George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2538. This poorly- drafted piece of legislation does a disservice to the important issues involved here. This bill is also a very controversial measure which the administration strongly opposes. No one can tell us how many potential land grants or claims there may be or what Federal, state or private lands would be affected by this bill. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo covered all parts of present day California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming and Utah. We are creating here a new standard for the consideration of treaty claims in every one of those states. Although this legislation is limited to New Mexico, clearly the standard here has potential to be exercised with respect to those states, and it is a very poor standard and could proliferate and affect current land ownership in every one of those states. H.R. 2538 contains no legal standard or rules of evidence for the commission to apply. We have no idea as to the quality or the amount of evidence available in support of or to disprove these claims. This Congress certainly should be sensitive to the very real concerns about the conflict of interest involving who would serve on the commission charged with reviewing the claims. Should this quasi-judicial body include eligible descendants who might have issues before the commission? Should a commission charged with considering such sensitive and potentially inflammatory issues be allowed to receive gifts, especially from those who may benefit from the commission's decisions? While the rule for H.R. 2538 includes a self-executing amendment to strike the provision on the taxability of gifts to the commission, this correction fails to address the underlying problems of such gifts and potential conflicts of interest and the beneficiaries of the rulings of the commission that those gifts raise. Members should be aware that this bill deals not only with claims involving the Federal Government, but also claims involving actions of private parties and claims involving actions of a private party and a local government. This opens up the Federal Government to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in liability for actions that we were never a part of. We were never a party to these actions, and yet this legislation is asking us to open up the Federal Treasury to those actions. Why does this bill permit claims against Federal forest and other Federal assets to compensate for actions taken by state and local government or private parties? If state and local governments took actions which prejudice these individuals, which put these people at a disadvantage, then state and local governments ought to compensate these people, not the Federal Government. If private parties did this, then private parties ought to compensate these people, not the Federal Government. We are Uncle Sam, we are not Uncle Sucker, and this legislation suggests that we are the latter. This bill represents a very serious challenge to private property rights, which I find surprising coming from those who frequently assert the primacy of such rights when dealing with other legislation. In committee we attempted to limit the applicability of this act to public lands, but the majority defeated that amendment. So, under this bill, claims can be made against lands that are in private ownership, that have been in private ownership for generations. If claims against privately-held lands is upheld, once again the Federal Government is called upon to parcel out public resources to compensate the claimant, even though the Federal Government does not own the disputed land and may not have been involved in all of the actions that deprived the claimants' ancestors of the land. So, once again, in a dispute between two private individuals, the remedy here is to reach your hand into the Federal treasury, into the taxpayers' pocket, and suggest that we compensate those individuals, even though we were not involved in those proceedings. For those who do not think this bill will affect private property, I suggest you look again. Allowing land claim petitions to include private lands will cloud the title of those private properties. What will be the response of a title insurance company or a lending institution to private land that the commission has under review? Who suggests for a moment that that property right is going to be insured or the transfer of that land can take place or that money can be borrowed on that, given whatever the needs are of the owners of those lands? Title insurance, lending institutions, insist upon clear title. Once the commission has made a determination that there is potentially a valid claim, that claim can languish for many years and that property owner can be prejudiced during that entire process awaiting the determination of Congress. Let me say this, that these treaty claims are not new. There have been more than 200 court decisions involving the treaty, with the U.S. Supreme Court having decided almost half of the major cases. Nor has the Congress ignored the issue. In fact, Congress has dealt with these claims on several occasions, including passage of the 1891 Act that established the Court of Private Land Claims to deal specifically with land claims in New Mexico. As a result of these laws, 504 claims were confirmed by the Congress while hundreds of spurious, forged, antedated claims were dismissed. H.R. 2538 ignores this body of law, ignores these legal decisions, ignores the determinations of the Congress and reopens hundreds of these claims, hundreds of these claims, to new review by this commission. Madam Chairman, the interest of the public and many private parties, including any potential claimants, have been poorly served by this legislation. This is a politically inspired piece of legislation that is far from expediting the judicious review of legitimate claims. It will provoke a division and bias because the bill is so poorly drafted. H.R. 2538 represents a threat to private property, contains unwarranted conflicts of interest provisions, will cost the Federal taxpayers potentially hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars for actions that were taken by others, including State and local officials. Lastly, let me remind every Member that this legislation initially was written not to cover just New Mexico but also California, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming and Utah. If this flawed legislation is enacted, you can bet that the House will be called upon to pass similar legislation in these other States affecting millions of our constituents and raising justifiable concerns about their property rights and holdings. So this is not a free vote. It is a precedent that will come back to haunt us and to haunt our constituents and to haunt the Federal Treasury. So I urge that the House reject this piece of legislation. Finally, let me say this, that there is nothing that prevents people from filing these claims, from filing these claims against properties, and then simply waiting around for a financial settlement, because what you have done is you have impeded a person's ability to freely transfer their private property, to freely mortgage their private property, to pass it on to their heirs, to use it how they will, and then you simply wait for a financial settlement. There is no shortage of people, as we have seen in every one of these efforts, there is no shortage of people that make that decision that this is just a matter of raising enough obstructions, filing enough lawsuits, and the minute there is success here, if in fact there is success, then we will move on to these other States and we will be called upon to set up similar commissions and make the Federal taxpayers and the Federal Treasury a party to proceedings, to perhaps injustices, that they were never a part to. This is a Federal remedy for an action that the Federal Government was not involved in. I think we are about to repeat a very sad history and we are about to do a serious injustice to Federal taxpayers and a serious injustice to many private landowners that have believed, and properly so, that the title to their land was settled many, many generations ago. They once again now are all going to be exposed to this legal problem. You will not be able to answer this by walking in and just putting down your claim and saying, this is my property, it was my father's property, my grandmother's property and so forth. You will have to go out, get yourself an attorney, start that process, and a lot of people are going to find themselves in a position of jeopardy through no fault of their own, through no fault of the Federal Government, through no fault of their ancestors, but they will simply have to remove that cloud from their property. I do not think that is an action that this Federal Government ought to sanction. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in recognizing the retirement of the senior member of the California State Senate, Sen. Ralph Dills. Sen. Dills will leave office at the end of the year, and in August completed his last session in a career that began 60 years ago. I had the pleasure to know Sen. Dills when I worked as an intern and a staff person in the state Senate in the 1960s and 1970s. A colleague of my father, who was himself a senator then, Sen. Dills was even in those days an institution in Sacramento, and he certainly remains one today. We all honor his devotion to public service and to the people of the state of California. I would like to submit an editorial from the Sacramento Bee that pays tribute to this distinguished legislator and Californian, and I know all members of this Congress join me in honoring his career. [From the Sacramento Bee, Sept. 2, 1998] Ralph Dills Bows Out: Senator Was the State's Longest-serving Lawmaker Franklin Roosevelt was serving his second term as president when Ralph Dills was first elected to the California Legislature in 1938. President Clinton wasn't yet born, nor were most lawmakers with whom Dills now serves. Dills arrived in Sacramento from Long Beach, a liberal New Deal Democrat and staunch friend of labor, and he departs 60 years later much the same way. In 1949, he left the Assembly to accept a judgeship, but 17 years later he was elected to the Senate, where he has been ever since, often presiding over sessions, a chore he relished. One of Dills' proudest achievements was authoring the law that created Long Beach State University; another was the 1977 measure that gave collective bargaining rights to state workers. In speeches lauding him last week, fellow lawmakers remembered that Dills was among a small minority of legislators who opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. As a senator, Dills presided over the influential Governmental Organization Committee. The panel handles liquor, horse racing and gambling legislation and has traditionally been a channel for large campaign contributions that Dills used to help keep himself and his fellow Democrats in power. In his later years, Dills was known less for his legislative prowess than for his colorful attire, purple- tinted hair and saxophone playing. Reapportionment had pushed his district westward, from a gritty inland neighborhood to a more upscale coastal area, forcing him to acquire an environmental sensitivity he'd never shown before. He was 88, ailing and in a wheelchair when he cast his last votes in the Legislature late Monday. However he is ultimately rated, term limits ensure that Ralph Dills' durable presence in Sacramento is unlikely to be repeated.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to ten outstanding environmental leaders in the San Francisco Bay Area who recently were rightly named by the Contra Costa Times as ``Ten Natural Treasures.'' These men and women--some of them my constituents, some activists with whom I have had the honor to work--have fought tenaciously to protect and preserve not only the resources and the environment of the Bay Area, but also the health and safety of the millions of people who call this very special region our home. Their vision and their dedication establish how determined individuals can change our society for the better, and preserve its treasures for generations to come. I would like to submit the August 31, 1998 editorial from the Contra Costa Times, and ask all my colleagues to join in recognizing these outstanding environmental leaders. Ten Natural Treasures Last week Times staff writer James Bruggers profiled 10 Bay Area environmentalists--citizen activists--who have left an indelible mark on this glorious area. They are residents who made a tremendous difference in the landscape--literally and figuratively. Their efforts have changed how we think about open space, clean water and the ecology of our home. Some of them--such as David Brower--are national stars of the movement. Others have made just as significant contributions but at a more local level. For the record, they are: David Brower, 86. He's considered the patriarch of the American environmental movement. Once a leader of the Sierra Club, he parted ways with the group in 1969 and formed Friends of the Earth and Earth Island Institute. Margaret Tracy, 75. She cofounded the Preserve Area Ridgelines Committee, envisioning a network of trails connecting East Bay open spaces. Dwight Steele, 84. He was a successful lawyer who chucked it all to devote his legal mind to environmental laws through pro-bono work. He fought to keep San Francisco Bay waters open and Lake Tahoe free of pollution. Silvia McGlaughlin, 81. She helped found the Save San Francisco Bay Association, essentially protecting it from infill and development. Robert Stebbins, 83. His scientific work was the basis for the California Desert Protection Act, passed Congress in 1994. Mary Bowerman, 90ish. A co-founder of Save Mount Diablo, she is a botanist who worked to expand the Mt. Diablo State Park's lands. Will and Jean Siri, late 70s. They fought for environmental justice in poor East Bay communities. The Siris helped give residents living near refineries a political voice. Manfred Lindner, 78. He pressed for Morgan Territory and Las Trampas regional parks. Edgar Wayburn, 91. He tenaciously pushed for establishing Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin and San Francisco. These 10 individuals left their footprints on the West. They fought, argued, lobbied and persuaded residents and their legislators that the Bay Area is full of natural treasures worth preserving. It was our responsibility--and to our benefit--to treat them and their deeds with respect. They saw where disregard of the environment would lead. They grabbed the wheel and insisted we change course. They resolved to preserve the integrity of the Bay Area so that it would still be noted for its uniqueness and its beauty for generations. We thank these people, these visionaries, for their efforts. Indeed their sweat equity has paid off. Yet despite their youthful energy, these trailblazers won't be leading the charge much longer. Their ages attest to that. Looking beyond the next few years, we wonder whether the next generation is up to the task. Will leaders come forward to carry the banner into the next millennium? The answer, of course, must be yes. Otherwise, all of the work of these environmental pioneers will have been in vain. Environmental issues of tomorrow include safe and sufficient water supply, suburban sprawl, the competing needs of endangered species and private property rights, old growth forests, our oceans, and the biggie, overpopulation. The challenges are plenty and the opportunities grand for those with the courage, tenacity, devotion and vision to accept them. We salute these men and women and suggest that they are in and of themselves, treasures.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was reminded when the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) talked about people going in and out of this building, people go to the Federal buildings very often seeking help, compassion and understanding. Very often their arguments are not recognized with dignity. Hopefully people will understand that this building and the people who work in it, it is named for a man who gave dignity to people's arguments and concerns, even when he so strongly disagreed with them. Ron Dellums used to say that he arrived in Congress as an Afro-top bell-bottom militant from Berkley, and he rose to become chairman of the Committee on National Security. One of the amazing things was after he became chairman of the Committee on National Security, where there were serious disagreements about military policy, national policies, the future, procurements and all this, the people who disagreed with him so much on the issues commented how fairly they had been treated by him in those hearings and how fairly they had been treated in front of the Committee on Rules, because he believed that people should be able to and that this body could only function if people were allowed to bring amendments to the floor and have a free and fair and open debate on those issues. So when we name this building for Ron Dellums, we do so in the spirit of what should be the best about the Congress of the United States, what should be the best about public service, and what should be the best about public servants looking at their constituents and recognizing their dignity and recognizing their needs and understanding the need to be heard on their arguments, even when you disagree with them. So, again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for bringing this legislation to the floor, because I think here truly we do honor the best of the Federal Government when we seek to name this building after Congressman Ron Dellums.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and urge the House to pass it. I am proud to have authored this legislation to name the Federal building in Oakland, California, after Ronald V. Dellums, the man who represented the people of Oakland and Berkeley in Congress for 2\1/2\ decades. The people who will go in and out of this building with Ron's name on it can take pride in knowing that Ron cared about them, he fought for them, and he left a mark in Congress and this country in their names. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, for scheduling the bill on the floor today. And I also would like to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), for their support in the full committee and to thank the full committee chairman and ranking member the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their support of this legislation. I also want to acknowledge the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his coauthorship of this bill. And I would like to thank Senator Barbara Boxer for passing this legislation in the Senate in June. Ron Dellums was truly a unique Member of Congress. His passion was his fuel, and his passion did not blind him. He was clear, incisive, instructional, and inspirational. He was a tireless champion. I know I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that rarely a day passes that I do not remark on how I miss his presence in this body. Ron Dellums was always known to be the best-dressed Member of Congress. He was known as one of the Congress' great orators, colorfully and articulately dancing in the well of the House to draw support for his positions. And he is known as one of the greatest advocates for peace, justice, and human rights. Ron Dellums has been our modern-day drum major for peace. He saved us from many weapons systems that we did not need, could not afford, and probably could not control. As a titan in the movement for human rights, 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. 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. And Congressman Ron Dellums served the people of America and fought for human rights around the world. He did not bid for the monied special interests that prey on Congress to answer their every narrow need. And he is always there to help his friends. When it came time to downsize the military establishments in the Bay Area and across the United States, Ron fought to ensure the base closure process was fair and expeditious. He also made sure that in fact it was about economic conversion and the communities that were affected by base closing. Perhaps in naming this Federal building in Oakland will serve as an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the challenges that Ron Dellums championed. Maybe if we learn to carry the convictions of a more just society with us and to work every day as he did, just maybe we will be able to make America an even better place and a world just a bit safer. With passage of this bill today, I look forward to the President's signature in naming the Federal building in Oakland after Ronald V. Dellums, Congressman, brother, and champion to us all.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleagues that yesterday marked the eightieth birthday of our former colleague, John F. Seiberling of Ohio, and to take note of his many accomplishments during his tenure in this body. A native of Akron and grandson of the founder of the Goodyear Tire and Seiberling Rubber companies, John Seiberling decided in 1970, at age 52, after 3 years of distinguished World War II military service, 5 years of private law practice and 17 years at Goodyear, to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, primarily because of his deep concern over continuation of the U.S. involvement in the Viet Nam War. He quickly established himself as a leader in the ultimately successful effort to end the U.S. involvement, and was elected Chairman of Members of Congress for Peace Through Law, later known as the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus. In 1973 he joined the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, where I had the pleasure of serving with him for a number of years. As a member of that committee he played a leading role in the 6-year battle to enact federal legislation to restore damage caused by surface coal mining and prevent further environmental degradation, which culminated with enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. As Chairman of the committee's Public Lands Subcommittee, he also became a leader on land conservation and historic preservation and managed legislation that doubled the size of the national park system and quadrupled the size of the wilderness system, including the addition of more than 100 million acres of Alaska's most spectacular land. He also spearheaded the enactment of the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area Act, creating Ohio's first and only national park. In 1986, he decided not to seek re-election, but he had crowded a lifetime of accomplishments into his 16 years of service to this House, to his constituents and to the American Public. After his retirement, he resumed the practice of law in Akron and also assumed an endowed chair at The University of Akron School of Law. But he has also found time to continue working on the causes he held dear as a member of this body through his service on the Board of Directors of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a non-profit organization he and other Members founded to provide timely and credible information to Congress on environmental, energy and natural resource issued. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting John F. Seiberling, a Congressional giant, and wishing him many happy returns of the day.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce, by request, the Indian Trust Fund Judicial Procedure Act on behalf of the Intertribal Monitoring Association (ITMA). Earlier this session I introduced legislation to address the Indian trust fund problems as proposed by the Administration. The legislation I am introducing today would set up a temporary court to address claims against the United States regarding tribal trust funds. A Special Master would be appointed and staffed to get as much information as possible together on all trust fund accounts and activity in order to come up with a formula to then apply to each account for restitution. The problems with the Indian trust fund accounts is one I have worked on for much of my time in Congress. It it complex and controversial. I believe that this legislative approach by the ITMA and its member Indian tribes will continue the debate begun with the Administration's approach on how to come to a resolution regarding the Indian trust fund accounts held by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Rosie the Riveter National Park Service Affiliated Site Study Act of 1998.'' This legislation authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study to determine if the Rosie the Riveter Park located in Richmond, California meets the requirements of being nationally significant to become an NPS Affiliated Site. Rosie the Riveter Park is located on the Richmond waterfront on the site of Kaiser Shipyards where the Liberty and Victory ships were built during World War II. These ships were built almost entirely by women who took over shipbuilding jobs to replace men who went off to war. Quickly these women became know as ``Rosie the Riveter'' and ``Wendy the Welder'' as their numbers grew and their competency as shipbuilders became well known. These ``Rosies'' and ``Wendys'' built some 747 ships which were immediately commissioned into the U.S. Navy and sent to fight in the war. Their individual and collective stories are rich with excitement of being involved in producing the Liberty and Victory ships, as well as the realities of facing numerous new fears. We must remember that prior to this time, most women did not enter the work force, especially once married with children. With their husbands off to war, they were faced with the responsibility of providing food and shelter for their families alone. Encouraged by the familiar slogan of ``We can do it'' and the lure of salaries never before offered to women, thousands of women of all ethnicities flocked to the town of Richmond in search of jobs not previously available to them. Realizing the value of the women workers, many shipyards including Kaiser conducted around the clock day care centers and schools on site so the mothers could work knowing their children were well cared for nearby. Some perceive this as a new concept that is cost prohibitive for business, but it was just the regular order for shipyards during this time. With the support of the City Council and in particular Councilperson Donna Powers, the City of Richmond in my district has dedicated the Rosie the Riveter Park to honor all the women of the World War II effort. Plans to erect a monument remnant of the Liberty and Victory ship are underway as are collections of oral histories from the women workers. Mr. Speaker, I was honored to be among so many of the former ``Rosies'' and ``Wendys'' at the kickoff for the memorial on October 5, 1996. Many told me of the fears they had working deep in the bowels of a huge ship or dangling over the side in order to do their job. Several stated that when the fear enveloped them, they would think of their loved ones in the war and just keep moving. This feeling of connection with the men fighting on the ships caused the workers to try for perfection with each task. What little safety and protective equipment existed in the 1940's was made for men and tended not to give the same protection to the women who used them. Numerous women still bear the scars they received during such unprotected work. I learned so much from talking with the women about their experiences and quickly realized that these stories are part of who we are as a nation and must be preserved for generations to come. Rosie the Riveter Park and the history it represents should be designated an affiliated area to the National Park Service and I'm confident that the study proposed in my legislation will come to the same conclusion. I hope the Congress will move quickly to enact this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members of the House of Representatives want to join me and the Contra Costa community in saluting one of the most dedicated and generous men I have ever known, Guillermo ``Bill'' Muniz, who will be honored at two public ceremonies this weekend for his outstanding contributions to youth and the future of our region. Bill is a legend. His New Mecca restaurant is a legend. His generosity to children, to athletic teams, to his community of Pittsburgh, to education--the list is virtually endless--is the stuff of legend. For three decades, Bill Muniz has operated more than a restaurant. The New Mecca serves as his control center for a never- ending, community-wide program of supporting schools and volunteers, sports teams and a remarkable cross-section of northern California. Bill's generosity is as fabled as his enchiladas and burritos, and just as gratifying. No one asked Bill to donate thousands of meals for church fundraisers or to feed workers clearing the Bay Bridge after the Loma Prieta earthquake; no one asked him to help feed the volunteers at the Polly Klauss Foundation. Bill pitched in because he loves his community. it is with that same spirit that he has catered the local professional sports teams that now consider New Mecca dinners a major advantage of being located in the Bay Area. For years, a lunch at the New Mecca with friends has been my tradition on Election Day, and on those occasions as on any other day that you enter this deceptive storefront in downtown Pittsburg, the restaurant is a hive of activity, with counter and booths packed and overflowing, waitresses racing through the crowd, and presiding over it all with an enormous smile on his face, Bill Muniz, who is never too busy to talk about his plans for his community is excited and upbeat words. ``I go to schools, I talk about the opportunities they have,'' Bill is quoted as saying. ``I believe in dreams. I also believe people have to work for them.'' And he has worked hard, since arriving more than 30 years ago from Guadalajara where he was an internationally recognized cyclist. He worked as a delivery boy, in canneries, in a chocolate factory and elsewhere before becoming the owner of the New Mecca in the 1960s and building it into a legendary institution in downtown Pittsburg. So it is fitting that this weekend, the public square near the New Mecca will be dedicated to Bill Muniz, whose efforts have brought thousands of people to downtown Pittsburg and helped revitalize an entire city. And it is also appropriate that the Chicano Latino Academies Reaching Out (CLARO) will be naming its new computer center in nearby Brentwood for Bill in honor of his dedication to children, education and the community. This is far from the first time Bill has been recognized for his civic contributions. He has been Pittsburg's Man of the Year (1978), UCSSO Mexican American of the Year (1980), original member of the Contra Costa Hall of Fame (1988), Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Member of the Year (1992), City of Concord Commendation (1995), California State Senate Commendation (1995), and many more awards and recognitions. In 1995, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors declared November 3 ``Bill Muniz Day'' to recognize his longstanding service to our community. And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join in saluting a man who has lived the American Dream because of his own hard work and community spirit, and who now is doing so much to make that dream a possibility to others who are prepared to follow his example. He is a truly special and gifted man whose public enthusiasm for his community is as great as his personal modesty. I am lucky to call Bill my friend, and that is a genuine honor I share with thousands who will join to honor him for his many contributions and services.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today the ``Tax Assistance for Children with Chronic Medical Conditions Act'' which will enable the parents of children with ongoing medical conditions to participate in medical conferences that provide timely information for the treatment of their children's health. I am delighted to have as original co-sponsors of this bill Representatives Waxman, Hilliard, Frost, Moran, Pelosi, Carson, Sandlin, Furse, Farr, Stark and McNulty. This legislation will, at an extremely minimal cost, facilitate the ability of parents whose children have chronic medical conditions to attend conferences, meetings and conventions at which physicians and other health and service providers provide them important information not otherwise available to them. Under current law, the expenses of attending such a conference is not deductible for a parent. Everyone else attending the meeting--the physicians, the vendors, the association members--can deduct the cost of travel and lodging except the parent and child who are directly affected. There are many areas of this country where access to state-of-the-art treatment and diagnostic capabilities are simply not available to physicians or to patients. For that reason, organizations that work on behalf of those with chronic illnesses and other conditions hold annual or biennial conferences at which researchers, physicians, vendors of mechanical and other equipment and others provide their latest information for each other. Parents often are encouraged to attend these meetings with their children to learn about the latest treatment techniques. For many, this is their only capability to have access to this level of medical expertise, and we should encourage their ability to participate in such conferences. My legislation would create a $500 per year deduction for a parent and child to attend such conferences. Deductible expenses would include travel, lodging, registration and meals while attending the conference. I would hope that Members will support enactment of this inexpensive but important provision that will benefit children with chronic medical conditions and improve both their medical treatment and their quality of life.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment for clean campaigns. I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who is here on the floor this morning and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for all of their efforts to pass the Shays-Meehan bill. It is a historic step in campaign finance reform, it is a historic step for this House to pass it and hopefully in September the Senate will find the courage to do the same and the President will sign that bill. But even after the signing of that bill and that historic reform, we are still left with the system that requires the addiction of politicians to special interest money. We are still left with the system where Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate are required every day to go to the Republican headquarters or to the Democratic headquarters and get on the phone and call people they do not know who represent special interests and ask them for $1,000 or $5,000 to fund their campaigns, then come back here when the bell sounds for a vote and vote for or against those very same parties. Nobody in America believes that that is a pure system. Nobody in America believes that that is a system without conflicts of interest. And nobody in America believes that that is a system that is not corroding and not corrupting the democratic principles of the House of Representatives and of the United States Senate of this country. That is why we have got to take the next step. We have got to take the next step toward clean money and clean campaigns. That is what the Tierney legislation does. That is what the people of Vermont and the people of Maine have said they want. They want to break this link between special interest contributions and the phone calls that their members in the State legislatures had to make and all of the visits and all of the parties to raise this special interest money. They said, ``We had rather put up our own money and make sure you're working for us as opposed to the special interests.'' That is what the Tierney legislation does. I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his effort on this legislation. People will tell you that you can never have public financing of campaigns, that the public will never go for it. What makes them think the public is going for the system we have today? Every campaign cycle, we raise more and more money from the special interests and every campaign cycle we spend more and more money on the elections, and every campaign cycle fewer and fewer Americans show up to vote, because they do not believe it is on the level. They do not believe that challengers have a chance. They do not believe that the incumbents are listening to them. They do not believe when people are elected to office that they represent them. They believe that they represent the $1,000 contributor, the $5,000 contributor, the $100,000 contributor. They are not too far wrong. That is why we need the clean campaign, clean money bill. That is why we need to break this addiction to special interest money and that is why we need the Tierney bill. I want to commend the gentleman for having the courage to offer this legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. What a radical notion, a radical notion, that the people we represent might decide that they do not want to procure in local government articles made with slave labor or made with child labor, or that they would want to keep their food clear of illegal pesticides and toxic materials as the State of California has done. What a terrible, radical notion to scare the opponents of this amendment. The people that we represent would band together and decide these decisions and make these decisions. They were far ahead of the Federal Government on the issue of South Africa. If the World Trade Organization was around then, Nelson Mandela would never be out of prison. We have to encourage our citizens to take these actions to protect their activities, to protect their food supply and to protect human rights.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for withdrawing the amendment and appreciate the concerns he has raised about further refinement of this amendment and legislation. I also want to raise concerns about the treatment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act under the provisions of the amendment as written, and would hope that they would take into consideration the fact that that is the Federal regulatory agency for the regulation of Indian gaming.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me correct what is being proposed this year by this polling plan of the President. He is intentionally not going to count 10 percent of the people initially. He is not going to go out and count everyone. In 1990, they tried to count everyone. They got 98.4 percent of the people. And, yes, we are not going to count everyone, we are going to miss a few people, but we need to do everything that we can to reach that 100 percent level. But this time around they are only going to count 90 percent of the people intentionally. They are intentionally going to not count 10 percent of the people. Then they are going to do this second sample. That is correct. They are going to count 90 percent of the people.

Mr. MILLER of California. No, that is not true. Reclaiming my time, that is absolutely not true. They are intentionally, intentionally going to not count 10 percent of the people and then use this ICM, this sample, to try to impute what the numbers are. That is where the problem of sampling is. They are going to have 60,000 separate samples to get to that 90 percent number. It is extremely complex. GAO, Inspector General are both saying it is a high-risk plan.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I rise in support of his motion to instruct conferees to maintain the House position that he has offered. The House has passed a clean energy and water bill without controversy over antienvironmental legislative riders which have bogged down Interior and other appropriations bills. The Vento motion to instruct would put the House on record in opposition to a $20 million Alaska grant program which has been included as a rider in the Senate bill. It is my understanding that the original intent of authorizing these funds was for the purpose of improving sanitation, drinking water and other basic needs of remote native villages in Alaska. Let me clearly state that I recognize the serious problems in rural Alaska and support responsible congressional efforts to address them. But the Senate rider, as presently drafted, is not limited to using Federal funds to meet priority needs of native Alaskans. Instead, the Senate would empower a five-person commission to develop a statewide, comprehensive plan for economic and infrastructure development. No native Alaskan nor rural Alaskan is directly appointed to the commission. Rather, the Chamber of Commerce, the Alaskan Municipal League, the university president, all of which are urban dominated, are given a vote in distributing $20 million in federally funded grants with no strings attached. Let us not allow ourselves to be fooled here. This is a blank check to use Federal funds to promote road building, resource extraction and other favorite causes of development proponents in Alaska. This is a recipe for federally funded antienvironmental mischief. The Senate would spend $20 million in Federal funds for Alaska development grants in 1999 and authorizes unlimited amounts for the next 4 years. So the next 4 years we would see a repeated habit of the Senate adding money for this purpose as the appropriations bills come from the Senate. As the gentleman who has offered this motion points out, we have not been stingy with Alaska. In 1996, they insisted upon $110 million in emergency economic disaster relief in southeast Alaska communities impacted by the closure of two pulp mills because of poor markets. Some of that money was used to hire lobbyists to come down here and ask for more money. I think what we have seen here, that is $110 million, now there is $20 million for this study. Then there is open-ended appropriations for the next 4 years. I do not think that the taxpayers of this country can afford to do business this way. I do not think that we can ask for another $20 million. If this was important, then why did they not use some of the $110 million we gave them 2 years ago to do economic and infrastructure studies? I would also point out very clearly, as the gentleman who offered this motion has pointed out, and, that is, Alaska has a permanent fund of $23 billion. That $23 billion fund is supposed to be there in perpetuity for the future of Alaska and its residents. I have no problem with that. But maybe Alaska and its residents concerned about their economic development in the future could find it in their heart to spend $20 million of their $23 billion for the purposes of ensuring the kind of infrastructure and development that they think they need to go into the future. This is a permanent fund that is currently spinning off $1,300 for every man, woman and child who is a resident of the State of Alaska. That is fine. That is what they decided to do with the fund. But because they decided to have the fund make those expenditures does not mean that the Federal Government and all of the rest of the taxpayers of this country need to come in and fill behind those decisions with $20 million in a study that is very loosely constructed and without limitations as to the future appropriations for it. I think it is fair to ask the State legislature to step up to the plate and contribute to addressing the problems of rural Alaska, but the Senate rider does not even require matching funds from the State of Alaska. In the State of California, we have huge infrastructure problems, we have huge problems trying to meet our water needs, our transportation needs, our airport needs, all the things that so many of us in other States experience. But we are not getting $20 million from the Federal Government to study that and we are not getting 4 years of unlimited appropriations to study that in the future. Clearly, there ought to be some effort to try to focus this study on the problems of rural Alaska. There ought to be some effort to have the State match the money for this study. There are many, many studies and many, many projects in this bill that are worthwhile. But local communities are matching those, States are matching those, private organizations are matching that. This one is simply a free gift of $20 million to the State of Alaska. I would urge Members to support the Vento motion.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Waxman amendment. This is the amendment that would allow the agencies covered by this bill to continue to carry out the laws of the land, as is their constitutional responsibility. What we see in this legislation, whether it is in legislative language or whether it is report language, is we see a continuation of an assault by the Republican Party of the environmental laws of this country, the very basic, basic fundamental laws of this country, clean air and clean water. They tried it once in a frontal assault in 1995. They were turned back by the minority in the Congress, and they were turned back by the American public. Since that time they have been having tree planting days, they have recognized the African elephant, they have tried to recognize the Year of the Ocean, and they have had Tropical Rain Forest Week, all of which was to suggest that they were environmentalists. They have issued instructions to the Republican majority to plant trees, invite the press, try to show up at environmental events, to give themselves a ``green'' look. But when it comes to the hard ball legislation, they are right back at it. In this bill, what they seek to do is to keep the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America from doing its job. What is its job? It is to protect the American public from the polluters who would pollute our waterways, our lakes and our streams, our recreational areas; it is to protect the American public from the polluters who would pollute our air as it moves across all jurisdictions. It is a national problem. Emissions in one area cause cancer and in another area cause asthma and in another area cause children to have serious health disruptions. That is what its job is, is to protect Americans. It is the Environmental Protection Agency. It is to make sure that in fact Americans have the ability to have a quality of life that they think that they are entitled to. Maybe the Republicans do not support the Environmental Protection Agency, but over 80 percent of the American public supports the Environmental Protection Agency, because they know that it is all that stands between them and the corporate greed of the polluters, the same polluters who have polluted our streams and polluted our water, the huge corporate farms that pollute the waters of the central valley or the waters of the Midwest now as they run huge hog operations, the same polluters who dump into the Chesapeake Bay. They were not turned back by voluntary action. San Francisco Bay was cleaned up and is being cleaned up because of the EPA. The Chesapeake Bay is being cleaned up because of the EPA. The Great Lakes are being cleaned up because of the EPA. The air today is cleaner in California than it was 20 years ago because of the EPA. Now they want to strip that. Why? Because we have a very effective and tough administrator. They have dragged her up here time and again in front of numerous committees to beat up on her, and most of them do not have enough comprehension of the subject matter to ask a question. But they are going to continue to do it. It is a little disingenuous, unless one just showed up in Congress in the last week or two to say, well, this is just report language. No, this is not just report language, this is a means by which, in a few months from now, if EPA does not do what they want to do, they will drag them up in front of the committees; they will accuse them of not carrying out the will of the Congress; they will beat up on the administrator; they will beat up on the regional people; they will tell them they are exceeding their authority. Why? Because they are trying to get to the Election Day, when they think they can take over the presidency and get rid of EPA. So they want to delay all of these projects, the cleanup of the Hudson River, the brownfields, the cleanup of the Superfund sites, the mercury emission standards, and all of the rest of it. They are trying to delay that. Why? Because their corporate clients want them to delay that, because they think they will get a better shake after the next presidential election. This is fundamental politics. This is about our environment. This is about whether our children have a safe home, a safe environment and a safe school, because nobody volunteered to clean it up. They had to be taken to court and they had to have regulations issued, and that has been the 30-year history of this agency. It is what has made America better, it is what has made our schools safe, it is what has given our children the chance to have a decent neighborhood and to breath clean air, to reclaim the rivers that when I came to Congress were on fire, rivers we could not touch. When I came to Congress, they told us, ``Don't touch the Potomac River.'' Today people water ski and they have crew races. That is because of the EPA. Now, the oil companies do not like it, and the chemical companies do not like it, and the mining companies do not like it, and the big farmers do not like it. Who gives a damn? The American people like it. The American people like it, because they can see the tangible benefits. So let us not pretend that this amendment somehow is only report language, that this is just an innocent effort.

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is not an innocent effort. This is going around through the back door, because politically they are afraid to go through the front door because they were turned back by the American people. When the American people understood what the Republicans meant by regulatory reform, they overwhelmingly rejected it and it was abandoned. The American people know a good deal when they see it, and the Environmental Protection Agency is a very, very good deal for the American public. It is a very, very good deal for the health of the American public, and it is a very, very good deal for the health of the American environment.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)