George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, if my time has not expired, the problem is when I look at the polling numbers, if I said ``the Senate majority leader'' no one in the country knows who I am talking about.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Saxton and Mr. Abercrombie for introducing H.R. 1787, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997. Unfortunately, it appears as if the programs this legislation will promote are needed now more than ever. Many of us have expressed our concerns about the decision made at the recent Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora [CITES] to downlist several populations of African elephants. At that meeting, which I attended, many representatives from elephant range states expressed their concern about the downlisting, fearing that it would send a signal to poachers that the ivory trade was about to resume. Sadly, it now seems their concerns were justified. Several of the elephant range states have experienced increased levels of poaching leading up to, and following the CITES decision, which is exactly why some of these range states opposed the downlisting proposal. The Asian elephant has not escaped this slaughter. At the CITES conference, the representative from India stated his country's opposition to the downlisting because of the impact it would have upon the elephants in that country which is home to 50 percent of the Asian elephant population. In June and July of this year--following the CITES conference--poachers killed 20 Asian elephants in India, raising India's total poaching numbers to 52 for the first half of 1997. This is an increase in poaching activity over recent years, and when combined with habitat loss and other factors, does not bode well for the future of Asian elephants. The Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 deserves our support. H.R. 1787 will support projects that focus on protecting wild populations of Asian elephants against poaching, habitat loss, and human-elephant conflicts. This legislation promotes both fiscal efficiency and public participation by working to obtain the greatest leverage for U.S. taxpayer dollars by giving funding priority to those projects that will generate matching funds and cooperative projects. Furthermore, based upon the experiences of the similarly structured African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, the programs funded by this legislation should prove highly effective. Our own Endangered Species Act recognizes the critical importance that protecting species' habitat plays in the long term survival of that species. Our goal should be to restore healthy populations of all animals in the wild by fighting poaching and protecting habitat--H.R. 1787 is a good start for doing this for Asian elephants.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. My two colleagues have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this. First of all, this leaves our public lands and the damage to public lands and the threat to public lands open to a policy by filibuster, by Senate holds, and by obstructionists. Those would be the people who win in the debate against protecting and creating the national monuments. The second point, as the gentleman said, there is no mining here. Well, there is mining. In fact, in the Grand Canyon there was previously. But this is a generic law. This is not about these lands, this million 7, this is about lands in the future that may be declared monuments where there are serious issues over water rights, where there are mining claims, where there are all these issues. If we give 30 days notice, we will have a gold rush out there for people who think they can come back and jack up the Federal Government for these things, because we deal with that in this committee and have for years and years and years by people who think they can then extract something from the Federal Government if they file a claim. So, remember this, we are not writing a law about Utah. We are writing a law about the United States of America, and there are many assets that people would find valuable and would try to perfect and would try to hold up the Federal Government. So whether or not there is water in this particular area that would be in contention or not does not speak to this law. That is why the 30-day notice provision and the 2-year provision is simply bad public policy, because it leads into the policy of filibuster, the policy of hold rather than debate and action.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. As many of my colleagues have said, it is unnecessary, and it is premised on a misleading argument that it will open the door to wanton acts by the President of the United States. There is no history in this act that that is the case. In fact, this President acted properly, within the law, within the act, and in the best interests of the American people. The fact of the matter is that many of these lands that the President finally chose to protect by the use of the Antiquities Act have been under discussion, but those discussions have been filibustered, delayed, obstructed by members of the Utah delegation with respect to these lands and to other lands that need to be protected, public lands that are owned by the people of the United States, and lands that are open to the exploitation by the mineral extractive industries that could go onto these lands and start taking coal and petroleum and other products from these lands without regard to their preservation, as is now allowed because of the President's actions. The facts are that those processes grind on and those companies continue to get permits to extract those minerals. The bill the gentleman is introducing here today is basically an overturning of the Antiquities Act. It is a gutting of the Antiquities Act. He says he wants to give 30 days' notice. With 30 days' notice, as we saw in the New World Mine, people rushed in, people rushed in to file claims and try and perfect claims when they heard the President was going to do this. In the time between the time we started considering the California desert and the time that we did the California desert, we ended up with people filing mining claims, perfecting mining claims, knowing that the government would then have to come along and try to deal with them. The notion that somehow this current law would be improved upon if the Congress had 2 years in which to act, the Congress can act at any time it wants. It is acting tonight with consideration of this legislation. The gentleman from Utah says he has a repeal of this, or to overturn the President's act, coming. That is fine. People can vote yes or no. But these are the lands of all the people of this Nation. The President from time to time has to take positions to protect those lands, because the legislative process is unable to respond. The legislative process, if we gave them 2 years, we have the very same problem. We have the Senators from Utah or elsewhere that decide they want to filibuster this act, and all the political dynamics kick in, with what else is going on in the Senate, and somehow we cannot report out provisions to protect these lands and we are right back where we are today before the President acted. That is why, that is why we should keep the current law as it is. It provides for the protection of the lands. And if the Congress is so outraged, they can come back and modify, they can come back and repeal, they can come back and change the provisions of the Monuments Act. If we listened to these people, we would have the President pick. Maybe this year he could pick the Grand Staircase, but that exceeds 50,000 acres, so he could not pick that one. But once he set notice that he was going to do the Grand Staircase, people would start filing, and the power would plateau, because they could see the handwriting on the wall. The President might be prepared to act. Then people in the Canyon of the Escalante, they could start to file on those actions. All of a sudden, what we have done is caused the taxpayer a huge liability because we have decided that these people should have a right to file on these public lands for extractive permits. The fact of the matter is that when we look at these lands and we see them and how they are intertwined, one of the things I thought we learned over the last 20 years is setting arbitrary acreages does not necessarily guarantee the protection of the ecosystem, the lands, the assets, or the interplay between those resources. But again, this law that is being presented here tonight or this proposed law that is being presented here tonight is simply one to kick the teeth out of this act, and to somehow try to see if they can embarrass or punish this President for the actions he took. This President should neither be embarrassed nor should he be punished because he took these actions on behalf of the American people. And he did it properly so, and he did it over the actions that for years and years of people who decided that they were going to stand in the way of these public lands, they were not going to allow this to happen. And I think that is why the President acted and the President should be very proud of his actions and the American people should be very proud of these actions. The authors of this legislation, they say they do not know why the President did that because there is nothing there. But then they say there is everything there because people are coming to see the antiquities and the geologic sites and the cultural sites and the beauty of this area. Obviously, the people of this country understand the assets and value of these lands that are there, and they are obviously supportive of the efforts by the President to protect these lands. Now they can come there to utilize them, and, fortunately enough, we were able to get resources for interpretation of these sites and guidance at these sites. This can again be a wonderful experience for America's families, the millions who take to their automobiles and their vacations to visit and see these wonderful lands of the West, and the arches, and the bridges and canyons, and the rivers and ecosystems, and the riparian areas that are so unique to anything else that is offered in the United States. We should continue with the current law as it is. Should this legislation pass the House, I would be surprised if it has much of a life after that. But people should not vote for a bad bill just because it is not going to go anywhere. We should turn this bill down and protect the Antiquities Act and protect the prerogatives of the President and, more important than that, protect these valuable, valuable lands of the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think the distinction here with this amendment in addressing the question of consultation with the governor of the State in which a designation will be made and transmitting the proclamation to that governor is a matter of legitimate concern and interest. But it is a far cry from this amendment to then be standing the act on its head and in effect sort of creating temporary monuments, as we may end up doing in this legislation, and then if the Congress does not act the monument goes away. That is to gut the Antiquities Act. This is to try to address a problem that a number of Members believe is legitimate and of concern in terms of the communications between the Federal Government and local governments that are going to be impacted by these actions. I think this is a good amendment. The gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] has suggested this from the time of the hearings and during the legislative process. I believe that the amendment should be supported because I think this is a rational response, unlike the legislation which then goes to the undermining of the entire current law with respect to presidential ability to protect these public lands.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving right to object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MILLER of California. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion that the gentleman has made, but the history is all wrong. The history was that these votes were rolled from Monday night when the House went out early, coming to town late Monday, fully expecting to vote on these motions, and they were rolled to somehow teach a political lesson, the first time in the history of this House we have seen this kind of activity take place in front of the religious holidays. That was a conscious decision. This was a conscious decision.

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I object Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is right. My colleague wants to keep alluding to Katie McGinty's memo. But the fact of the matter is, with advanced notice, the Senate would have tried to stop this, would have tried to put this into an appropriations bill, and left these lands unprotected. That was the fact that was on the ground and evident to everyone in this Nation before the President had the courage to act and protect these lands.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It is unfortunate that we are being rushed both in this rule and I guess in consideration of the underlying legislation. This is a bill that was reported out of our committee in June, and now we find, just before the House is in a rush to leave for the religious holidays, that we have this bill jammed to us on the floor and time limitations placed upon the amendment. This is an important bill. Understand that. This is not a minor bill, this is an important bill, and it should be open to full and fair debate because this bill stands the Antiquities Act on its head. Now, those who are supporting this legislation would have us think that somehow the President was wandering around the country willy-nilly declaring areas to be national monuments and to preserve Federal lands. That is not the case at all. They would have us believe there has been no consultation, no discussion, no awareness of this. The fact of the matter is there has been years of consultation, years of discussion within the Utah delegation, within our committee, within the Congress, within the Senate, within the House, among the Governors, among the administration; and the fact of the matter is that nobody could arrive at a conclusion about the protection of these lands. The people of Utah have expressed over and over again that they want an expansive Utah wilderness bill to protect these lands and other lands in that State. The President took these lands to protect them. Why did he protect them? Because when we go out to Utah and we travel the lands, we will see an interesting phenomenon: people driving tractors across the land, people punching roads into the land because they think that that somehow will disqualify them from being nominated as a wilderness area. And it is going on on a weekly and daily basis out there, so somebody had to take action. Now, under the existing law, the President took action, as he properly did and rightfully did, to protect the lands in this State that belong to the people of the United States, all of the people of the United States. But the Senators from Utah and elsewhere have filibustered, they have blocked amendments. They would not let this happen. The President took the action to protect the lands. Now, the gentleman from Utah, the Senators from Utah or anybody else who wants, can come here and introduce legislation to modify the Escalante area. The gentleman says some of it is worthy of a national park and the rest is not much. Bring that bill to the floor. Let us have that debate. Many people think that the wilderness area should be much larger than that. There are many other areas that should be protected. The gentleman has his own bill. Other people have brought bills in the past to modify actions of the President. Some 40 times we have modified those actions. But rather than deal with that, rather than deal with this on the merits, is it too large, too small, is it the right area, the wrong area, is it a valuable area or an invaluable area, they would rather gut the Antiquities Act. They would rather put it back into the hands of the Senators who have filibustered the protection of these lands in the first place. That is what they want to do. That stands one of the crown jewels of environmental protection on its head. It guts the Antiquities Act. When it is all said and done we put it right back into the hands of the great ``hall of whims'' down at the other end of the aisle here where they cannot resolve anything. We have asked year after year after year for a Utah wilderness bill. They cannot resolve it. So we are not going to let people lay waste to these lands because the politicians cannot make up their minds to do what the people in the State want them to do. That is what this debate is about. This bill is a bad bill, the amendments will not cure it, and we ought to defeat the rule and we ought to defeat the bill.