George Miller

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 such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and say how fortunate we are that so much of this historic journey is preserved in public lands where people can go and view and try to relive this experience. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the outset, I agree with everything the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) has said. This is an historic moment, not as historic as Louis and Clark but an historic moment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 144, which is essentially a noncontroversial measure to express the support of this House of Representatives commemoration of the Louis and Clark Expedition. The expedition, under the leadership of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark was one of the great exploratory and scientific achievements of the 19th century. The upcoming bicentennial of this expedition and the recent Ken Burns film have renewed interest among the American public in the accomplishments of this expedition, and it is wholly appropriate that we commemorate the Louis and Clark Expedition, which nearly 200 years later still remains a notable event in the achievement of our country. For those who have, because of the renewed interest, those who have gone out to the West and tried to follow their journey, although the landscape of the West to some extent has changed, they are able to retrace great portions of the journey, and they start to appreciate what kind of monumental accomplishment this expedition was when one considers what knowledge they had in hand when they started at the outset of their journey, how little they actually knew and then what they accomplished and how they persevered and the hardships that they endured and, of course, what this expedition meant for the expansion of the United States and the opening of the West. It certainly is deserving of this kind of commendation from the House of Representatives but also renewed recognition by modern-day America of what these explorers were able to accomplish and what they encountered along the way and the extent of the journey that they accomplished. Mr. Speaker, therefore, I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge its passage and hope that the Congress will vote overwhelmingly for this matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) a member of our committee.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as the baseball season comes to an end with all of its excitement of the homerun derby and the incredible performance of the New York Yankees, we in the San Francisco Bay Area have something else to celebrate and that is the remarkable career of sports announcer Bill King who has been the voice of the Oakland A's, The Oakland Raiders, and the Golden State Warriors. Bill King has been calling games for forty years and providing so many days of enjoyment for the fans. His calls are a major part of the legends of American sports broadcasting. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege the past few years to spend time with Bill King in social settings. It is a wonderful evening to experience and enjoy his stories, his understanding of sports in America, as his desire to talk sports, art, history and politics. Recently, the San Francisco Examiner ran an article celebrating Bill King's Career in the San Francisco Bay Area. I would like to share it with my colleagues. The article follows: [From the San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 23, 1998] Bill King Has Been the Distinctive Voice of Bay Area Sports for 40 Years (By Michelle Smith) Bill King came to the Bay Area 40 years ago, without a beard or a legacy. Both have long since been firmly established. King, however, does not do legacy, the same way he doesn't do shoes and socks, fancy cars or pants in the booth on a hot summer day. He chooses to let his career speak for itself, and so it does. In his years as the radio play-by-play voice of the A's, Warriors and Raiders, King has been the consummate messenger. He has delivered some of the most memorable moments in local sports history with a style and conviction that earned him universal respect among his peers. And King's identity is so strong that even though he has done most of his work in a non-visual medium, he is instantly recognizable behind his distinctive handlebar mustache and beard. King's voice is not the traditional baritone of those born- to-be-broadcasters. His staccato delivery and ability to summon an evocative description for the big moments trigger memory, emotion and goose bumps. Like in 1970 when he called a game-winning 51-yard field goal by George Blanda against Cleveland and declared Blanda had just been elected ``King of the World.'' Or in 1977 when King called ``The Ghost to the Post,'' Dave Casper's touchdown catch that gave the Raiders a playoff win in Baltimore. Or his 1978 call of the ``Holy Roller'' game- winning fumble recovery in San Diego, when he interpreted an official ordering coach John Madden to ``get his big butt out of here.'' King's calls of the Warriors' 1975 NBA championship sweep of the Washington Bullets and the A's 1989 World Series sweep of the Giants remain etched in the minds of listeners. As does his signature call ``Holy Toledo'' each time he sees something that needs extra emphasis. ``It is always nice when people have good responses to you--it's a lot better than the alternative,'' King said. `You don't want them saying, ``Get that idiot off the air' '' Beyond that, King is reluctant to dig deeply into the reasons for his success and longevity. He has been working for a half-century, having called his first minor-league baseball game in Peoria, Ill., in 1948 at age 19. ``I am not a terribly introspective person,'' King said. ``I don't do a lot of examining about why this or why that or why I feel this way or that way.'' Small-town simplicity King is a man of simple ideals--the only evidence of his small-town Illinois upbringing--eclectic interests and a limitless passion for painting a visual picture. ``I love being on the air, I really do,'' King said. ``I am a verbal person. I get a tactile feeling on my tongue. To not be able to verbalize is almost crippling to me. Some people would probably say `I know, you never stop.' '' King shows no sign of stopping. He continues to work full- time at a time when popular Bay Area contemporaries like Lon Simmons and Hank Greenwald have cut back or retired altogether. King just signed a new three-year contract with the A's that keeps him as the team's radio voice through the 2001 season. He keeps working simply because, he says, ``There's no reason not to. I like what I'm doing. I get paid well for doing it and I can't think of anything that would be more desirable at this point.'' He admits there no longer is time to do some of the things he loves, like sailing and traveling to places that don't have a baseball diamond within 50 miles. The commute to the ballpark from Sausalito sometimes takes twice as long as it used to, and the preparation--which has been a source of equal parts pride and obsession for King--is not nearly as straight-forward as it used to be, given the vast amounts of information now available. King estimates he spends three hours a day preparing for a broadcast. ``I can't imagine what it would be like to be on the computer. I won't do it.'' Unique phone system For many years in the 1960's, when King was doing both Warriors and Raiders games, he did not have a telephone in his home. A select few knew how to reach him on a downstairs neighbor's number. ``I had this boat hook and I'd lower it down, he'd put the phone on the hook and I'd pull it upstairs,'' King said. ``To let us know if there was a call, he'd bang on the ceiling.'' King still refuses to put an answering machine in his office and would never consider carrying a cellular phone. His scaled-down mentality applies to transportation as well. King owns two cars, a 1983 Firebird and a 1980 Mercury four- door, both of which perform the minimal function of getting him to and from the ballpark with no regard to style. If King prefers to keep things simple, one would never know from his varied pursuits. He is a devout patron of the arts, a frequent attendee at the opera, ballet and symphony. He is a talented painter and a lover of all things nautical. He still owns a sailboat and has sailed around the world, taking open-sea trips to Hawaii, Canada and up and down the West Coast. In the 1960s King lived on the boat with his companion of the last 39 years, Nancy Stephens. ``Bill has a wonderful mind, and he is interested in so many things,'' Stephens said. ``When he gets interested in something he pursues it and he learns it thoroughly. When we first met, he wasn't well-versed in classical music, and I was. Before I knew it, he knew way more than I did. Self-taught man King traveled to the Soviet Union in the late 1970s after teaching himself to read, write and speak Russian, mostly on long flights during trips with the Warriors and Raiders. This thirst for self-taught knowledge is either ironic or appropriate for a man who did not go to college, choosing instead to begin his broadcasting career. King's culinary tastes are legendary. He will concede only that he likes ``things that people might consider unusual.'' King has been known to dip entire pats of butter into a tub of popcorn during a game, and eat raw onions in the booth during the stifling days of summer. His morning favorite is peanut butter and chopped onions on warm tortillas. ``His latest concoction is this thing they make up for him at the ballpark and it has onions, tomatoes, salsa and nacho cheese sauce over popcorn,'' said A's broadcast partner Ken Korach. ``It's like he eats whatever pops into his head.'' ``Bill is unique,'' said Franklin Mieuli, the former Warriors owner. Mieuli was so enamored with his play-by-play man that he went to bat for King when KTVU-TV refused to put him on camera because of his beard, paid fines to the league for King when he criticized officials on the air, and answered the telephone calls when King uttered a profanity during a 1968 game that is recalled by those in the know as ``NBA Mother's Day.'' King came to the Bay Area in 1958, hired by KSFO radio to be a fill-in baseball broadcaster for Lon Simmons and Russ Hodges when the Giants and 49ers seasons began to overlap. Caught with his pants down ``Chub Feeney owned the Giants at that point,'' said Simmons, who was King's partner for 15 years with the A's. ``He was from New York, very much a suit-and-tie person. The first time Bill walked into the broadcast booth and took off his pants to do a broadcast, I think Chub almost had a heart attack.'' To clarify, King only takes off his pants on hot days, and only after he's removed his shoes and socks first. ``In any weather, I don't like shoes and socks,'' King said ``But in hot and humid weather, I don't like sitting at a ballgame and then getting up after three hours and feeling like I've just taken a shower in my pants. So from the time I've been doing minor-league baseball, when I would work solo, I operated in my skivvies. Now in Texas or Baltimore, I always have a pair of trunks with me.'' King's voice defined the golden eras of both the Warriors and Raiders. King called Warriors games from 1962-83 and Raiders games from 1966-92. ``It gives me chills when I hear some of those old calls,'' said former Raiders coach and current Fox-TV analyst John Madden. ``Those are things that stay with you all your life, the Clarence Davis catch against Miami, the San Diego call Anyone who has ever been a Raider fan will always associate Bill as the voice of the Raiders.'' Given that many NFL and NBA games were not televised in the 1960s and 1970s, King was more than the voice of the game, he was its mind and body as well. ``Nobody has even been able to rise to an exciting moment and bring the excitement into the sound of their voice like Bill,'' said Giants announcer Jon Miller, an East Bay native. ``It's not just shouting, it's the theatrical flair that he brings to it. Sometimes in an exciting moment, I find myself trying to do Bill.'' Long-lasting impact To this day, every Warriors broadcaster finds himself compared to King, who hasn't done an NBA game in 15 years. Greg Papa called Warriors games on the radio for nearly a decade. ``I would be at a gas station or something and I would tell people what I did and they'd say, `Oh, Bill King does that,' '' Papa said. ``His power over this market is immense.'' Raiders fans clamored for King's return when the team moved from Los Angeles back to Oakland three years ago. King passed because he enjoyed the free time his baseball-only schedule allowed. He quit as the Raiders voice in 1992 after a falling out with the Southern California company that held the team's radio rights. ``It was very flattering,'' King said. ``But in my mind, once I did baseball alone, I wouldn't think of doing another sport, and that was the operative reason there.'' King is so happy with his schedule he has set no retirement date. Said King, ``It depends on whether I like what I'm doing, and whether I think--and I'm a fairly harsh personal critic-- I'm still good at it, and whether people think I'm still good at it, because that's the most important thing.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Mount Saint Helen's National Volcanic Monument Completion Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to acquire, by exchange, the mineral and geothermal interests of the Burlington Northern, Incorporated and the Weyerhaeuser Companies in the Mount Saint Helen's National Volcanic Monument in the State of Washington. We appreciate the interest of the Washington delegation to see this exchange executed as soon as possible, as the matter has been unsettled for too long. Therefore, we were pleased to learn that an appraisal agreement had been reached between the federal government and the private landowners involved. The negotiations have concluded with the Forest Service and Weyerhaeuser agreeing upon a value of $4.2 million. The Administration has indicated that they have no objection to the substitute bill which incorporates this agreement and is being offered today. Clearly, Burlington and Weyerhaeuser should be compensated for their mineral rights within Mount Saint Helen's National Volcanic Monument. Now that the Administration is no longer opposed to the bill because an agreed-upon value for the property has been accomplished and will be included in the bill, we see no reason to oppose the bill. We are in strong support of this legislation. The previous problems that they had with respect to value for the property have been worked out. We urge the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to commend the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) for his efforts to bring this matter before the committee and to the floor of the House. I also want to acknowledge the leadership role of Senator Bachus in developing this agreement, which contained both H.R. 3381 and a companion bill in the Senate. As the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) pointed out, this is the second phase of the congressionally authorized acquisition of checkerboard railroad grant lands in the Gallatin Range and other areas in western Montana near Yellowstone National Park. The first phase was authorized back in 1993, at which time we acquired 37,000 acres; and this would provide for 55,000 acres of really some of the most magnificent wildlife range and scenic areas in the western United States. In the second phase as set forth in the current bill, the Forest Service would gain an additional 55,000 acres in the Taylor Fork and other important fish and wildlife areas within the Gallatin National Forest. Recently, Forest Service exchanges have come under the scrutiny of the Department's Inspector General and generated controversy in Nevada, Washington, and other western states. In response, Chief Mike Dombeck has adopted new procedures which include review of appraisals and approval of land exchanges by the Washington office. I welcome this heightened scrutiny of land exchanges. I have long-standing concerns about abuses of land exchanges and prefer instead that the administration give greater emphasis to land purchases using the amply endowed Land and Water Conservation Fund. In this case, however, we are assured by the Forest Service that the exchange fosters the public interest by acquiring critical habitat for elk, moose, grizzly bear, and other fish and wildlife. These lands have significant economic value for public recreation. The agency considers the asset swap to be a fair deal for the taxpayers, based on appraisals which have been reviewed by the Chief Appraiser. And the agency has engaged in a thorough public process in developing this exchange and has submitted a detailed report to Congress. Mr. Speaker, we should recognize that it is very difficult to develop anything close to a consensus on many western public land use issues. To the credit of the Montana delegation, they have brought to us in this legislation an agreement which has been negotiated to the satisfaction of the Forest Service and Big Sky Lumber and which is supported by an array of diverse interests in Montana, including the Governor and environmental groups such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and The Wilderness Society. I urge adoption of the bill. I want to again thank all of the parties who worked so hard on this legislation and urge its passage. 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, and I rise in support of this legislation. (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 myself such time as I may consume. As the gentleman from American Samoa has noted and the gentleman from Oklahoma, this restores the provision of BIA and IHS services to members of the Kickapoo tribe in Oklahoma. This bill has strong bipartisan support. I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, this bill as has already been noted, restores the provision of BIA and IHS services to members of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, a largely migratory band of Indians, who often reside for part of the year in Maverick County, Texas. Although Congress took steps in 1983 to ensure that all Kickapoos living in Texas would be eligible for federal services, there was internal political friction among the Kickapoos residing in Texas that resulted in the formation of the federally-recognized Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas in 1989. Some of the Texas Kickapoos, namely those who refused to acknowledge the leadership of the Traditional Tribe, chose instead to remain affiliated with the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma. The problem that we are addressing today is how to ensure that the Kickapoos in Texas who remain affiliated with the Oklahoma Tribe retain the full rights and benefits of the trust relationship with the United States. In other words, we want to ensure that they receive appropriate IHS and BIA services, even when they are residing in Texas. The trick, of course, is to make sure that we don't diminish the limited resources of the Traditional Tribe of Texas. If there are Texas Kickapoos who chose to remain affiliated with the Oklahoma Kickapoos, then the costs of such services should be charged to the Oklahoma Kickapoos. That is why I am pleased that we are adding today a provision that clarifies that nothing in the bill will result in a diminishing of services to the Traditional Tribe or count as an independent authorization of funds for the Oklahoma Kickapoos. I understand that the Traditional Tribe of Texas has concerns about the trust status acquisition of lands for the Oklahoma Kickapoos so close to their own reservation, and again I am pleased that we are making a change today that clarifies that the Secretary is not mandated to take a 45-acre parcel of land into trust for the Oklahoma Kickapoos. Leaving the Secretary with discretionary authority will insure that the Traditional Tribe is appropriately consulted in the land acquisition process. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am truly sorry that Members were not allowed to offer amendments dealing with the IMF. I think the points made both by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the subcommittee, and by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, are absolutely the reasons why we should have had an opportunity to debate the funding level for the IMF. Mr. Chairman, I also find myself in a lot of agreement with what the gentleman from Alabama has said. I also wanted to offer an amendment to deal with the questions of the IMF funding policies with respect to their negative impacts that they have had on environmental resources and protection. My amendment would have required the International Monetary Fund to review proposed loans for their environmental impact. In 1989 and 1992, Congress passed laws telling the IMF to consider the environmental impacts of its policy. Unfortunately, IMF has not done so and the results have been disastrous in Indonesia and many other countries. In many cases with the IMF, one of the solutions that they pose to these countries is to export their way out of their difficulties. Not only does this provide severe competition to American jobs and manufacturing, but in many instances it enhances the environmental degradation that takes place in many of these countries, because much of what they have to export are resources that are extractive in nature. We have seen the disasters of the fires in Indonesia. We have seen the disasters in Guyana and other countries where they have rushed to export these materials without regard to the environmental impacts, and the same countries have later suffered environmental disasters as a result of those policies. Specifically, my amendment would have required the IMF to establish an environmental review process on all proposed loans before implementation; require the IMF to take into account the cost of unsustainable natural resource use; require that IMF loan agreements do not reduce or undermine the country's environmental standards; and, require that environmental reviews be made available to the public. This is consistent what this committee has done with respect to other international lending institutions. The gentlewoman from San Francisco (Ms. Pelosi) has been a very strong proponent of making sure that environmental impacts are part of the policies of the World Bank and other multilateral lending institutions, and the same ought to be true of the IMF. There are many, many other reforms that the gentleman from Alabama has referred to that have caused our constituents a great deal of concern, and that is why I wish the Committee on Rules had made in order some 12 or 14 amendments that were being offered by individuals on both sides of this debate. Our constituents are watching this debate. They are concerned about the use of these resources, and they are concerned about the international economy as it affects the United States. We should be debating that on the floor of the House. Unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the subcommittee chairman, for withholding on insisting upon his point of order, and I thank him for the opportunity to raise this issue to our colleagues.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, September 11 was the 25th anniversary of the military overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile, a country which had a long and democratic history. The National Security Archives has just released on the Internet dramatic documents they obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and elsewhere clearly showing the United States' efforts to overthrow the Chilean government. U.S. officials had maintained that they had no organized effort to topple Allende's government. In the end, the bloody 1973 coup that ushered in almost 20 years of brutal military dictatorship was the work of Gen. Augusto Pinochet and the Chilean Army under his command. They newly declassified documents, however, show extensive U.S. covert operations to try to prevent Allende from taking office in 1970, to encourage a military coup and to destabilize his government and the Chilean economy until the coup took place. During the subsequent congressional investigation of U.S. covert activities in Chile, then CIA director Richard Helms told Congress that the CIA and other national security agencies of the United States had not attempted to destabilize or overthrow the Allende government. Helms was later convicted in federal court for lying to Congress and was fined $2,000. The documents below clearly show that President Richard Nixon could not tolerate the presence of socialist President Allende, despite his having won office in a free and fair democratic election. This is what New York Times reporter Tim Weiner wrote about the documents in an article this past Sunday. ``They show how much the United States was committed to thwarting Mr. Allende even before he took office, and they illustrate a fact that was not well understood during the cold war: The CIA very rarely acted as a rogue elephant. When it plotted coups and shipped guns to murderous colonels, it did so on orders from the President.'' One of the most important things about the documents, however, is what is missing from them. It is widely believed that the United States has additional key documents that would help resolve ongoing legal battles concerning responsibility for acts of terrorism that took place on behalf of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile and around the world, including the United States. U.S. officials, however, continue to refuse to declassify or share with prosecutors in other countries these key documents. The United States, which has an avowed interest in the rule of law, the elimination of international terrorism, and the promotion of justice and democracy in Latin America and throughout the world, should make available documents that will reveal critical additional information concerning the perpetrators of crimes and human rights atrocities committed on behalf of Pinochet dictatorship. Below is a New York Times summary of the documents on the National Security Archives website (http://www.seas.gwu,edu/nsarchive/), as well as two newspaper columns from the Boston Globe and the Miami Herald about the significance of the anniversary of Chile's bloody coup and of these new documents. I commend these materials to my colleagues' attention. [From the New York Times, September 13, 1998] All the President Had to Do Was Ask; The C.I.A. Took Aim at Allende (By Tim Weiner) From 1970 to 1973, the United States sought to overthrow the Government of Chile and its democratically elected President, Salvador Allende, whom it deemed a Marxist threat to American interests. Under orders from President Richard M. Nixon, the Central Intelligence Agency mounted a full-tilt covert operation to keep Dr. Allende from taking office and, when that failed, undertook subtler efforts to undermine him. Those efforts ``never really ended,'' the C.I.A.'s director of operations at the time, Thomas Karamessines, later told Senate investigators. Twenty-five years ago this week, on Sept. 11, 1973, the Chilean military seized power. The junta, under Gen. Augusto Pinochet, ruled until 1990. Its death squads murdered more than 3,000 people, and it jailed and tortured thousands more. Chile is still trying to come to terms with the damage done to its democratic institutions. The declassified Government documents excerpted below were collected by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit research group in Washington that has sought to uncover secret records since 1985. They were posted on its website (www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive) on Friday. They show how much the United States was committed to thwarting Mr. Allende even before he took office, and they illustrate a fact that was not well understood during the cold war: The C.I.A. very rarely acted as a rogue elephant. When it plotted coups and shipped guns to murderous colonels, it did so on orders from the President. United States Ambassador Edward Korry, in a cable titled ``No Hopes for Chile,'' advised Washington on Sept. 8, 1970: Civility is the dominant characteristic of Chilean life . . . And civility is what makes almost certain the triumph of the very uncivil Allende. Neither the President nor the Armed Forces have the stomach for the violence they fear would be the consequence of intervention. The Ambassador followed up on Sept. 11 with a new cable, ``The Communists Take Over Chile.'' There is a graveyard smell to Chile, the fumes of a democracy in decomposition. They stank in my nostrils in Czechoslovakia in 1948 and they are no less sickening today. On Sept. 15, Richard M. Helms, Director of Central Intelligence, took handwritten notes at a White House meeting with President Richard M. Nixon, Attorney General John Mitchell, and the national security adviser, Henry M. Kissinger. 1 in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile!.. worth spending . . . not concerned risks involved . . . no involvement of embassy . . . $10,000,000 available, more if necessary . . . full-time job--best men we have . . . game plan . . . make the economy scream . . . 48 hours for plan of action. On Sept. 16, William V. Broe, chief of the C.I.A.'s Western Hemisphere division, met with Mr. Helms and other senior C.I.A. officers. The Director [of Central Intelligence] told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, the Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense. . . . The Director said he had been asked by Dr. Henry Kissinger . . . to meet with him on Friday, 18 September, to give him the Agency's views on how this mission could be accomplished. On Oct. 16, a cable went out from C.I.A. headquarters to Henry Heckscher, C.I.A. station chief in Santiago, Chile, who had doubts about the plots. It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the United States Government and American hand be well hidden. . . . Please review all your present and possibly new activities to include propaganda, black operations, surfacing of intelligence or disinformation, personal contacts, or anything else your imagination can conjure which will permit you to press forward toward our [deleted] objective. Plans were already in motion. Five days earlier, on Oct. 11, Mr. Broe sent this cable from C.I.A. headquarters to the Santiago station: SUB-MACHINE GUNS AND AMMO BEING SENT BY REGULAR [deleted]

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of a truly remarkable individual, Mr. Joseph M. Gomes. I know of no other person who has had such an all encompassing influence on his community. Joe's name is synonymous with the city he represents, and he cannot be denied the moniker, ``Mr. San Pablo''. Joe has made San Pablo his home for the greater part of 70 years. It is where he and his lovely wife, Mary, chose to settle and raise their family. Joe spent 35 years with American Standard and another 9 years with Phoenix Iron Works, before ending one career to pursue another. In 1980, Joe was elected to his first term on the San Pablo City Council, and a life of public service was born. Over the past two decades, Joe's leadership on the Council has guided San Pablo through a transformation from a small, isolated community to a thriving urban city--a city which celebrates its cultural diversity, neighborhood spirit and livability. But Joe is not content to simply fulfill the role of elected official. His commitment extends to active participation in virtually every local club or organization, from the Chamber of Commerce, the Exchange Club, the Eagles and the Moose Lodge to the Salesian Boys & Girls Club and the Brookside Community Health Clinic. Joe's work has always been led by his heart, his concern and caring for all members of his community. Through his selfless service and tireless involvement, Joe has personally touched the life of each and every resident of San Pablo. I am personally honored to call Joe Gomes a friend and a mentor. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I would like to salute him and his work.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute amendment for H.R. 3445. The amendment is, with minor changes, essentially the bill that was reported from the Resources Committee. It establishes a commission on ocean policy to assess the status of ocean and coastal resources and make recommendations on how we, as a nation, can make the best use of these resources while ensuring their availability to future generations. It calls for the President and Congress, after reviewing the commission's report, to develop a national policy to guide our ocean and coastal activities to those ends. While I support the bill before the House today, I remain concerned that restrictions placed on the scope of the commission's review may fetter the commission in making a comprehensive assessment of marine resources and the activities that affect them. If this is the result, then the ocean policy to be developed from the commission's recommendations will be the poorer for it. After all, the commission established by this bill will only make recommendations which Congress and the Administration are free to ignore. Yet up until the last minute there were attempts to further restrict the scope of review, thus restricting the intellectual freedom of the commissioners appointed, because of their expertise, to study our ocean and coastal resources. Particularly disturbing was an attempt to revisit issues dealt with unambiguously and decisively in Committee. Clearly there are those that would prefer that this bill not become law. Afraid to oppose it outright, they have tried to inflict the death of a thousand cuts. But as a result of the perseverance of Mr. Farr and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, those attempts have so far failed. The compromise before the House today preserves the fundamental principles of the bill that was introduced, while going the extra mile to address the concerns of some members about the breadth of the commission's authority. 1998 is the Year of the Ocean and this is bipartisan legislation to promote responsible use and stewardship of these resources. It's been 30 years since the United States had a thorough review of the oceans and Congress should take the lead in establishing an oceans policy for the 21st century. Again, I commend Mr. Farr and Mr. Saxton for all their hard work trying to keep this bill on track against long odds. This is good legislation and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the vote we take today to release the Starr report without the opportunity for the President to review and formulate his simultaneous response is fundamentally unfair. The charges alleged in this report are very grave. The admitted actions of the President are both serious and sober. But no matter what charges are made, the President is entitled to a fundamental fairness at every step of the process. This first step, the wholesale release of one-sided allegations and evidence to the media and the Internet violates that fairness. Every person in this chamber understands the ramifications of the instantaneous release of harmful information in both our political and justice system, the inability of any later considered response getting any type of equal attention. Surely there can be no harm in giving the President an opportunity to review the material before a proper and full public disclosure of the Starr report. The release of this information may very well be the first step in commencing the process of impeachment against an elected President of the United States of America. The fairness of that process should be preserved at every level. This rule fails to do so. The public is clearly entitled to this information, but it is our obligation to provide for its responsible release. The President must be held accountable both for his admissions of wrongdoing and for any proven charges of illegal behavior, but he must be accorded the rights and the fairness that this highest of constitutional responsibilities requires of each of us. The Committee on Rules has failed the first test of our Constitution, the test of fundamental fairness.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 2863. This bill changes a 60-year-old standard of strict liability for hunting migratory birds over bait, a standard that has provided effective protection of migratory birds from the overkill that can result from baiting. The law places the burden of guarding against unsportsmanlike hunting practices where it properly lies, with the hunter. This bill is a product of a few anecdotes, and we will likely hear some of them as we already have this morning. The real issue here is much broader. The important issue is whether or not in changing this law, as this bill proposes, will allow us to maintain the enforcement of the law against harming migratory birds. That is the purpose of this law. It is for the protection of the migratory birds, a protection that runs to the Nation generally, not just to the question of the activities of hunters. Notwithstanding these few anecdotal pieces of evidence, the supporters of this bill have not made a convincing case that there is a crisis that needs addressing. The paramount public interest in protecting migratory birds for all the American public, not just hunters, has traditionally warranted a high standard of protection embodied in strict liability and, with one exception, the courts have upheld this standard. In fact, when the Congress had an opportunity to review this in previous Congresses, they inserted the ``knowing'' standard with respect to felony activities under the Migratory Bird Treaty, but they did not do that with respect to the misdemeanor portions, which indicates clearly that Congress understood the importance of this provision of the law. The bill before the House today is an improvement over the bill as it was introduced, which would have substantially weakened the protection of migratory birds. The amendment makes it a violation to place bait for migratory birds if one knows it will be hunted over. This will make it easier to prosecute the real bad actors, that small number of property owners guides, and hunt club personnel who unlawfully try to improve hunting through baiting. However, a number of law enforcement personnel charged with protecting migratory waterfowl tell me that they think this bill is ill-advised and will seriously complicate their job of battling illegal hunting. I am very concerned that this bill ignores the views of the hard-working law enforcement people and makes sweeping changes in the law based on a few isolated cases. The Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of revising its baiting regulations to address legitimate concerns that have been raised by the hunting community. It strikes me that it would be appropriate to withhold action on this legislation to allow the service to promulgate those regulatory changes. For these reasons, and others, Madam Chairman, I oppose this legislation. I voted for this legislation as it has come out of the committee as it is presented here. I think it is an improved bill. But from discussions with those which are charged with enforcing this legislation, I think it has also become clear that there can be serious jeopardy attached to the passage of this legislation and the future of migratory birds. And that is certainly our first charge and our first concern. Let me also say that, as suggested very often, that this is all about innocent, innocent people. If you look in the back of even some of the anecdotal evidence that was submitted to the Congress and one of the cases about individuals that were arrested and prosecuted under this law, these were not exactly innocent individuals. Many of them knew full well and it was so incredibly obvious what had taken place in this field for the purposes of these hunts. I have hunted for many years, and let me say that people in the hunting community know very well those clubs that bait, those clubs that boast about it. Those clubs that have tried to increase their take by being responsible hunters do not go to those clubs. They do not participate in that activity. One of the reasons they do not is because of this law. But if they can go there and claim that they are ignorant of everything the land owner did, the club owner did, or the guide did, then they are free to continue that practice and claim ignorance under the law. Strict liability is not unconstitutional. It is not foreign to the Constitution. It has been upheld. In fact, it is a doctrine that we use very often. We use it with respect to this treaty. We use it with respect to governmental officials. That is how the Kesterson Reservoir was shutdown when unsafe practices were there with respect to water pollution because people knew that people would be put in jeopardy if they continued those practices to harm migratory birds. So I think, while this is a better piece of legislation than it was originally introduced, I think it interrupts a process that I think is more thoughtful and deliberative that the Fish and Wildlife Service is undertaking. I expect the desire to undertake that has been prompted by the introducing of this legislation by the chairman of our committee having these hearings and reporting this bill, and I think that they will, in fact, be responsive to that effort. At a minimum, I would think that this is the kind of legislation if we were to pass it we would want to provide for some kind of sunset so we had an ability to review the impact of this legislation. For those reasons and others, Madam Chairman, I will be opposing this legislation. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I too want to put a letter into the Record from the head of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, which indicates his enforcement staff, unlike that from the gentleman from Illinois, in our dueling letters here, his enforcement staff tells him that this would have a detrimental impact in Maryland's and the Nation's migratory bird resources. Finally, let me say, under current law, the baiter, if you will, can be prosecuted and, in fact, is prosecuted. But I do agree with the gentleman that that is an improvement, that is an improvement in the law. If the gentleman is going to add more letters, I am going to have to add more letters. We can submit these for the record, and we can all go on our merry way. This should not delay us from coming to a vote on this matter.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, it is interesting, because we set up a commission that is going to make these judgments. It is no skin off their tail, because all they are doing is handing out public lands and Federal assets to solve what they perceive to be a problem. So whether or not the claim is valid or just or what have you, it really does not matter to them because it is not coming out of their pocket. They are just coming, and if private parties injured one another or local governments injured one another, if the commission finds that to be the case, they just hand out a Federal remedy. They hand out Federal assets. It is an incredible process. This is like if the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I get into a fight, and whichever one of us loses, we pay them by dipping into your pocket. It does not make any sense. You were not a party to the fight. I can understand if people want to limit this to where the Federal Government was a party to the situation here, but that is not what this bill does. This bill makes the Federal Government liable for the actions of a lot of other people and entities that the Federal Government was not a party to. It is just incredible that we would allow people to go around and make a raid on the Treasury of the United States based upon actions that the Federal Government was not a party to. I thank the gentleman for raising that.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento)

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

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. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that it was suggested here that the claims are in New Mexico. The claims are in New Mexico because of this legislation. The fact is, there are over 14 million acres of land in California that are subject to the same kind of contest. And my colleagues should not believe for a minute, if this commission starts going around and handing out valid land claims that are not paid by the people who theoretically stole the land, which are not paid by the local government to prove the stealing of the land, if that is the case, but are going to be paid by the Federal Government that uses the public lands of this country as a piggy bank for people who want to establish claims on these lands. Do not think for a second that people are not going to ask that this be done in California, Arizona, Utah and elsewhere where millions of acres of lands and generations of historical ownership have been established. To suggest that this has been ignored up to this very moment, it has not been ignored. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has addressed it. The Congress has addressed it. These claims have been settled. The suggestion is that also somehow this is about a lot of people who are Mexican, Mexican-American, Hispanics who have been thrown off of the land and this is a minority issue. Many of the people in these lands are Hispanic families that have been on these lands for many, many generations. That is true in the Central Valley of California and Southern California and elsewhere. But the notion that somehow we can come along and decide that we are going to reopen all of these claims and if this commission decides that it is going to be valid, that we are going to reach into the public land base of the United States of America, the public lands that belong to all the citizens of America, and the notion of justice is that they have to pay, even though they were not party to the injustice. That is not justice. Justice is when people who are party to the injustice pay. But if the State of California created the injustice and the State of New Mexico created the injustice, and private landowners created the injustice by running people off of the land, why is that a Federal taxpayer problem? Why is the notion of justice over here the notion that we go into the Federal taxpayers' pocket and solve this problem? We just go into the national forests and the public lands and the BLM lands of this Nation and go in there to get justice. Why is that justice? No, Mr. Chairman, claimants ought to go to the people who harmed them. Let the State of California or the State of New Mexico dig into their treasury and their land base to solve these claims that they created. Let the private landowners let their heirs solve these problems, if that is what they did. Somehow now justice is being equated with the ability to get to the Federal land base or the Federal tax base. This commission, once they start handing out clouds on titles and making these determinations, when the Congress ever acts on them, there will be a host of people asking for commissions on California and the other western States that are affected by this and a whole host of attorneys that see it is pretty clear that it is no skin off of anybody's nose here because the way to settle this is to give the attorney 50 acres of public lands. Give them some forest lands. Make whatever settlement they want, because there are no rules of evidence here. No burden of proof. No established burden of proof. That is why the administration has sent up its statement of administration policy today which is in strong opposition to this legislation.

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