George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the Republicans have finally discovered what their tax cut plan does and they are going through contortions this morning to try to explain it otherwise. As the New York Times said yesterday, the study shows that the proposal would benefit the wealthy. Five million of America's wealthiest families would get most of the benefit, and 40 million working families would lose money at the end of the year or get little or no benefit. These are families who wake up and go to work every morning and try to provide for their family and pay taxes. But under the Republican plan, they would not be entitled to share in the tax cut, they would not be entitled to share in the benefits of the struggle to balance the budget in this country. Instead, what the Republican plan would do and what every study shows, it would take most of the money and give it to families who are earning over $250,000 a year, who would get $27,000 in benefits. In fact, they would get more benefits than the salary of the 40 million families at the lower end.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later this week, this Congress will make a choice about the future of America. As we debate the tax bill, we will have to make a choice between the Republican plan that assumes that the rich do not have enough money and that working families have too much, or we can choose the Democratic plan that believes what we ought to do with the tax cuts is try to help working families educate their children, take care of their children, provide for child care, and reinvest in America. Those are the two visions: The Republican plan that will give people who earn more than $250,000 an average benefit of $27,000 and will cost people that are earning $17,000, $18,000, and $20,000 real money. That is the difference in a vision of America. To take people who now have done very well in the stock market and decide that, when they had no expectations of capital gains, we should provide them a reduction on the profits that they make, while we should not provide tax relief to low-income working Americans. That is the choice and a vision of America. We have got to decide whether or not we are going to use the resources that we have saved as a result of the balanced budget efforts that we have made over the last 5 years, whether or not those should be shared with working families in this country, or whether or not they ought to be lavished on the rich who simply do not need it. It is a matter of how we use those resources and how we promote families. We clearly know in this Congress what the American people want. They have said it over and over again in the polls that they want us to use the resources of the country to improve the educational opportunities for their children, to reduce crime, to protect the Medicare benefits for the elderly, and to balance the Federal budget. But that is not the choice that the Republicans are taking this week. In fact, what they are doing is racing to pay back those who have supported their campaigns by lavishing reductions in capital gains tax, estate tax and getting rid of the corporate alternative minimum tax which says that for those large corporations that have huge write-offs, even they must pay something for the privilege of being in America. Then we will go back to the days when corporations pay no taxes no matter how much money they make. That is not equity. That is not fairness. That is the not the choice of the American people. Mr. Speaker, we need to provide more equity, we need to provide more fairness. The No. 1 thing that the Americans demand of their Tax Code is fairness so that we know that everybody is contributing their fair share to making this the greatest country in the world. But that is not what the Republican tax bill does. The Republican tax bill heads off in another direction. It decides that those who are the wealthiest, those who are the richest should get the most, and those who are working hard, young families to raise children, should get the least. Somehow that just is not fair.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in opposition of extending MFN to China because I believe the United States policy of constructive engagement has failed. Mr. Speaker, selling goods into the United States market is not a right, it is a privilege, and it is a privilege that should be restricted to dictatorships like China. Despite the promises of the White House, big business, and the MFN supporters, the United States trade relationship with China has failed to move that nation toward democratic reform in order to reduce the threat China poses to world security. China's Government continues to brutally repress all dissent in that country and violate religious freedoms. Meanwhile it exports to rogue nations like Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Burma the technology to make weapons of mass destruction. China continues to close its market to United States goods and services and allows American products to be pirated, costing us billions of dollars. Faced with the evidence that our current policy of engagement toward China has failed, supporters of MFN then argue that we should ignore all those problems and extend this privilege to save American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the extension of most-favored-nation status for China.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the reviews of the Republican tax bill are pouring in. A bad bill gets worse. A favor-the-rich tax plan. Loophole-filled tax cuts are an economic time bomb. What we are now seeing is, after people have a chance to review the Republican tax bill, they now understand that over 60 percent of the tax cuts go to people in the top 5 percent of income in America. And corporations over time would again go back to paying no taxes at all for the privileges that American society extends to them. And how do they pay for these exploding tax cuts that will make the deficit worse? They want to take people who are eligible for Medicare at 65 and make them eligible at 67. That means millions of workers who retire or are laid off at their jobs at 58, 59, 60-years-old, will have to wait 7 years to have health care coverage. They want to take poor elderly women, who have the smallest pensions, and tell them they will not pay for their Medicare, and they want to penalize families that put their children into day care and not give them the tax cuts.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to talk about one of the silver linings in the cloud of apprehension and mistrust left behind by the 104th Congress in its handling of environmental issues. One of the very good things that came out of that Congress was the formation of the Natural Resource Summit of America. The NRSA is a coalition of now 37 organizations determined not to let natural resource policy in this country fall victim to the sort of extremism that was all too often evident in that 104th Congress. The existence of one more environmental coalition isn't usually cause for notice. But the NRSA is different, because in this one collection of separate and independent groups, you see the first very impressive signs of the profound change occurring in the debate over natural resources. For the first time in a very long time, hunters, anglers, environmentalists, outdoor publications, outdoor business groups, natural resource scientists, and others have come together around a common set of principles. One of the NRSA's leaders is Helen Sevier, the Chair and CEO of B.A.S.S., Inc., the parent company of the Bass Anglers Sportman Society. Joined by my distinguished colleague Sherwood Boehlert, I had the pleasure of meeting Helen and hearing her speak last summer at the NRSA's first grassroots meeting in Birmingham. When I listened to her describe the NRSA, it was clear that the groups were uniting not only around common environmental principles, but also around common sense and an end to partisanship and extreme language. That day in Birmingham, she recalled being labeled as an ``environmental extremist'' for opposing the Clean Water Act reauthorization process in the House in the 104th Congress: We said, ``wait a minute, these guys really don't get it. They don't understand the way Americans really feel about their natural resources. They don't appreciate the 25 years of phenomenal progress that has been made improving our Nation's air and water quality. And they don't recognize the needs that still exist to restore ecosystems and fish and wildlife habitat.'' So we thought that if the environmental groups and the concerns they expressed on natural resource legislation were considered by Congress to be extreme, or not representative of the values of average Americans, then by merging the image of the hunting and fishing groups with the environmentalists we may be able to refocus congressional attention on the importance of natural resource values among their constituents. Mr. Speaker, the attention of Congress is already being refocused by cooperative efforts like that of the NRSA. On issues like protection of land and water habitats, clean water, wetlands, and forests, the vast outdoor community has shown its concern and its strength. The NRSA recently sent a letter to every Member of Congress stating the groups' priorities. They include maintaining the integrity of our public lands and waters and keeping them public, strengthening the Clean Water Act, and enhancing funding for the stewardship of public lands and natural resources. These priorities are the result of more than a year of discussions between some very different people: a pair of scientists, one from the American Fisheries Society another from the National Wildlife Federation, a land protection specialist from the Sierra Club, a conservation expert from the B.A.S.S., an editor at Sports Afield magazine, a lawyer from the Environmental Defense Fund, just to name a few. These discussions produced a framework for action and a set of common sense shared goals. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot from the NRSA in the coming months about natural resource policy. But I think we can learn more from than a set of positions on issues. We can learn that groups and individuals who share a vision of the future and are dedicated to the hard work of getting there, should refuse to let traditional partisanship, extreme rhetoric, or simple complacency stand in their way. It's a lesson the NRSA appears to have learned and an example for this Congress to follow.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that, if somehow an amendment should be revoted because it was passed on the floor when there were very few Members of Congress, that is the history of this bill. Perhaps the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] is right for a number of other reasons. This entire bill basically has been debated by few or no Members on the floor.

Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MILLER of California

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.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the arguments of my colleagues, and that is the reason we have the embargo, but they obviously missed the point on the amendment; that it gets a little old, as people are thumping their chests in the media, in the intellectual discussion groups, in Washington, DC, and in the Halls of Congress about the evils of the Cuban Government and of Fidel Castro, and then kick back to light up a Cuban cigar. Now, we have an embargo, and the American public does not imbibe in Cuban sugar or Cuban medical services, or financial services or travel, or whatever, and that is a shared sacrifice. That is a shared understanding. But somehow among the political elites and Members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Senate, the President's Cabinet, people can light up a cigar and go on like nothing has happened. The purpose of this amendment is just to point that out; that we ought not to have a policy that is so ragged because of the duplicity that is put in it by the opinion makers in this country. That is the purpose of this amendment. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the reaction I have gotten from my colleagues points that out; that we cannot have it both ways. But with this policy, a lot of people in this country believe in fact that they can, they can go on and they can condemn these practices and then they can decide to smoke a Cohiba or some other Cuban cigar. Mr. Chairman, I would urge passage of this amendment.

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. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is twofold. One is to put an end to the duplicity that takes place so very often inside the beltway in Washington, DC, as members of the government, both the executive branch, the congressional branch, and others denounce the Cuban embargo, or denounce Cuba and continue to support the embargo against Cuba, and then after doing so, light up a Cuban cigar and extol the pleasures and the attributes of that cigar. However, this practice of lighting up Cuban cigars is not something that is just limited to those who favor, oppose, or have a position on the Cuban embargo. What we know now is that for many, many years, the life of the embargo, over 30 years, is that even in its inception it was designed not to be respected and not to be honored. President Kennedy, when he knew he was going to sign an embargo against Cuba, immediately asked one of his aides to go out and purchase all the Cuban cigars that he could get his hands on so he would have a full stock of them when the embargo went in place. Since that time, Members of Congress have gone to Cuba in official delegations and met with Fidel Castro and met with other officials in the Cuban Government and have come back with Cuban cigars. They have shared them on a very discreet basis with their good friends, and again, they have enjoyed them to the hilt. Those of the Members who have served here for some time know very often Members would report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, about their trips and their conversations with the Cuban Government; and he would very quickly ask you, where are the cigars, knowing that a box of cigars had been sent from Fidel Castro or from some other Governmental official to him. So the point is this, the point is this: that we have people in the political elites, we have people in the media elites, the intellectual elites, who visit the island or who travel overseas and who have the money to buy these cigars, to purchase them. What has happened? For the middle-class cigar smoker, it means the cigar costs somewhere between $15 and $35, maybe more. I think we ought to, if it is good enough for those in the Government, if it is good enough for those in the media, I think we ought to share it with the middle class in this country. We understand the purposes of this embargo. The idea was that we could impose hardship on the Cuban Government and they would change their ways. This was a sacrifice we were prepared to enter into. If this sacrifice is worth making, it is worth sharing. I think that is what this amendment does. This amendment also understands that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have it to condemn and to support the embargo and then engage openly in the products of that. This is what we are talking about. This is the Cohiba cigar. This is the mother lode of cigars. This is what, when people get together and go to cigar smokers, a few people in the room will have it, and the rest in the crowd will watch them light it up with great admiration. They will talk about how they acquired it; did they mail order it on the Internet? Did they have it sent to them from Holland, where the bands were removed, the Cohiba bands were removed, it entered the country, and then they had the bands sent separately so they could get the bands back on to impress their friends? Or did they get it from a governmental official, a Member of Congress who traveled to Cuba and brought them back to hand them out; let me do you a favor, let me give you a cigar. Why should not all Americans, if they so desire, enjoy that pleasure? But what we have done is established an embargo on cigars that now means it is really only for the elite. It is only for the elite. This amendment suggests that that should not be allowed, that we should not continue that purpose. We should end the duplicity about this. Some have suggested that if the ban and embargo were truly enforced, we probably could not get a quorum in the Congress of the United States, or in the U.S. Senate, or maybe even in the President's Cabinet, because they would all be taken off for smoking contraband. Is that what forces us to spend over $1 million a year in customs agents just in Miami for the purposes of searching out cigars? Do we not have larger problems in terms of our customs service, drugs, other illegal materials, piracy? Should we spend this kind of money just in one city to search out this dangerous little cigar that is enjoyed only inside of the beltway and in the parties among the elite? I think we can do better than that. I think we can do better by redirecting our resources to those things that are causing the American public great angst, mainly the illegal importation of drugs into this country where we would better use those customs agents. I think we could do better in terms of ending the hypocrisy by those who will raise cain about the Government of this island, about the Government of Fidel Castro, and then enjoy a Cuban cigar. This is not a partisan amendment. This smoke flows as heavily from the Republican Cloakroom as it does in the Democratic Cloakroom.

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1997. I am pleased to have the chairman of Resources Committee, Representative Don Young, as an original cosponsor of this important measure, and similarly welcome Congressmen Dale Kildee, Eni Faleomavaega, and Patrick Kennedy as additional cosponsors. The Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1997 establish a permanent self-governance program within the Department of Health and Human Services under which American Indian and Alaska Native tribes may enter into compacts with the Secretary for the direct operation, control, and redesign of Indian Health Service [IHS] activities. A limited number of Indian tribes have had a similar right since 1992 under title III of the Indiana Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act [the Act]. Title III contains authorization for a self-governance demonstration project within the IHS. And all Indian tribes have had a similar right to contract and operate individual IHS programs and functions under title I of the act since 1975, so called ``638 contracting''. In brief, our legislation expands the number of tribes who can participate in self-governance, makes it a permanent fixture within the Department, allows but does not compel the Secretary to negotiate self- governance compacts with Indian tribes for programs outside of the IHS on a demonstration project basis, and incorporates a number of Federal contracting laws and regulations that have worked well for Indian tribes and the Department in the past. The legislation is modeled on existing self-governance legislation for tribal operation of programs within the Department of the Interior, as well as certain contracting terms incorporated in title I of the act. The legislation has had significant input and review by Indian tribes who have worked on this legislation for almost a year and have met twice, once in Las Vegas and once in St. Paul. Their help and patience has been considerable. What the self-governance program does is give Indian tribes who met certain criteria--basically they have to have experience in government contracting, have clean books, and demonstrate management capability-- the right to take over the operation of Indian Health Service functions, including the funds necessary to run them. The aim of self- governance is to remove the often needless and sometimes harmful layers of Federal bureaucracy that dictate Indian affairs. By giving tribes direct control over Federal programs run for their benefit and making them directly accountable to their members, Congress has enabled Indian tribes to run programs more efficiently and more innovatively than Federal officials have in the past. And, allowing tribes to run these programs furthers the congressional policy of strengthening and promoting tribal governments. Self-governance is an evolution of the original 638 contracting law. Self-governance stands for the proposition that Indian tribes are legitimate sovereigns, fully capable of managing their own affairs and functioning as principled governments. Self-governance rejects the assumption that Indian tribes are incapable of managing their own affairs and thus seeks to reduce the role and presence of Federal officials. Self-governance recognizes that Indian tribes care for the health, safety, and welfare of their own members as well as that of non-Indians who either live on their reservations or conduct business with the tribes and are thus committed to safe and fair working conditions and practices. The following are a few of the areas in which self-governance differs from 638 contracting law. Whereas a tribe choosing to assume programs with 638 contracts must execute a different contract for each program, self-governance allows the tribes and the IHS to execute just one large compact. Whereas a tribe with multiple 638 contracts cannot move funds from one program to another based on need or merit, self-governance permits tribes to shift funds where justified. Where 638 contracts limit a tribe's ability to redesign programs, self-governance compacts allow such redesign. A brief section-by-section description follows: 101. Short Title. Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1997. 102. Findings. Self-Governance has worked well as a demonstration project and is in keeping with the federal trust responsibility and government-to-government relationship 103. Policy. Statement of Congressional policy calling for Dept. of Health and Human Services to promote Self-Governance program. 104. Creation of Title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act. As set forth below. 105. Establishment. Creates the Self-Governance program with the Department. 502. Definitions. Allows Indian tribes to join together to form consortia for purposes of compacting under the Act. 503. Selection of Tribes. Grandfathers in all tribes now participating in demonstration project. Allows for up to 50 new tribes a year to join the Self-Governance program. Requires that, in order to be eligible, a tribe must have completed a planning phase, passed a resolution requesting participation in the program, and proven that it has the financial stability and management capability to run a Self- Governance Program. 504. Compacts. Describes a Self-Governance compact between the Secretary and an Indian tribe, setting forth the general terms of agreement. 505. Funding Agreements. Describes the detailed funding arrangement by which the Secretary pays the tribe its share of funds necessary to run its portion of the IHS programs. Allows the Secretary to negotiate demonstration projects with Indian tribes for the operation of non-IHS programs within the Department but does not compel him to. 506. General Provisions. Describes the general provisions of the compacts and funding agreements. Includes provisions for audits, cost principles, and record keeping. Allows tribes with compacts to redesign IHS programs. Allows tribes to retrocede compacted programs back to the IHS. Allows tribes who formed a consortium to withdraw from the consortium. 507. Provisions Relating to Secretary. Allows the Secretary to impose additional reporting requirements on Indian tribes as long as they are not burdensome. Allows the Secretary to take back programs from a tribe if he finds that the tribe's operation of the program is endangering the health or welfare of people or that the tribe is mismanaging the program. Provides for a hearing on the record in such cases. Provides that when negotiating compact terms, if Secretary fails to reject tribe's offer, that offer is deemed accepted. Allows Secretary to reject tribe's offer if he finds that tribe's request exceeds allowable funding, the request is for operation of a function that cannot be delegated to tribes, or the tribe is not capable of running the program. Requires the Secretary to negotiate in good faith. Prevents the Secretary from waiving or diminishing the trust responsibility. 508. Transfer of Funds. Provides for prompt payment to tribes of funds necessary to run programs under Self- Governance. Provides that funds are available until expended. Requires Secretary to provide tribes with indirect costs. Allows Secretary to reduce amount of funds specified in contract when Congress reduces IHS appropriations. Allows tribes the same access to buildings, property and other resources that the federal government had. Allows tribes to retain interest on funding in keeping with present regulations. 509. Construction Projects. Exempts tribal construction compacts from Procurement Act and Federal Acquisition Regulations in keeping with existing Self-Governance law but requires compacts to incorporate health and safety standards. 510. Federal Procurement Laws. Exempts all tribal compacts from federal contracting laws in keeping with existing Self- Governance law. 511. Civil Actions. Provides tribes with access to federal courts in events of disputes. 512. Facilitation. Requires the Secretary to interpret laws and regulations in a manner that further Self-Governance compacting. Allows the Secretary to waive regulations where permitted by law. Allows the Secretary to donate excess property to tribes. Encourages the states to enter into agreements with tribes that supplement their Self-Governance compacts. 513. Budget Request. Requires that the Presidential budget request identify funding necessary to fund Self-Governance compacts, including the present level of funding for each tribe. 514. Reports. Provides for an annual Secretarial report to Congress on status of Self-Governance program. 515. Disclaimers. Provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed as diminishing the trust responsibility in any way. Exempts tribes from National Labor Relations Act as governmental entities in keeping with N.L.R.B. decisions. 516. Application of Other Sections. Incorporates parts of Title I (``638 contracting'') including penalties for criminal activities, wage and labor standards, liability insurance, retention of federal employee rights and benefits by tribal employees, leasing of tribal facilities, funding of indirect costs, preservation of tribal sovereign immunity, and Federal Tort Claims Act coverage. 517. Regulations. Requires the Secretary to publish draft regulations to carry out this Act within one year of enactment. Requires negotiated rulemaking with Indian tribes. Provides sunset clause eliminating Secretary's rulemaking authority if final regulations are not published within one year and nine months after the date of enactment. 518. Appeals. Sets the standard for burden of proof in cases of disputes. Provides that the Secretary bears the burden of proof of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence his decisions. 519. Appropriations. Authorizes such sums as necessary. In sum, self-governance is a program that represents that next step beyond 638 contracting. As a demonstration project in the IHS it has been a true success. The time has come to transform the demonstration project into a permanent program. I and my colleagues cosponsoring this measure urge support and passage of this measure.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. I do so reluctantly because it has many important provisions, including badly needed funding for flood relief measures in California and elsewhere across the country. As senior Democrat on the House committee with prime stewardship responsibilities for natural resources, I recognize that the conference report would provide significant assistance for repairs and enhancement of Yosemite National Park facilities and also would help with the restoration of watersheds, road decommissioning, and other flood-related priorities in our national forests. But what makes this conference report unacceptable are the utterly nongermane legislative riders stuck into this conference report that have absolutely no relationship to the plight of flood victims and the needs to restore flood damage national parks. They will bring down this conference report, and make no mistake, they will delay much-needed, and unanimously supported, relief for the victims of the recent flooding as well as for peacekeeping in Bosnia. The nongermane rider on RS 2477 road rights-of-way, a matter within jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources, should concern every Member of this House regardless of your position on the issue, because it is an insult to the jurisdiction and the rules of this House. RS 2477 is a 19th-century statute enacted in the same era of Western giveaways of public resources that also produced the Mining Law of 1872. RS 2477 was repealed by Congress in 1976, so the current debate concerns only rights-of-way which were valid at that time. An amendment narrowly adopted in the other body was intended to overrule the Secretary of the Interior's current policies, leaving it to the States to determine which rights are valid and where roads can be built in national parks and other public lands. The conferees have adopted an alternative that will establish a commission with members from affected States to determine the fate of these public lands that belong to all the American people. The commission is mandated to recommend changes in Federal law regarding road rights-of-way on Federal lands, ignoring the option that current policy on the Department of the Interior should be maintained and implemented. Should the Secretary of the Interior agree with the commission recommendations, the legislation provides for fast track consideration of legislation implementing the changes, including discharging of committees from consideration of the bill, limitations on amendments, and restrictions on debate time on the House floor. Let me make a few clear statements on this provision. First, this legislation is an insult to the House. This is a big issue for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the other side, and he demanded that this section be inserted into the report. Last year, he brought us the Government shut-down by demanding inclusion in a continuing resolution of a nongermane rider concerning the Tongass Forest in Alaska. Apparently, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee intends to use every appropriations bill, CR, and supplemental to promote his personal anti-environmental agenda. The House had better think about whether that is the way in which we will allow major environmental issues to be resolved. Second, we don't need a commission to get this issue before the Congress. All the chairman of the Senate committee needs to do--if this is so important to his State--is to call up his Alaska colleagues who chair the respective authorization committees and demand that they bring such legislation out of the committees through the normal legislative process. Instead, we are subjected to this utter contempt for the regular legislating process. Third, this provision allows Members of the other body, who surely are neither members of the House Resources committee nor the House Rules Committee, to dictate with no input whatsoever from those committees of jurisdiction the provisions of important national legislation to be considered by the House, as well as the conditions under which that legislation will be considered: who gets to speak, for how long, and what form the resulting bill may take. With all due respect, any member of either committee who votes to sanctify this process needs to reconsider why he or she is serving on that committee. We don't mandate fast track for bills affecting health care for children. We don't mandate fast track for bills to assist farmers, or seniors, or students, or taxes. We don't even fast track emergency supplementals. But now, we are told, we must fast tract RS 2477, and we have nothing to say about it. Just how much insult is this body prepared to accept? The reason that we have not considered RS 2477 road right-of-way claims is because Senator Stevens and others know full well that the House and the Senate would reject this giveaway for many of the same reasons that we have repeatedly voted to stop the giveaway of land claims under the Mining Law of 1872. Because it is a huge ripoff that threatens taxpayers and our public resources. What is at stake here is a very serious threat to the integrity of our national parks, forests and other public lands throughout the West. In Alaska, Congress has created a world-class system of over 100 million acres of parks and other conservation areas which is riddled with claims to road access by miners with bulldozers, among others. In Utah, local development interests are anxious to use these road claims to prevent Congress from designating new wilderness areas on the public lands, and even illegally bulldoze to assert claims that the products of such activity negate inclusion of the area in future wilderness designations. Mr. Speaker, the President made a serious error when he agreed to accept the anti-environmental the timber salvage rider on the 1995 Rescissions Act. We all learned a lesson from that experience, and he was right to veto Interior appropriations riders like the plan to increase logging in the Tongass National Forest. He should not be held hostage to this attempt to carry this pave-the-parks rider on the backs of flood victims. And I urge my colleagues to stand up for themselves and for the rights of this House and reject this conference report so that this insulting and inappropriate rider will be removed.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly clear to stand to be corrected, if that is the case, and I guess I need to be reminded again about how we identify who is being talked about if we are talking about somebody in the Senate? What does one say? A Senator?

Mr. MILLER of California. Can we get fingerprints on the resolution then, or how do we do this?

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that we now see Members whose districts have been impacted seriously by the floods being put in the situation of a bill that is now unacceptable because it continues to carry riders. One of the most egregious riders in this legislation is the one that deals with the issue of roads and public lands, the RS-2477 roads, if you will. Just as the floods destroyed much of the property of the people in the upper Midwest and in California earlier this year, this rider is designed to destroy much of the wilderness and the public lands in the United States. The reason it is on this legislation is very simple. It could not pass the House of Representatives any other way and it cannot pass the Senate any other way. It may not even be able to get out of a Senate committee. Yet what we find is the sponsors of this measure are the chairs of those committees but they do not want to subject it to public scrutiny. They want to put it on a rider in appropriations that is supposed to speak to the desperate situation of people who have lost their homes, their lives, their property. That ought not to be allowed. This amendment ought not to be allowed. This amendment suggests that if you find any historical trail, any tracings of somebody going across public lands, that somehow that can then be exploited and turned into an improved road. Then of course that improved road is used to say that that land will not qualify for wilderness because it has a road on it. It is a little bit like the young man who killed his mother and father and then pleaded for mercy from the court because he was an orphan. This ought not to be allowed. This should be subjected to hearings in committees. This should be subjected to a full debate in the House of Representatives where it will be overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis rejected. But the senior Senator from Alaska decides that he would rather hold the flood victims hostage. The senior Senator from Alaska has decided rather than have open debate, he would rather stick it into a bill for people in a desperate situation. Point of Order

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Although there are other reasons to oppose this budget agreement, I did want to highlight the progress that the conferees have made in regard to the provision of funds for the acquisition of lands for our national system of parks, refuges, forests, and public lands. In recent years the administration has failed to request, and the Congress has failed to appropriate, adequate funding for Federal and State land acquisition for conservation and recreation. Despite a growing backlog of needs and willing sellers who desire that their lands be used for public purposes, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has not been used as intended for conservation purposes. Oil and gas revenues from offshore leasing, which are by law dedicated to the fund, have been coming at a rate of $900 million annually, accumulating to total of over $12 billion in the current fiscal year. Yet the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997 for the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management was only $179 million. The popular State Grant Program, which has been used to build recreation facilities across the country, has been zeroed out entirely. Land acquisition is a vital part of our efforts to safeguard public health and enhance the environmental assets of the Nation. Many municipal drinking systems depend on pristine watersheds for clean water which can be protected by acquisition of forested lands. Threats to fish and wildlife species can be mitigated by acquiring prime refuge habitat. Acquisition for park enhancement can contribute to growth of the recreation industry, which already provides many more land- dependent jobs than logging, grazing, and mining. Tens of millions of fishermen and hunters depend on access to clean public waters and productive public lands. The conference report has responded to these needs by including the President's budget requests for land acquisition, State assistance, and Everglades restoration as protected domestic discretionary priorities. The Interior Appropriations Subcommittee deserves a greater section 602(b) allocation of funds than it has received in the past, for these and other important priorities. In addition, the budget agreement includes $700 million over and above the President's requests for priority land acquisition. I applaud Chairman Kasich for this commitment of resources. This offers a much more sensible alternative to the complicated asset and land exchanges that have been proposed by the administration to acquire the Headwaters Redwood Forest in California and to protect Yellowstone National Park ecosystem by eliminating the threat of pollution from the New World mine. We have seen extraordinary success in Alaska with over 500,000 acres of land acquisition and conservation easements acquired by using funds provided through the Exxon Valdez settlement trust. The resources provided by the budget agreement can and should be used to duplicate that success across the country. This is a good step forward toward better utilization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the future.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1420. As my colleagues are aware, I opposed bills last Congress and again in this Congress that would have harmed the 92-million-acre national wildlife refuge system by making recreational uses a purpose of the system and by establishing a process for determining compatible uses that favored some activities over others. These bills also placed new restrictions on the Fish and Wildlife Service in acquiring and managing refuge lands that would have impeded its ability to conserve fish and wildlife. However, this compromise resolves those concerns in a way that I hope will satisfy the diversity of users of our wildlife refuges, from bird watchers to duck hunters. This bill represents a bona fide compromise that resulted from concessions on both sides. I think perhaps the most important result of this process has been the realization by environmentalists and hunters that many of their interests really do coincide in the long run. The goals they seek and the activities they enjoy are all dependent on our assuring that there are abundant, healthy wildlife populations. I believe H.R. 1420 accomplishes that. First and foremost, H.R. 1420 builds a solid foundation for managing the refuge system by making conservation the singular, fundamental mission of the system. In support of the mission, the bill requires conservation plans to be developed for each refuge and requires the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and health of the system are protected. The bill establishes a well-defined process for deciding what uses are compatible with wildlife conservation and the purposes of each refuge. Importantly, no use is allowed on a refuge until it has been determined that the use will not have a tangible adverse impact on the conservation mission of the system or the purposes of the refuge where the activity will take place. Once permitted, compatible activities remain subject to appropriate regulation. In addition, H.R. 1420 acknowledges the excellent outdoor recreational opportunities provided to the public by the refuge system. The bill gives recreational uses that depend on wildlife--fishing, hunting, nature observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation--priority over other uses of the system. Of course, these important recreational uses of the system are the result of sound wildlife conservation because they depend on abundant wildlife. As with any compromise, not every problem can be addressed to everyone's satisfaction. In particular, I want to express my concern that language directing the Secretary of the Interior to provide ``increased opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation'' not be taken as a directive to divert scarce operational funding for the construction of roads, visitor facilities and other amenities. Where appropriate, such amenities provide important public access to the system's wildlife resources, but wildlife and wildlife habitat should come first. There has also been considerable discussion about the definition of a refuge. The bill's definition is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service's interpretation of a refuge as an area in which the United States has a property interest. I think it is important to note that the United States may have an interest in refuge lands that extends beyond a property interest. However, any authority to protect that interest, to the extent it exists, is neither enhanced nor diminished by this legislation. I would like to commend Secretary Babbitt for taking the time and the initiative to bring disparate interests together to negotiate. I would also like to commend Messrs. Dingell and Young for their willingness to seek common ground. Although we initially disagreed on how to manage it, they never wavered in their support for the refuge system. The fragile coalition that was built to broker this compromise is likely to be sorely tested in the other body, but if we can hold it together, I believe the refuge system will be the better for it. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Many of the refuge system's past problems resulted from the individual refuges not being managed as part of a larger system. This bill builds on the original vision of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] of a true national wildlife refuge system. H.R. 1420 ensures that wildlife refuges, the only public lands dedicated to wildlife conservation, are properly managed and protected, while encouraging greater public appreciation of wildlife and use of the refuge system. Whether you like to shoot birds with a Browning or a Nikon, H.R. 1420 will enhance your appreciation and use of the refuge system. I urge the House to support the bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I was reading this weekend an article by Professor William Quirk of the University of South Carolina Law School, and he reminds us that in the year 2002, when the budget is supposed to be balanced, we will owe $450 billion in interest payments on a $7 trillion debt; and at that same time, the discussion is how much are we going to give away in tax cuts to individuals. No more important decision will be made by this Congress for future generations as to whether or not, when we engage in the process of cutting taxes, whether or not we can control ourselves and resist the political instinct to hand out goodies and to hand out tax cuts that are disguised in the first years and then only to explode in the later years and then to cause an explosion of the deficit that this Congress and this Nation has worked so hard to bring into balance. We have got to be very clear that tax cuts should go to those who need them the most and tax cuts should be constrained in their growth and that tax cuts should not upset the balance of the budget in the year 2002. Otherwise, we will end up in the situation as was pointed out in the Washington Post this last week that the budget would be balanced only to become instantly unbalanced all over again. That is not what the American people are asking us to do. They are asking us to bring this budget into balance and to keep it into balance and to force us to choose our priorities and not charge it off to future generations. Just as we should not charge off spending, we should not charge off the tax cuts to future generations. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the following article by William J. Quirk: The Earth Belongs to the Living (By William J. Quirk) The President and Congress have both promised us a balanced budget in the year 2002. The debt, at that time, will be somewhere between six and seven trillion dollars, which, assuming a seven percent interest rate, will cost close to $450 billion a year in interest. Each year, every year, forever. Is it plausible to think the new generation will pick up that perpetual burden? How can the country equitably deal the debt burden? Debt can only be disposed of in five ways: one, by paying if off; two, by repudiating it; three, by inflation--which is a veiled repudiation; four, by conquering the creditor to cancel the debt or conquering a third party to seize sufficient wealth to pay off the debt; or, five, by large real growth which makes the debt service a smaller share of a growing pie. If large real growth is unlikely, and conquest unpalatable, only the first three methods are available. The classic approach is inflation. The United States, since the Vietnam War, has used consistent inflation, usually around three percent, to reduce our debt. Inflation can be a successful method if no new debt is incurred, but continuing large deficits, and the new borrowing to cover them, have overwhelmed the tactic. The Founders, other than Hamilton, believed that a perpetual debt was incompatible with self-rule, since the current generation cannot be asked to pay for decisions they did not make. Thomas Jefferson, during his term, reduced the national debt by one-third despite paying cash to Napoleon for Louisiana. ``If we go to war now,'' Jefferson wrote to James Monroe in 1805, ``I fear we may renounce forever the hope of seeing an end of our national debt. If we can keep at peace eight years longer, our income, liberated from debt, will be adequate to any war, without new taxes or loans, and our position and increasing strength put us hors d'insulte from any nation.'' Jefferson, in 1804, listed cutting taxes, cutting expenses, and reducing the national debt as the highest accomplishment of his first term: ``To do without a land tax, excise, stamp tax, and the other internal taxes, to supply their places by economies so as still to support the government properly and to apply $7,300,000 a year steadily to the payment of the public debt.'' Jefferson foresaw that a debt policy, such as Hamilton fostered, would be complicated and promote the centralization of power. Jefferson wrote James Madison in 1796 that ``the accounts of the United States ought to be, and may be, made as simple as those of a common farmer, and capable of being understood by common farmers.'' Things did not turn out as Jefferson hoped. Our economists, unlike Jefferson, fail to distinguish between private borrowing and public borrowing: they think the issue is whether the annual income stream (tax revenues) is able to support the annual interest cost. But the real issue is whether a $450 billion annual charge-- with no return--is socially and politically sustainable. Does anyone think a 20-year-old earning $10 an hour, or $20,000 a year, can afford to pay $4,234 in federal and state income tax and Social Security tax? That amount, invested each year for 45 years at seven percent interest, would give a nest egg of $1,268,000. The present value of all the Social Security benefits he will receive, starting in 2041, assuming the system still exists, is an unimpressive $12,400. The present value of health benefits he will receive is $25,800, and of welfare benefits, $20,500. The difference between $59,700--the present value of all the benefits he will ever receive--and $1,268,000 is a very expensive government for someone making $10 an hour. Can a government survive when so many resources are allocated to pay for inherited liabilities? Can a moral, orderly society survive if it does? The debt, because of doubts on both scores, destroys the value of the currency. The fear is that history will probably repeat itself, and the country will stoke up inflation to reduce the effective burden of an unsupportable debt. Inflation may stay within bounds, as it has, barely, for the past 20 years. Or it may run out of control and destroy the currency as it did in Weimar Germany in 1923. The Weimar inflation destroyed the middle class, the basis of any democracy, and made way for Hitler. Either way, when the currency's value is unpredictable, individuals can't plan for a child's education, business cannot look very far ahead, and the country is disoriented. Jefferson, in a September 6, 1789, letter to James Madison, said he thought it self-evident ``that the earth belongs in usufruct [trust] to the living, that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.'' In 1823, Jefferson wrote to Thomas Earle, ``That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts.'' The current generation, in other words, holds the land as a life tenant does; he is entitled to cultivate the land and enjoy the fruits of it, but he can't hurt the interest of those who are to come after. He should turn the land over in the same condition he received it. Each generation is the steward for the earth during its lifetime. Assume, Jefferson wrote, that Louis XV borrowed so much from the bankers of Genoa that the interest on the debt came to equal the whole annual net profit of France: ``Should the present generation of Frenchmen deed their property to the Genoese creditors and leave their homeland? No. They have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generation had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature.'' No generation, by natural right, can oblige the next generation to pay its debts. If it could, it might, during its own time, ``eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the land would belong to the dead, and not the living.'' Jefferson concluded that it would be ``wise and just'' for the Constitution to declare that ``neither the legislature, nor the nation itself, can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.'' Not all borrowing, of course, leads to wasteful spending debt. Debt may be invested in beneficial infrastructure. The 1846 New York Constitutional Convention, applying Jeffersonian principles, provided that the state could contract no debt except by a law approved by a referendum. The debt, however, had to be for a single ``work or object'' and be accompanied by a new tax sufficient to pay interest and retire the debt within 18 years. Or the debt may be invested to acquire intangible assets--which the society considers beneficial--such as Pitt's Napoleonic Wars and our World War II and Cold War. But, because of the absence of checks, spending is far more likely to be wasteful when borrowing is permitted. If a country runs on a pay-as-you-go basis, whatever mistakes it makes will be paid for by those who made the mistakes. Moreover, the requirement of immediate payment for government programs acts as an efficient brake on governmental enthusiasm. Debt, since it requires no immediate taxes, removes the fundamental limitation that to fund a program for the benefit of one group, the money has to be taken from a different group. Under pay-as-you-go, the payers must currently pay what the payees will currently receive. The payers are apt to resist--the issue must be discussed--and some compromise reached. With a borrowing policy, as Jefferson saw, the rules are entirely different. The consent of the governed is not necessary. The executive proposes a program but now he meets no effective opposition, since the legislature is equally happy to spend money today that will have to be repaid by future taxpayers. The viciousness of the borrowing policy is that the taxpayer of tomorrow is not represented by any of the parties at the table. The burden is easily cast upon the unrepresented future. Programs can go forward that the current taxpayers are unwilling to pay for. Unpopular programs--such as the Vietnam War, the Great Society, and the Savings and Loan bailout--can move ahead. Of course, when programs go ahead without the consent of the governed, they are likely to tear the country apart. Jefferson believed that the debt-making power was too dangerous for the federal government. Since it could not be safely limited, it had to be prohibited. Jefferson wrote to John Taylor, on November 26, 1798: ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government of the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.'' (Emphasis added.) Jefferson said in 1816 that the people, ``not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our leaders load us with perpetual debt.'' If the leaders load us with such debt, we will then be taxed ``in our meat and in our drink'' till we must, like the English, live on ``oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow- sufferers.'' We will, at that point, ``have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the war of all against all.''

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, how disappointed the American public must have been on Thursday night when they saw the Republican leadership and the President of the United States come together to work the budget bill so to deny American communities the right to build the bridges and the highways that are so necessary if we are not going to continue to choke on the traffic. How disappointed the American public must have been when last night they learned that the Republican leadership and the Senate and the President of the United States came together to deny health care to millions of America's children for the sake of the budget agreement. How disappointed they must have been to see these two working hand in hand to deny us the ability to deal with the infrastructure problems of our communities and the health care of our children. So much for that bridge to the 21st century, and so much for the healthy children that we are supposed to walk across it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an important point. The fact is that the availability is there, as we have suggested, to renegotiate this. Half of the Mexican fleet, in fact, fishes dolphin-safe. The other half has chosen not to do that. And what they would prefer, rather than fish dolphin-safe, is to drive down the laws of the United States.