George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. As part of the amendment, that language has been stricken from the legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California. That is my understanding.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, yesterday was luncheon, today it is legislation, tomorrow it is frightening to think of what it could mean. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation, and I want to thank him for how hard he has worked on this legislation. As he has pointed out, more times than I care to count, this is not a new idea with respect to Quincy Library. These people have worked very, very hard on this, and this is not an idea that somehow does not have a lot of support. It has a lot of support, and I think with changes of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], we now have what I would assume is almost going to be unanimous support in the House. I thank the gentleman for all of his perseverance and his hard work on this.

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his remarks in support. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for offering this amendment. I think, in fact, as I said, there is very little disagreement about the intent and the purpose of this legislation and what all of us would like to see carried out. The gentlewoman from Idaho, the subcommittee chair, has worked long and hard on this legislation, has accepted many changes by the various concerned parties to this legislation, as has the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the committee. The gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] who represents this area and has championed this legislation, this approach, I think also has accepted many changes to this legislation that I believe is consistent with the idea that we would try to empower local communities to have a say in the planning of forest practices and forest managements that are consistent with the best interests of those communities while, at the same time, being consistent with the overall system of general forest health. I think the suggestions put forth now by the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, now ensure that we have legislation here that can be considered on a very timely basis in the Senate and be sent to the President's desk so, in fact, the Quincy Library Group pilot project on this 2\1/2\ million acres can go forward and it can go forward with every Member being assured that it is in compliance with the laws and it is in compliance with the intent and the purposes of the Quincy Library Group. It is not easy to fashion these kinds of amendments when we are dealing with resource issues. When I used to be chairman of the committee, I used to tell people that wanted to get on the committee that we do not deal with anything abstract in this committee. We are either moving a boundary 10 feet north or 10 feet south, and trees either end up vertical or they end up horizontal. This is not an abstract committee. So I want to commend the gentleman and the other Members on the other side for their effort in offering this amendment, and it is my intention to support the amendment, to support the legislation, and to work hard to see that it becomes the law of the land.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, according to all of the news services, the public understands very well what is going on. Sixty-one percent of the American people now understand that the Republican tax bill gives most of the benefits to wealthy corporations and to wealthy individuals. What is the Republicans' response to this fact? The response is to go out and hire a new public relations firm to try to tell a new story about their tax bill. It is not to change their tax bill, to take care of working families, it is not to change their tax bill to take care of the children of working families, but it is to change the public relations firm. What the Republicans ought to do is start sharing some of the benefits of that tax bill with people who wake up every morning and go to work and work hard but do not make a lot of money. They, too, would like to take care of their children. They, too, would like to be able to educate their children. But the Republicans do not do that. They decide in fact that corporations should no longer have to pay the alternative minimum tax. They decide in fact that people who clip coupons should pay 15 percent of taxes while people who go to work should pay 28 percent on their taxes.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me speak to the rule. I think this rule is incredibly unfair given the complexity and the controversy surrounding this legislation that the Committee on Rules would deem that we can only have one amendment when in fact this is a multifaceted bill which now requires that we put all of the problems with this legislation in one amendment and accept it up or down, when in fact there are parts of this bill that may very well be able to be fixed on individual votes but we are not allowed that opportunity. I want to say that in the future, I think that when the ranking members of committees come before the Committee on Rules and ask for the opportunity to present differences in the form of amendments and those are not granted, I think we should just assume that the Committee on Rules then owes us time. If we need five amendments and they give us one, they owe us 4 hours of time. And we should take it out in terms of motions to rise or motions to adjourn or whatever it is to take up and get back that time, because this is unacceptable, an unacceptable practice of shutting down the voices of many Members of Congress that represent a different view on the reported legislation, and yet they are not entitled to offer those amendments or to seek to have the House record itself on those differences. Now, to this legislation. This legislation is brought forth as a suggestion that somehow this embodies the Quincy Library Group, which was a group that was formed to try and see whether or not we could pull together the disparate forces and interests in our national forests, to see whether or not we could come up with a management plan for those forests. Somewhere between the Quincy Library Group and the floor of the House of Representatives today this process was hijacked. This process was hijacked by those who were interested in cutting trees, not in truly managing the forest. That is why this legislation has very, very serious problems, problems that are highlighted by the administration in its statement of administrative positions, and that is why this legislation has terrible problems with not only many, many environmental organizations within the State of California but of the national environmental organizations. Let us understand what we are talking about. One of the previous speakers got up and talked about private property or something. We are talking here about the public's resources. We are talking about the national forests of this Nation. These lands belong to the public. We want to encourage, and in fact the administration is already administratively doing a number of the things suggested in this legislation to work with local groups, but we must understand that as a Congress of the United States we are the stewards of those public lands and we cannot let people willy-nilly do what they want with those lands because they think, well, this would be good for me. The fact of the matter is that this legislation exempts this pilot project of 2\1/2\ million acres of the public's lands from the environmental laws. It is not consistent with the environmental laws of this Nation that all other plans have to be governed by, and that is why the administration is opposed to this legislation at this time. This legislation, in fact, contains the very same timber salvage rider that got this Congress into so much trouble with the American public when they saw that the cutting of trees took precedence over every other multiple use in the forest, whether it was fisheries or recreation or species protection or riparian protection, all of a sudden we found out that we could cut the trees without those considerations. This is a rerun of that language. If we read the language from the salvage rider and we read the language in this legislation, in fact, they are identical. This legislation would exempt this pilot project if we complete the changes in the forest management plan for these particular forests, the Plumas and Lassen and Tahoe National Forests. It would exempt them from that if in fact they were done prior to the 5 years. So if we find in all of the studies and all of the science that this is contrary to the best interest of these forests, they can continue to go forward; they can continue to go forward with this plan even if the new forest plans are put in place. Those are the kinds of terrible inconsistencies that shall threaten this forest. Now, let us understand something about the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Sierra Nevada Mountains in California are under incredible stress. There has been a huge infusion of population, of use, of very bad logging practices in the past. We have now been told in major study after major study that the entire forest system is at risk, that we have got to take care of it, that we have got to do it in a comprehensive fashion. The President, I believe, is going out to Tahoe to look at the Tahoe National Forest which is part of this plan, to see whether or not there is a way in which we can secure the longevity of the Tahoe National Forest and the Sierras and not destroy the watersheds of Tahoe, one of the national jewels of this Nation, not destroy the watersheds of the rivers of these forests. So my colleagues have to take it in that context when they look at this pilot project. But this pilot project, while well intentioned and hard worked on and federally financed, and it is going to probably spend about $80 million in Federal dollars to carry out the intent of this, we have got to make sure that this is, in fact, consistent with the environmental laws and with the other activities that are necessary in these forests. A lot of those activities are driven now, in fact, by population. They are driven by people who want to use these forests for off-road vehicles, who want to use them for camping, for hiking, for biking, all of these other activities, and want to make sure that the watersheds are protected so that we, in fact, can continue to restore the fisheries and the recreational activities in the great rivers of northern California. That is what is at stake in this legislation, and that is what this legislation does not address. I will be offering an amendment that will take the administration's objections and address them in this legislation and provide for the riparian protection. If that amendment is, in fact, adopted, I will support this legislation. I believe, then, that this legislation is headed in the right direction and can achieve its goals. But absent that amendment, this legislation is seriously flawed with respect to the integrity of the environmental laws, to the forest plans, and to the multiple uses of these forests in the most populous State in this Nation. These mountains and these forests are important to millions of Californians, and we will not delegate the right to destroy those forests to a handful of people who have decided that cutting trees is the only way that we can protect this forest. We can have clear-cuts under this legislation, we can decide that that is the most efficient way and, in fact, we can go ahead and just start clear-cutting some of the last of the big trees in California. That should not be allowed. I would hope that the House would support my amendment. Then we can all go forward and support this legislation, because the process of the Quincy Library Group is, in fact, moral and right and should be encouraged. But this work product fails, fails to meet the needs of the State of California and of the people of this Nation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that there is no question that the gentlewoman from Idaho and the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, have worked very hard on this legislation, as have the people of the Quincy Library Group worked very hard on this legislation. But we are down to the point now where we have to vote and we have to decide whether or not this legislation meets the test of providing for the comprehensive protection of these forests or whether it does not. The suggestion that somehow that these forests are in trouble because of this administration is just ludicrous. The fact of the matter is what has happened is this administration has had to go around and clean up after the previous administrations that decided they would not administer the forests at all, and we saw almost the entire Northwest and a good portion of California starting to be shut down economically because of the spotted owl. We now see that in fact resources are again being opened up under this administration, that cooperative agreements are being entered into with some of the largest timber companies in the country, and supplies are being returned to the market. But where are we with respect to the Quincy Library Group? The Quincy Library Group, in their name this legislation is being put forth, and it is unfortunate to have to report to the Congress of the United States that this legislation simply does not meet the test to provide for the protection of the Sierra Nevada Forest, of the three forests that are involved in this pilot project of 2.5 million acres, that it does not comply with the environmental laws of this Nation. I wish it did, because we have been strong supporters, many people on both sides of the aisle, of this process to try to improve and increase the voices of those people who live in the direct area. But we also have to make the bottom line decision that these forests belong to all of the people of the United States, just as Yellowstone National Park does, as Grand Canyon does, as the Appalachian forests do, of the great forests of the Midwest, of the public lands. These forests belong to the people of this Nation, and we have the stewardship obligations to make sure that these forests will be healthy, that these forests are sustainable so that future generations will have the same enjoyment, both economically, from a recreational point of view, for the use of their families, and from an environmental point of view that our generation has had. That is the test, and that is why the Quincy Library Group exists, to see whether or not we can manage these forests on a sustained basis now, sustaining them economically and sustaining them for multiple uses. That was not the policy for the past 50 years, of both administrations, Democratic and Republican. It was that the forests were simply a crop, just cut them down and go on about your merry business. Now we find ourselves in terrible shape. For the people of California, 33 million people, that use the Sierra Nevadas as a major recreational resource, for the millions of people who come from around the world to use the Sierra Nevada for a recreational resource, this resource is in trouble. That is why we are willing to try something like Quincy Library. But Quincy Library has got to be prepared to do it within the environmental laws of this country. That is why the Clinton administration has sent a letter to this Congress telling us that this legislation, while they support the process, while they funded, they put $4 million into Quincy Library, that this product as it is presented to this Congress at this time is a flawed product. It is a flawed product basically because it fails and it is inconsistent with the environmental law compliance on current environmental procedures. This project is not designed so the project will be carried out consistent with the environmental laws. They state that time and again in this legislation. My amendment is addressed to the points raised by the administration to bring this project into compliance, so that in fact when we do amend the forest plans in Plumas, the forest plans in Tahoe, this project will be brought in compliance. It will not be run if the science tells us that we are taking too many trees or we do not have the correct firebreaks or we are not protecting the streams in the right fashion. This legislation should not be able to operate outside those scientific findings, but that is what this bill allows this project to do. I appreciate that the process is subject to environmental impact studies, but the project itself is exempted in many ways. The 2.5 million acres, the 300,000 acres of timber harvest, the riparian protections are exempted. In fact, if we go back and read Public Law 104-19, we will find language in here that saddens this Nation, that this Congress and this President at one moment said you could cut trees without consideration of the environmental laws, without the multiple use, without taking into consideration the impact of that activity on the rest of the forest. We learned our lesson. We learned our lesson when the public told us that was unacceptable. Yet when we go to this legislation that is before us here today, we find out that the same language is present in this legislation. One of the horrible black marks on our environmental record of this Congress and this Government is now being brought back to us in this legislation. What does that say? That language says that you can cut these trees and you never have to take into consideration the cumulative impact: Are you destroying the great rivers of northern California with siltation and debris and the fisheries? Are you having an adverse impact on Lake Tahoe? Are you having an adverse impact on the surrounding forests? Are you destroying the ability of diverse species to live in these forests? Are you causing erosion that is beyond your control and will destroy the ability of these forests to come back? Under this legislation you do not have to take that into consideration. ``The Secretary concerned shall not rely on salvage timber sales as a basis for administrative action limiting other multiple use activities.'' That is where we are today. It is not that we disagree with what the people of Quincy Library have tried to do and how hard they have worked. It is not that we disagree with what the chairman of this committee is trying to do and the gentlewoman from Idaho has spent so much time on this legislation. It is that this legislation needs about four or five small technical fixes which would bring it into compliance with the environmental laws and modern practices so that we do not repeat the horrendous mistakes that almost destroyed the Sierra Nevada forests of California, that have in fact destroyed the fisheries, the great fisheries, of many of the streams and rivers in northern California where we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try and recover those fisheries so that people can use them with their families. And now this legislation puts 2\1/2\ million acres into a pilot project. Nothing wrong with that pilot project except that it does not comply with the laws of this Nation; it does not comply, it will not have to comply, with the amendments and the changes and the forest plans for these three forests. And unfortunately because of many, many years of neglect, we do not have a lot of trees to waste, we cannot be wrong for the next generation, or our grandchildren. Where we once enjoyed great, great forests of the West, our grandchildren will enjoy scrub bush, Manzanilla, and eroded soils. Have my colleagues ever tried pitching a tent in that kind of area? Ever try to enjoy that when it is 105 degrees in the foothills of California? That is not why people live in California. This is about the future of these resources, and Quincy Library has all of the possibilities and the abilities to make a positive contribution to the protection of the Sierra Nevada forests. But that is not what this legislation does. It can be easily corrected with my amendment, and then we can all support this legislation. I am sure there will be those who are unhappy with my amendment, that it does not go far enough, but I think it maintains the integrity of our national environmental laws, and it maintains the integrity of the Quincy Resource Group. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think what is becoming clear in this debate is there is clearly an agreement in terms of purpose and intent, I believe, essentially among all parties to this legislation; that is, that we ought to try and see as to whether or not local communities can be involved to a greater extent, can help the Federal Government design forest practices and forest management that is consistent with the interest of those communities. When I say those communities, I mean it in the broadest regard, as is reflected in the Quincy Library where we have included the environmental community, the business communities, the forest industries community, those interested in recreation, small businesses and all of the rest, that those communities get a great deal of consideration and participation in the design of the management and the practices on our forests. Where I think this debate departs is that in designing this pilot project, we have run into some glitches that I think are minor in terms of intent but important in terms of the law and important in terms of trying to reduce the potential for litigation on this pilot project. My amendment seeks to address those concerns that have been raised by this administration. It has been funded, it has been championed, it has been motivating, the Quincy Library Group. I am sure that we are disappointed that we are at this stage, but they have come forth and I admit they only came forth this morning or late yesterday afternoon with the statement of administrative position clearly outlining these important changes that they sought. But we should not argue about whether or not the administration came forward on a timely basis. What we ought to do is to see whether or not, in fact, we can clear up those concerns so that we can have, in fact, here a unified position on this legislation. We will have the ability to expedite it through the Senate and have it in fact become the law so that we can get on with this process. A number of speakers have alluded to the fact that the Quincy Library Group has been meeting for a very, very long time, that this work product, their desire, has been around a considerable period of time. It would be a shame that if after we get consideration of this in the House, then, in fact, we find out that we cannot get consideration because of these remaining controversies, we cannot get consideration of it in the Senate where it languishes and I think it is fair to say that that would be a very real problem. I think with the acceptance of these amendments, we basically have legislation where we have the kind of agreement that allows for the expediting of this within the other body. I would hope that as I get prepared to offer my amendment, that all parties who have worked so very, very hard on this legislation would understand that I think in some cases we are talking about a difference in language, maybe not a difference of intent. It is clear that the gentlewoman from Idaho, the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and others have gone a long distance in trying to address those concerns. But now we have a clearly stated list of concerns from the administration that in fact are going to have to be addressed, whether they are addressed here or addressed later. We ought to address them here and dramatically improve the chances of this legislation becoming law so that people in Quincy Library can get on with this pilot project. Ordinarily you would not think that this would be terribly important, when we are talking about a pilot project, but as I tried to say in my opening remarks, we are talking about a forest system in our State of California that is under a great deal of stress, a forest system that a lot of changes have to be made in, and there is not a lot of room for error, whether you are from the forest industries side of the equation or whether you are from the environmental side of the equation or whether you are a small business trying to sell gasoline and food and recreational supplies to people who come there to use it. If we do not from this date forward manage these forests correctly, we run the risk of losing these forests for many, many generations. We cannot afford to do that. I think that is the purpose of the administration's amendments, which, again, comes from an administration that created the Quincy Library Group, has funded the Quincy Library Group, and now finds itself in a position where it has, I believe, four or five recommendations to make this bill consistent with the environmental laws of their concern. I would hope that we would be able to address those when I offer my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today the American public will witness the difference between the two parties. Today the Republicans will put on the House floor a tax bill that will provide the overwhelming amount of benefits to the top 1 percent of the taxpayers in this country, taxpayers earning in excess of $250,000, that will get $27,000 in tax relief while the lower 60 percent of the taxpayers in this country will get only 12 percent of that relief. What does that mean? That means that millions of American families who work every day, go to work, pay their taxes, starting police officers, school teachers and others with children, will not get the benefit of this tax bill. Why will they not get the benefit of this tax bill? Because the Republicans have decided that this should be tax relief for the wealthy as opposed to tax relief for the Nation. They have decided that this tax relief should be directed at those who need it the least and it should be taken from those who need it the most. Mr. Speaker, that is the difference that will be debated on this floor today. That is why this legislation eventually will be vetoed by the President of the United States.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman asked the absolutely pertinent question here, what about working middle-class families, and it is pointed out in this morning's Wall Street Journal. What we see is people who were earning $23,000 a year with two children will find that at the end of that year they will not get the benefits of this child's tax credit, they will not get the benefits because the Republicans have decided that the benefits will only go to those individuals at the top levels. Rather than sharing this tax cut, rather than sharing the money that is now being accumulated because of the efforts to balance the budget over the last 5 years with these middle-class families, they have decided, as the gentlewoman pointed out, that half of the benefits will go to the top 5 percent of the people in this country. And so people who are going to work every day as law enforcement officials, as fire protection people, as teachers, as oil refinery workers are going to find out that they will not qualify for that. In fact, in my State of California 56 percent of the children will not be eligible for the child tax credit, and I think that is what is going to happen to working families, and I thank the gentlewoman for pointing that out.

Mr. MILLER of California. The fact is many young families starting out with young children pay more in payroll taxes, Social Security than they pay in income taxes. But the Republican plan will not give them the benefit of the $500 child credit. What does that mean? That means that these working families making 20, $25,000 a year are going to find themselves without the benefit of this. They still have two young children. They are still struggling hard. But the Republicans do not understand that because one does not make a lot of money does not mean they do not work hard. They work very hard and they pay the most regressive taxes, and they refuse to give the child credit to those families.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, under the original Contract With America, that police officer was going to get that tax credit. But what they decided this year was they wanted to give more money to the wealthy, so they had to cut that police officer out of their tax plan, but that was the original promise in the Contract With America. They just decided they would rather deal with the people on Wall Street instead of the people on Main Street.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today is the day when we begin the process where we rearrange the priorities of this Nation, where we rearrange the priorities of this Nation that for many years has taken care of the senior citizens of this country by providing them Medicare healthcare coverage for their elderly years, where we rearrange the priorities of this Nation where we have tried to make sure that children had coverage of health care, where we have tried to provide families the means by which they could pay for the college education of their children. What we now see in the budget plan that we will debate this afternoon and in the tax bill that we will debate tomorrow is that all of those goals, all of those ideals of this Nation, are threatened because we have to have a tax bill that gives $27,000 in relief to people making more than $250,000 a year. Twenty-seven thousand dollars in tax relief, which is more than many families make all year long, must go to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country, and how do we pay for it? We pay for it by reneging on the promise to provide health care coverage for children. In the Senate they now talk about making 8 million elderly people who are between the ages of 65 and 67 wait 2 more years before they would have Medicare coverage by increasing the cost of the Medicare to those individuals. As my colleagues know, the interesting thing is that after the vote we took in 1993 where no Republicans voted for President Clinton's plan, we have dramatically reduced the deficit. The deficit is on its way to a balanced budget. If we did nothing, the budget would be balanced and we could take care of the problems in Medicare and Medicaid. But the Republicans have chosen another path. They have chosen the path to try to again return to the days where corporations that make millions of dollars in profit every year, as they did before 1986, would pay no taxes. They want to return to the days where people who can clip coupons pay a 20 percent tax rate while hard-working Americans pay a 28 percent tax rate. It is not fair, it is not equitable, and it is not right.