do it by providing no-interest loans or low-interest loans to help those school districts that are struggling to provide for safe and healthy schools for our children. The other one is class size reduction. Here we have an opportunity to take a program modeled after Cops on the Beat, a program that has been incredibly successful. If you go around your congressional district and you talk to the police officers, if you talk to the chiefs of police, they will tell you this has made a remarkable difference in their police department's ability to talk to the business community, to talk to young kids on the street, to interact with the schools and has made the police department much more accessible, much more effective on the streets of our communities, and we have watched as the crime rate has continued to come down in most American communities. So now we want to take and have the Federal Government provide help to school districts that want to add additional teachers to reduce class size, recognizing that teachers are far more effective with 18 students than they are with 30 students. Again, do not trust us; trust the parents, trust the teachers, trust the students who if you go to your schools and you talk where this has been done, parents are excited about the chance that teachers are spending more time with their students, helping them with reading, helping them with mathematics. The teachers feel better that they are able to spend better time with these students in helping those students who may be having a little bit of extra problem. But we are right back to where we were before Cops on the Beat. Just before we voted for Cops on the Beat, the Republicans came up with a plan to spread that money all over the community, to spread it all over the community. They said they were going to call it Cops on the Beat but it could be spent anywhere. But the chiefs of police, the law enforcement agencies came here and said, ``Don't do that. Put it into police officers that can be out in the community.'' Now the education establishment is saying the same thing: ``Don't spread this all over. Don't spread this across the bureaucratic cost of State Departments of Education. Put it in the classroom where it can make a difference, where it can make a difference to the ability of our children to read, to compute, to critically think. These teachers can make a difference in our children's lives.'' But we are back here. The State Department of Education in California funds almost 70 percent of its bureaucracy off of Federal dollars. Why are those Federal dollars not going into the classroom? This legislation that the President is proposing for classroom reduction, school construction is about sending the money to where it belongs, not spreading it across the community like the Republicans want us to do.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, let us just understand what is being said over here. Now this is an attack on extreme environmentalists. This was supposed to be about disability groups. The gentleman was in the room last year when the disability groups and the agencies and others penned the agreement of understanding pursuant to his study to do exactly what this legislation has done. That is what the memorandum of agreement was about, it was about further consultations and reviews of laws and access and all of the rest of that as a result of the Hansen-Vento work that had been completed. Now all of a sudden we are going to create new legislation without any hearings as to its purpose at all. I would again say that this is really about an attack on wilderness. This is not about access issues. Members ought to reject this, what I have to tell Members, I think, is somewhat cynical use of the disability issue, when we know that many of the concerns that are being articulated here have in fact been resolved during the process of being resolved with the combined efforts of all of the various agencies that are outlined in this legislation and the disability groups across this Nation. We should not accept this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It did not take long to get past the disability issue here to see the anger over the fact that we have a national Wilderness Act in this country. It does not say no sign of man. It talks about the context in which the wilderness will be considered and which the wilderness will be created and it will be untrammeled and you do not see permanent impact of man in these situations. We have structures in wilderness areas. We have old trails in wilderness areas. In some cases we have old mines. As we try to create wilderness today in 1998, clearly the context is different than if you are trying to create it in 1898, because lands have been utilized from time to time. That does not mean that it is permanent upon the land. That does not mean overtime those trails will not revert back, as they are overgrown, what have you, if that is the concern that Members have, or even some of those crazy roads that some of your constituents have bulldozed into what they thought was going to be a wilderness area. Over time even out there in the desert some of those will be healed through time and through nature. But the fact of the matter is, the Wilderness Act says disability groups have not asked for this exemption. They have worked out a memorandum. This is really not about disabilities. This is really about trying to find another way in which you can get into under the old Wilderness Act and get those motorized vehicles in there. I do not think the disability groups appreciate being used as a stalking horse for that effort. It is not the first time, because we have seen here in terms of the IDEA legislation in education where last year education for people with disabilities was thrown up as every alternative. They were used to try to cut every other budget within the Department of Education. Those were all rejected by the Congress. It is not because they were not concerned about people with individual disabilities. It was concern that they were being used as an attack on other segments of the education budget. And here we see that same effort being undertaken here. Again, I will repeat myself, you are just duplicating a study which you are not supposed to be for. You just finished a study. We just worked out the memorandums. We have ended in consultation with these groups. I suspect that the longer this debate goes on, the clearer the case is made that this is about an attack on wilderness status of public lands less than it is about access to people with disability to those lands.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. No one argues, no one argues with the purpose of the gentleman's remarks, but he cited the exact provision of the Wilderness Act that he and others have attacked now for 20 years and that is no motorized vehicles in wilderness areas. This comes at the same time in the session that we see Members on the other side supporting helicopter flights over wilderness, roads through wilderness of questionable need, added on as riders to the environmental legislation and tragically, unfortunately, I think that here again the disability groups are being used to try and confront what they really want, and that is opening up of the wilderness areas with roads and other means to overfly these areas and to start invading the various concepts of wilderness. This has been how they contest it in the gentlemen's States. People said they have rights to go into these areas. They bulldozed roads into some of the areas in southern Utah that are under study that are existing wilderness areas. This is a constant battle. Again, the wilderness disability groups and other groups have worked with the administration. They have worked out memorandums of understanding, and I have very serious concerns about Members using this legislation to try and attack a fundamental key component of the wilderness legislation about the use of motorized vehicles or any other motorized object in the wilderness area. But this has been under attack, as I have said, since the Wilderness Act was put into law by many Members on the other side of the aisle. I do not think that we ought to do this where we have had had no hearings on the committee. This bill has not been reported out of the committee, and most of the wilderness groups do not seek an exemption in the case of that. We ought to bring forth the hearings. We ought to find out exactly what you believe the problem to be. But as the gentleman knows, he was a cosponsor of the study over the last 7 years. We just went through all of this. For that reason, I would again ask Members not to support the legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this legislation H.R. 4501, has had no hearings or markups in the Committee on Resources. We just did a disabled access study 7 years ago cosponsored by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) of our committee. The result of this study was a memorandum of understanding entered into between Federal land management agencies and the wilderness disability access groups. So, I do not think there is really a need for this study when, in fact, we have already procured that information and have entered into an agreement and continue to work on those efforts. There is concern by a number of people that this legislation, in fact, is a stalking horse for those who would unfortunately want to use this agenda to justify additional roads, whether in wilderness areas or in other Federal resource areas, and use the subject of individuals with disabilities as a means of sponsoring those roads to cut in and to open a number of the wilderness areas. Mr. Speaker, I think given the history of our committee's work on this legislation, the fact that we have reached agreement with a number of these groups on this topic, and that we just did an expansive and exhaustive study on this effort, I would oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3878, as explained by the chairman of the subcommittee, would open two tracts of land in Sublette County, Wyoming, to oil and gas leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. It would provide that any party acquiring a lease under this authority could also exercise the right reserved to the United States to enter lands and occupy the surface for oil and gas operations. The bill would also protect the surface landowner against damage to crops or tangible improvements and the loss of surface uses as a result of oil and gas activities. This bill would also would validate an existing lease on one of the two tracts of land that the BLM inadvertently leased in 1997. Mr. Speaker, the administration supports the enactment of this legislation, and we have no objection to the substance of the bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3878 would open two tracts of land in Sublette, County, Wyoming, to oil and gas leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. It would provide that any party acquiring a lease under this authority could also exercise the right reserved to the U.S. to enter the lands and occupy the surface for oil and gas operations. The bill would also protect the surface landowner against damage to crops or tangible improvements and the loss of surface uses as a result of oil and gas activities. The bill would also validate an existing lease to one of the two tracts of land that the BLM inadvertently leased in 1997. Title to the surface of the subject lands was transferred through the Public Land Sales Act of 1964, P.L. 88-608, which authorized disposal of public lands for certain specified users (chiefly grazing and foraging.) Upon transfer of the lands, the mineral rights were reserved to the U.S. and withdrawn from leasing. The surface of the land was sold and has been used primarily for grazing. In 1997, the BLM offered one of the two tracts for competitive lease. Enron Corporation succeeded in leasing the tract for $165 per acre. Subsequently, BLM discovered its error and concluded that they would be required to cancel the leases. H.R. 3878 would allow the lease to stay in effect and would authorize them to offer the other tract for lease. The administration supports enactment of H.R. 3878. We have no objection to the substance of the bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the request of my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) who is traveling to his district on official business, I urge this body to support House Resolution 494, the Guam centennial resolution. This resolution recognizes Guam's 100-year relationship with the United States, but more importantly, it reaffirms this body's commitment to Guam's request to address the issue of status. One hundred years ago the United States acquired Guam, along with the Philippines and Puerto Rico, after the Spanish-American war. Guam's relationship with the United States since 1898 has been characterized by Guam's strategic location in the Asian Pacific region. Soon after its acquisition, Guam was primarily acquired as a coaling station by American ships. Since then Guam has expanded its role to become America's bridge to the Asian-Pacific region. It boasts the only $10 billion military infrastructure west of the international dateline, as well as a $3 billion civilian economy. Mr. Speaker, Guam's unique relationship with the United States not only stems from its strategic value, but in part can be explained through the understanding of Guam's history with the United States. Guam is the only American territory today which was occupied by enemy forces during World War II. The people of Guam endured forced marches and beheadings for doggedly assisting American soldiers during the occupation. Through the Organic Act of 1950, the people of Guam became American citizens, an event which allowed them a greater opportunity to participate in the American political system. Guam's press for increased self-government was made evident soon after American governance. However, it was not until 1973 that concerns about Guam's political status officially materialized in the form of the first Political Status Commission. As testament to Guam's commitment to the political future and faith in the American system of government, the Guam Commonwealth Act was introduced in the 101st Congress and in each successive Congress since that time. Through the passage of this resolution, we are commemorating our historic ties with America's westernmost Pacific territory, and we are reaffirming our commitment to address their concerns. I urge my colleagues to support the Guam centennial resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD the statement of the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) regarding this very important resolution.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is because of the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats about our children's education. We believe, as the American people do, that our local districts need help in rebuilding crumbling schools, that our schools ought to be made safe, that children should no longer go to school in made-over closets and made-over teacher lounges, in made-over storage areas. They ought to have a safe and decent place to go to school. We believe that we ought to make every effort to try to help districts lower the teacher/pupil ratio so that teachers can spend more time with individual students. That is the important work that ought to be done here. It should have been done earlier, but the Republicans were so excited about impeachment that they forgot America's children. That work has to be done. The problem is there are even differences within the Republican Party about this education program. We believe that this money ought to make sure that we can, in fact, reduce class size. We can, in fact, build new schools and repair schools and make a difference for America's children as opposed to trying to provide a program that allows governors to walk off with the money

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, due to an administrative error, dissenting views were inadvertently omitted when the Committee on Resources filed House Report No. 105-781, on H.R. 1842, a bill to terminate further development and implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I submit a copy of the dissenting views that would have been filed on this legislation to be printed in the Congressional Record. I have also asked that these views be included in the official Archive of the legislative history of this bill. H.R. 1842--Dissenting Views The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is intended to make the government serve the people more efficiently--and in fact that is what it will do. The program would affect only rivers where the local citizens have specifically requested the designation of their rivers as American Heritage Rivers. H.R. 1842 is a bill that would prevent the President from responding to those requests and coordinating the delivery of government services to those local communities. We must oppose this bill, which would stand in the way of government efficiency and effectiveness. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is designed to help citizens who ask for assistance with federal river programs. It is driven entirely by requests from local communities who ask to have their rivers designated, and specify the federal programs they believe can serve community goals for their rivers. Once the designations are made, the program will continue to be guided by local goals for river restoration and economic development. The designated ``River Navigator'' will respond to local requests to coordinate federal agency assistance. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative doesn't involve new regulatory authority or new land acquisition. It simply coordinates existing federal programs and asks the federal government to be more responsive to the people. It will not impose any new federal mandates on private land. In fact, the Executive Order on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative provides repeated assurances that no such actions will occur and that Fifth Amendment rights will be protected. And of course, zoning and land use decisions will remain under local control. Nothing about the American Heritage Rivers Initiative changes that traditional local authority. Concerns have been raised regarding the participation of designated ``River Navigators'' in local court proceedings and zoning board hearings. CEQ Chair Kathleen A. McGinty assured the Committee that the River Navigators would not take such action in their roles as River Navigators. Obviously, the White House cannot anticipate every circumstance where the government might be sued and federal employees might have to testify. But the White House has promised that River Navigators will not be intervening in local courts and zoning boards in their roles as River Navigators. This is as much as could be expected. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative will not impose new zoning or new regulations on private property. It will not involve new federal land acquisition. It will simply respond to local communities who request help in accessing government services. We oppose the bill to terminate this worthwhile program. George Miller, Ed Markey, Neil Abercrombie, Eni Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Patrick Kennedy, Adam Smith, Donna Christian-Green, Lloyd Doggett, Dale Kildee, Frank Pallone, Nick Joe Rahall, Bruce Vento, Maurice Hinchey, Calvin Dooley, William Delahunt, Carlos Romero-Barcelo

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in commending Secretary Babbitt and Senator Thomas and Senator Dale Bumpers, who will be retiring from this Congress, and our Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for all of their efforts on behalf of this legislation. I also want you to know that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), who is managing the bill here today, has in fact been involved in trying to bring balance to the concessions policy of our National Park System now for many, many years, and has really been an architect of the underlying framework of concession reform. Of particular interest to me are the changes we made in the original bill's provision on leasehold surrender interests. I had objected to these provisions in committee because they were untested and could very well maintain some of the anticompetitive aspects that exist today with the National Parks' concession program. By the narrowest of margins, the resource committee failed to adopt an amendment I offered to replace the leasehold surrender interest provisions with a system of amortization of the concessionaire investment similar to that used throughout the concessions industry and in the private real estate market. Subsequent to the committee action on S. 1693, my staff and I had discussions with a number of principals of this legislation. The result of these discussions has been an agreement to change the LSI provisions. These changes allow the untested LSI provisions to be used for the next major round of concession contracts. However, following that period, if the Secretary finds that either straight line depreciation or an alternative formula is needed to promote competition and a fair return to the government, the Secretary can use either of these two options after informing the Congress. The second issue that was raised at the 11th hour deals with the concessions permit for cruise ships in Glacier National Park, as the gentleman from Alaska has just referred to. The language we were originally given was a complete exemption for these permits. The agreement that we have worked out provides a phaseout for the preferential right of renewal of these cruise ship permits by December 31, 2009. I think it is important to note that under this phaseout the preferential right of renewal cannot be granted nor can such a right exist beyond December 31, 2009. Mr. Speaker, like many compromises, this is not perfect, but it is one I can support, and it reflects an awful lot of hard work by all of the people that I mentioned in the beginning of my statement, and I want to thank the committee for bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and recommend its passage.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, S. 2117 as amended authorizes a number of relatively small but important provisions affecting water resource projects and management in the Western United States. The bill authorizes construction of a rural water system in South Dakota, transfers ownership of several Bureau of Reclamation projects to local water districts, authorizes several small projects in the Colusa Basin of California, and provides financial assistance for construction of water re-use projects in Phoenix and Albuquerque. The bill also allows the City of Vallejo, California to use the water conveyance facilities of the Bureau of Reclamation's Solano Project. While I will not object to passage of this legislation, I will note that some of the Reclamation project transfers included in S. 2117 remain problematic. In particular, serious environmental issues have been raised regarding future management of the Wellton-Mohawk Division of the Gila Project and the Sly Park Unit of the Central Valley Project. The Bureau of Reclamation must work to determine the conditions for transferring these projects that will preserve the public benefits and avoid environmental damage from future project operations.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. H.R. 3461 consolidates numerous fisheries and marine conservation bills that have been passed by the Resources Committee and, in many cases, the full House without controversy. It includes a number of fisheries bills that will improve fisheries management and conservation on both the east and west coasts. It includes a provision to create a public private partnership to improve the quality of our Nation's nautical charts, and in turn improve the safety of navigation and marine environmental protection. It also includes a provision to help local communities in the Puget Sound improve the conservation of their marine resources. In closing, this is a good bill that is supported by Members from both sides of the aisle, and I am pleased to support its passage today.