George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for that agreement. Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon we had general debate on this legislation, and I said at that time I would be offering an amendment. This is the amendment that I discussed during general debate. The purpose of this amendment is to get a fair appraisal of the value of this project before the Federal Government gives this project to the irrigation district. As some may remember from the general debate, in fact what we have here is we have an expenditure by the Federal Government of some $88 million, a portion of that which will be paid by power users to subsidize the power to the irrigation district and pay back some of the obligations to the Federal Government, and then the question of the $14 million that this irrigation district owes with respect to its repayment contract for this project. This is a project that has been plagued by problems, that has not operated in a manner in which the irrigators believe that it should but, in spite of all that, is delivering a benefit to the irrigators within this district. And I believe that before we turn this project over to those irrigators and to the beneficiaries of this expenditure of public moneys, we ought to have an independent appraisal as to the value of this project. If it turns out that the benefit and value have been diminished, so be it, they should pay us back a diminished value. What we ought not to do is to have the parties of interest get into a room and negotiate this and then decide that this is a fair deal when in fact we can end up with the irrigators of some 10,000 acres of orchards paying the Federal Government nothing for a project that is in fact delivering a benefit to them. During the general debate, the suggestion was that the Federal Government is on the hook for a lot of additional costs and that therefore we should settle this agreement. Those are allegations, I appreciate, in the complaints of the district. In its lawsuit they choose to sue the Federal Government rather than negotiate and correct this project and pay the value of those corrections, but we do not know whether or not the Federal Government is in fact on the hook for those. The Bureau of Reclamation has not admitted that in spite of the allegations that that is the suggestion. I think what this amendment does is it guarantees simply fair value for the taxpayers and a fair deal for the irrigation district, and I think that is important. In the past when we have had these problems, we have corrected them, the Federal Government has absorbed those costs, but we have not allowed people who continue to get a benefit to escape all of their obligations to the Federal Government. And the fact of the matter is that this district, even its O&M and others is in line with what other people in the area are paying and we ought not to make an exception in this case. I would hope that people would support this amendment on behalf of the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I find it rather interesting that the proponents of this legislation keep standing up and saying that there is no value to this project, but the beneficiaries of this project are willing to take this project, and they say they are going to have to spend millions of more dollars on this project, but they will take it anyway, because there is no value to it. The fact of the matter is there is value to this project. There may not be value to this project for people in Pennsylvania or California or Washington, DC, but to the beneficiaries this project, with the expenditure of over $88 million, Federal dollars, is delivering water to the land of the members of this irrigation district, and they are receiving an economic benefit from it, a gross income of about $3,000 an acre, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, and that is the benefit of this project. They can have the project. There is nothing in my amendment that does not let them have the project. They can have the project. All I want is an impartial appraisal as to the value of this project in its diminished state, if that is the case, and then pay the taxpayers for what they created for us. They keep saying no value, it is not worth anything. Yes, it is. It is delivering thousands of acres of feed of water to land that otherwise would not have it. That is why they came back here in 1952 and 1962 and 1976 and 1995 and 1996, because there is value. Mr. Chairman, what we ought to do is recognize two things: The project was not properly designed and this operation has been impaired and the value has been diminished, but what we ought to do is get an appraisal as to what that means and then ask the district to relieve the taxpayers of that burden. They can have the project, they can manage it, they can make the improvements if they want. So I think it does not quite add up when something has no value, but some are fighting so hard to take it, and then they say what they are giving up is millions of dollars in benefits that they could receive in the cost of a court case and millions of dollars in future expenditures, and they still want to take on the project. So there is something that does not ring true here. The fact that the Committee on the Budget has said that this is budget-neutral in an opinion, in a letter that they sent to the committee, they said, while seemingly perverse, this estimate may in fact accurately represent. Yes, it is perverse, when it is said to people who have refused to pay the Government what they owe them, then there is a finding that they probably would have never paid us; therefore, there is no budget implications. If we keep doing business that way, I say to my colleagues, we will end up with no money in the Federal Government. We do not say that to people who cannot pay their taxes or decide not to pay their taxes. We do not say that to people who do not want to pay for services rendered. But all of a sudden, they can say, we do not like this, we are not going to pay for it, and then the CBO comes along and says, because they did not pay for it, they probably will never pay for it, and therefore, we are not going to charge it against the Treasury. The fact of the matter is the Treasury is owed this money, these people signed a contract for this, this project is delivering a benefit, and what we ought to do now is simply protect the taxpayers in the process of transferring this project to the beneficiaries of it. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Miller amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. No, it is just me.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 412, the Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement and Conveyance Act. This district has yet to pay a dime toward the $14 million that it owes the taxpayers to repay their investment in the Oroville-Tonasket project. Yet this legislation would transfer the projects to the district for free and commit the Federal Government to continue to provide cheap power for pumping water through the year 2040, 45 years of additional subsidies to an irrigation district that is seeking now to get the project for free. While this irrigation district argues that these problems of the project should be corrected, the need to repair the project certainly does not justify giving it away and having the taxpayers absorb the loss. The taxpayers have spent $88 million to build this project, and the power users in the region from Bonneville and others will subsidize this with power to the extent of somewhere around $75 million. What we are arguing here is over $14 million which the district owes and has refused to pay because they have not liked the design and the problems that we are having with the project. But the fact of the matter is that this district, this project has been delivering a benefit to this irrigation district now for a number of years, and it certainly is envisioned that it will deliver a benefit to this district for the next 50 years. Ordinarily what we would do in this situation is we would sit down and we would discuss whether or not they have got all of the benefit that they felt that they were deserving of. We have been through this in the central Arizona project, and we have been through it on other reclamation projects. But in this situation what we now see is the suggestion that they should pay nothing for what they got. The fact of the matter is, why do they not give the project back? It was suggested by the chairman of the subcommittee that this is a lemon law, that you have to give the car back. Well, you would, you would give the car back and you would cease making payments. Here they keep the project. They continue to get the water. They continue to get the economic benefit somewhere around 8,000 to 10,000 acres of orchards, and the fact of the matter is now they seek not to pay for it. What my amendment suggests and what I will offer later when the House reconvenes is an amendment that says we ought to have an appraisal. We ought to determine the fair market value, take into consideration their arguments and let them pay that for the project. That may be net present value. That may be some other figure, but the taxpayers are entitled to have something back for the benefit that they bestowed on these individuals. Because the simple fact of the matter is that they are going to continue to get that benefit. Now, they will continue to get subsidized power. They will continue to get subsidized power for a long time. Why do we give people subsidized power? Because when we calculate these projects, the fact of the matter is that these farmers and others are not able to pay for this project. They could not have financed this back in 1962, they could not finance this in 1976, so what we do is we reach into the pockets of all of the other power users in the area and we say they have to pony up money so that these farmers can stay in business because they have to pay the Federal Government back. Now these people will not pay the Federal Government back, but they want to keep their hands in the pockets of the power users. Everybody else that gets subsidized power is in the business of paying the Government back. These people, in fact, are not going to pay the Government back. The point is that their costs are about the same as other districts in the region. Their O&M costs are about $35 an acre foot. That is consistent with what other projects in the region pay. So what is the extraordinary expense? What is the extraordinary detriment of this project that so diminishes the benefits that now the taxpayer is entitled to nothing from the beneficiaries of this project? I suspect what is so extraordinary is the Bureau of Reclamation is somewhat embarrassed by their design and the implementation of this plan. The farmers have them on a hook. They got into a room and they cut a fat hog in the rear. The point is that it is the public that is getting stuck. We are getting stuck because we are not getting repaid from the district. And those people who buy their power are paying higher rates for power because they are paying subsidized rates, they are dishing off subsidized rates to this district. This is not to punish this district, this is not to deny this district what they are fairly entitled to. It simply says before we give the project away, why do we not determine if, in fact, there is fair market value in this for the United States of America, which is financed by the taxpayers that we all represent. What we are saying is, have an appraisal, pick independent parties, let them make their determination and let the district decide whether or not they want to pay this. I think that is fairer to the taxpayers. I think it removes any notion of precedent by other projects that think that now maybe this is the way to do it. Just refuse to pay your bills and eventually the Federal Government says, ``Oh, forget it, you never were going to pay us so we will not collect anything from you.'' All those people paying their taxes on April 15 would like to know they could get such a deal; that they could get such a deal if they refused to pay their taxes over a period of years and then the Government says, ``Forget it, you guys probably never were going to pay us.'' So what do we do now? We bail out the deadbeats and the people that refuse to pay even though they are getting the benefit? I do not think that is what this Congress should be involved in. It is not a lot of money. It is $14 million. But it is $14 million, and if people are getting a benefit from that expenditure they should pay something back. We go after people on student loans who are in hardship, we go after people on welfare, we go after people on food stamps, we go after people who do not pay their taxes, but here we set up a structure and they decide ``We do not want to pay for this because we do not think it is worth it.'' They certainly thought it was worth it when they came to Congress in 1952, 1962, 1976, 1982, and in 1995 and 1996, and now in 1997. They think there is something worth it here. What is worth it is that they continue to get water to their lands to grow their crops to economically benefit from. And they should pay back the venture capitalist, the people of the United States, that put the money in up front. They ought to pay them back for the benefit that they are receiving. If that benefit is not 100 percent of what they thought it should be, then let the appraisers make that determination. I think what we should do is get the interested parties out of the room of cutting this deal, put some independent parties into the room in determining what the value is, and let the taxpayers receive that. Mr. Chairman, I will be offering that amendment when the House reconvenes for that purpose. If that amendment is not accepted, I would urge people to vote against this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the interpretation, the spin my learned colleagues would put on my remarks. I said this is about $14 million. Nobody has suggested that the district pay $14 million. What I have suggested is that we have some independent voices and an appraisal of what this district ought to pay for the benefit it received. As I said, it is not that these lands now lie fallow. It is not that these orchards are out of production. They are in fact engaged in raising crops and engaged in an economic benefit. If it is $4.2 million in the net present value for this project, maybe that is what they ought to pay. They can have the project, if that is what they want, if they want to have the project. All I am asking is, should they not pay something for the benefit they are receiving? My colleagues are using two words over there. One argues it is sort of substantially completed, but not completed, and then it is of no value. It is somewhere in between. If it is substantially completed, then you have an obligation for $14 million. If it is somewhat less than that, then you have an obligation somewhat less than that. This is not about punishing the district. It is about protecting the taxpayers on the way out. The Bureau has never acknowledged that it is $14 million or that this whole pipeline has to be replaced. That is not here, and the Bureau has not put a value on this project. That is my reason for opposing this legislation and for offering the amendment, that in fact that we get a realistic value, that we get a true value. The fact that this money is not going to be paid over 45 years, what we normally do with these districts when they want to buy out the project, when they want to buy out their obligations, we let them claim net present value of the project because the Government gets the value of having the money sooner. Nobody has suggested that is not the case here or could not be the case. I appreciate that both of my colleagues are wonderful counsels for the plaintiff in this case and are making their case. It is just not clear that their case accurately reflects the interest of the taxpayers in the granting of this millions of dollars of relief to the district. If you were not to do this, if it turns out that the $14 million is needed to rebuild, although the Bureau has not acknowledged it, that would be an obligation of the district under current law. It is not like that is an obligation you relieve us of. There is a repayment obligation. I just think this is about taxpayer equity. I will offer my amendment later, but let us just be clear on the figures. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to report sadly to the House of the passing yesterday of Ralph Santiago Abascal, one of the giants of the American legal profession, and a man I have been honored to call a close personal friend for three decades. Both in California and throughout the Nation, among those who advocate for the poor and within the Hispanic community, among environmentalists and farm workers, welfare recipients and the malnourished, Ralph Absacal will be remembered as a man of consummate legal skill, boundless optimism and formidable intellect. In a lifetime of advocacy for the financially destitute, the politically marginal, and the socially outcast, Ralph nevertheless displayed an expert's knowledge of the intricacies of the political world. I knew him first in Sacramento, when I was a staff person in the California State Senate and he was an activist attorney fighting for farm workers, the disabled and children. Our close relationship continued when I came to Congress in 1975 and we fought many of the same battles at the Federal level. Ralph was a valued and creative advisor. Our efforts to enforce reclamation law and end unjustified water subsidies in California's Central Valley laid the groundwork for massive reforms like the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the Bay-Delta process that, at long last, are rearranging California's water priorities and restore our State's decimated environment. Ralph was the early leader in the fight against unsafe pesticides that endangered consumers and farm workers, too. His pioneering legal work paved the way for the prohibition of DDT and the protection of groundwater from chemical contamination. His work on behalf of children guaranteed nutrition assistance, educational opportunities and equal access without regard to disability or ethnicity. For some, I suspect, Ralph Absacal's career was about chasing rainbows. But Ralph caught a fair number of those rainbows, and ours is a far safer, far more just, and far cleaner world because of his tireless efforts. He stands as a giant in terms of his fight for the poor and the disenfranchised people of America. It is perhaps his greatest legacy that millions of those whose lives will be forever improved by his life's labors never even heard his name, never knew that he spent decades arguing on their behalf in the courtrooms, in the legislative chambers and in the streets. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members of the House of Representatives join me in mourning the loss of one of America's great advocates and attorneys, and extend to his widow, Beatrice Moulton, and their daughter Pilar.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think if the gentleman wants to discuss paperwork reduction, we can think of all of those corporations and all of those small businesses that are getting hit with subpoenas and interrogatories about whether or not they are a small business, whether or not they exist, whether or not the person that gave the money and their name is really a real person, whether the business is real or not. Mr. Speaker, the point is this: The top priority of this Congress ought to be to get its house in order, and the cancer that is spreading throughout this institution and is spreading throughout our Government is the lack of decent, open, and fair ways to finance our campaigns. The current system is broken, it is corrupting of this institution, it is corrosive of our democratic institutions. The American people deserve something better, and we deserve an answer from the Republicans as to a date certain when they will bring campaign finance reform to the floor of the House of Representatives so this House can work its will. There is no question but there is a majority of people on this floor to reform the existing system. We should not be denied an opportunity to do that, and we ought to rearrange the priorities of this Congress. We have been here now 3 months and we have rarely been in session. Yet somehow we cannot find time to deal with this most urgent matter in terms of the preserve of the best of our democratic institutions, the integrity of this House and the freedom of the American people to have a fair election and a fair outcome.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if I may continue----

Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I too agree with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip, who was just in the well, that this is about our priorities and this rule is about our priorities and the previous question will be about our priorities. One hundred and eleven Members of this Congress at the beginning of this year or even before the first of this year, on a bipartisan basis, wrote to the Speaker of the House and asked that we have campaign finance reform in the first 100 days of this session of Congress. We are awaiting an answer from the Speaker on that issue. The silence is deafening. At the same time, we see the minority leader in the Senate, [Mr. Daschle], has made campaign finance reform the top issue in their agenda and has asked the majority leader to do the same. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], minority leader in this House, has asked that we consider this within the first 100 days. President Clinton has called for action by July 4. Yet we hear nothing from the Republican leadership about campaign finance reform. Again, the silence is not only deafening, it is paralyzing us and an ability to deal with a system that the American public has come to disrespect, to understand is corrosive, to understand is corrupting, and yet we see nothing from the Republican side of the aisle to deal with campaign finance reform. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a letter signed by 112 Members of Congress to Speaker Newt Gingrich and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt calling for a commitment to bring campaign finance reform legislation to the House floor by the 100th of this Congress. In the previous Congress we saw how much could be accomplished in 100 days with the political will to do so. In this Congress, under Republican leadership, we have accomplished precious little to date this year. Worst of all, there has been nothing but silence from the Republican leadership on the need for reform of our campaign finance laws. Speaker Gingrich has not responded to our letter. However, others have called for fast action. The President has called for action by July 4. The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, called for action early in the year. Democratic Leader Gephardt has called for action within 100 days, as have over 100 other House Members. We must bring this issue to a vote early or it will be delayed until it cannot be brought forward at all. I urge my colleagues to pressure the Republican leadership to commit to bringing a reform bill to the floor. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 6, 1997. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, Hon. Richard Gephardt, Democratic Leader. Dear Sirs: I am respectfully submitting to you additional signatures gathered during the Holidays from our colleagues urging you to schedule substantive campaign finance reform during the first 100 days of this Congress. We must not let the congressional schedule kill reform as it has in the past. For your information, I am also enclosing the original letter we submitted to you on November 20. With this second letter, 112 Members from both parties are calling for fast action on this urgent issue. I hope that we will be able to accommodate this public priority. Sincerely, George Miller, M.C.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I am cosponsoring the Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1997, a timely bill that reflects a carefully crafted compromise between the interests of Indian tribes seeking to protect their culture and heritage and the interests of non-Indians seeking greater clarity and security in the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. This bill is virtually the same bill that I cosponsored last year along with the chairman of the Resources Committee, Representative Don Young, and the bill is the direct result of several high-profile adoption cases involving the adoption of Indian children. These cases, involving lengthy disputes under the Indian Child Welfare Act, focused our attention on whether the act fairly, and to the greatest degree possible, took into account the best interests of the children, the parents, and the tribes. In the last Congress, early attempts to rectify these problems were misdirected and would have amended the Indian Child Welfare Act to severely limit its scope and the protections it affords Indian children, parents, and tribes. The first proposed amendments to the act were drafted without any input at all by Indian tribes or by members of the committee of jurisdiction, the Resources Committee. The amendments survived a close vote on the House floor, but failed to make it out of committee in the Senate. Recognizing the need for legislation, however, we immediately initiated discussions with Indian tribes to lay the foundation for compromise legislation. The tribes in turn prepared draft legislation that was then shared and negotiated with adoption professionals, including attorneys, who ultimately endorsed the new legislation. Proponents of the compromise legislation now include the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys and Jane Gorman, the attorney who represented the family in the Rost case. This bill is intended to strengthen the act, to protect the lives and future of Indian children first and foremost. This bill was crafted not only with the input of the tribes but also with the input of the attorney for the Rost family, whose well-publicized case was one of the adoption cases that sparked this debate. We understand that to a few parties on either side of the debate this bill may not seem perfect. Few compromises are. But what this bill does is truly important. This bill helps Indian children by providing allowing adoptions to move forward quickly and with greater certainty. This bill places limitations on when Indian tribes and families may intervene in the adoption process. Yet at the same time, this bill protects the fundamental rights of tribal sovereignty. The point is that this bill places the interests of Indian children above all else, first by ensuring that they will have as equal a chance as any other children at having a loving family and a home and second, by protecting their interests in their own culture and heritage. For the benefit of those new to this debate, I would like to provide a short background of the events that led to the enactment of the original Indian Child Welfare Act and what the new amendments that I and Chairman Young are proposing would do. The Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA] was enacted in 1978 in response to the widespread removal of Indian children from Indian families and placement with non-Indian families or institutions. Prior to ICWA, House hearings yielded information which demonstrated that between 1969 and 1974, 25 to 35 percent of all Indian children had been separated from their families and placed in adoptive families, foster care, or institutions. The Resources Committee reported in 1978 that ``[t]he wholesale separation of Indian children from their families is perhaps the most tragic and destructive aspect of American Indian life today.'' In 1978, Chief Calvin Isaac of the Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians testified at hearings before the House about the cause for the large removal of Indian children: One of the most serious failings of the present system is that Indian children are removed from the custody of their natural parents by nontribal government authorities who have no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and social premises underlying Indian home life and childrearing. Many of the individuals who decide the fate of our children are at best ignorant of our cultural values, and at worst contemptful of the Indian way and convinced that removal, usually to a non-Indian household or institution, can only benefit an Indian child. Removal of Indian children from Indian families led not only to social harm to the Indian parents and adopted children, but also to harm to the tribes who were essentially losing their own members. Chief Isaac added that-- Culturally, the chances of Indian survival are significantly reduced if our children, the only real means for the transmission of the tribal heritage, are to be raised in non-Indian homes and denied exposure to the ways of their People. Furthermore, these practices seriously undercut the tribes' ability to continue as self-government communities. Congress enacted ICWA to address these concerns, declaring that ``it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families * * *.'' 25 U.S.C. 1902. Furthermore, Congress ``has assumed the responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and their resources'' and ``that there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.'' 25 U.S.C. 1901 (2), (3). It is worth pointing out that Congress enacted ICWA in recognition of two equally important interests--that of the Indian child, and that of the Indian tribe in the child. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court in the Holyfield case highlighted the latter interest, saying: The protection of this tribal interest is at the core of ICWA, which recognizes that the tribe has an interest in the child which is distinct but on a parity with the interest of the parents. One result of the passage ICWA has been the development and implementation of tribal juvenile codes, juvenile courts tribal standards, and child welfare services. Today, almost every Indian tribe provides child welfare services to their own children. Recent studies indicate that ICWA has had a positive effect in redressing the wrongs caused by the removal of Indian children from their families. In 1978, Congress found evidence that state courts and child welfare workers placed over ninety percent of adopted American Indian children in non-Indian homes. Sixteen years later, studies indicate that less than 60 percent are adopted by non-Indians. Note, When Judicial Flexibility Becomes Abuse of Discretion: Eliminating the Good Cause Exception in Indian Child Welfare Act Adoptive Placements, 79 Minn. L. Rev. 1167, 1167-68 (1995). A 1987 report revealed an overall reduction in foster care placement in the early 1980's after enactment of the Act. See Note, The Best Interests of Indian Children in Minnesota, 17 American Indian L. Rev. 237, 246-47 (1992). A 1988 report indicated that ICWA had motivated courts and agencies to place greater numbers of Indian children into Indian homes. Id. In other words, ICWA is starting to work well. Indian children have been placed in loving homes and the removal of children from their culture has diminished. Unlike other minority cases, there is no shortage of families willing to adopt Indian children. Less than one- half of one-tenth of all Indian adoption cases since passage of ICWA have caused problems. Although ICWA gives tribes the right to play a role in all cases involving their own children, unfortunately, the law does not always require that parents, their attorneys, or adoption agencies notify the courts or the tribes when such a case is pending. The problem is that some in the adoption profession fear that by notifying the courts that an Indian child is involved in an adoption proceeding, they either will bog down the proceedings or scare off potential adoptive parents. Often, the tribes are given no notification while parties to the adoption are encouraged to conceal the child's Indian identity, causing the number of cases where the intent of the law has been skirted to multiply rapidly. The consequences of this noncompliance can lead to emotionally troubling results for everyone involved. The bill that I am cosponsoring corrects these problems. Here's exactly what the bill does. The Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1997 would provide Indian tribes with notice of voluntary adoption proceedings. Currently, the Act requires that tribes receive notice of involuntary proceedings but not voluntary proceedings. The bill would also limit when and how Indian tribes and families can intervene in Indian adoption cases. Tribes would only be permitted to intervene, first, within 30 days of notification of a termination of parental rights proceeding, second, within 90 days of notification of an adoptive placement, or third, within 30 days of notification of an adoptive proceeding. A tribal waiver of its right to intervene will be considered final. Furthermore, a tribe seeking to intervene must provide a certification that the Indian child is, or is eligible to become, a member of the tribe. The bill would also limit the period of time within which Indian birth parents can withdraw their consent to adoption or termination of parental rights. A birth parent can only withdraw consent to adoption up to 30 days after commencement of adoption proceedings, up to 6 months after notification to the tribe if no proceedings have begun, or up to the entry of a final adoption order, whichever comes first. The bill also encourages tribes and adoptive families to enter into voluntary open adoptions and visitation arrangements and authorizes such arrangements in States that prohibit such arrangements. Finally, the bill applies penalties for fraud and misrepresentation by applying criminal sanctions to persons, other than birth parents, who attempt to hide the fact that an Indian child is the subject of a child custody proceeding or that one of the child's parents is an Indian. I believe that these provisions are fair and will encourage, not prevent, the placement of Indians in caring homes and families. Some have tried to blame the few but well-publicized failures on the Indians, some have concluded that rolling back the ICWA is necessary to prevent future miscarriages of justice, and some have even asserted that they are doing it with the best interests of the Indian at heart. But Indian people have heard claims like these all too many times before. We understand how hard it must be for them to live with this rhetoric, especially when the stakes are so high. We must all bear in mind that from an Indian perspective, it is the very future of their people and their culture that is at stake. It is time for non-Indians to understand that Indian families are not necessarily opposed to other people raising their children and giving them loving homes. But it is even more critical that they understand that Indian people must have a voice in these adoptions and that their voices be heard for the good of everyone. Although we in Congress are often the first to prescribe what is best for American Indians, we usually fail in our attempts to deliver on our promises, largely due to our unwillingness to listen to the very people we're trying to help. I have listened to the tribes, and to the families this time and I believe that the Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1997 is a fair and balanced approach that can bring peoples and cultures together, not divide them apart.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the United States and the United Nations should condemn fishing practices that are harmful to coral reef ecosystems and promote the development of sustainable coral reef fishing practices worldwide. Coral reefs are vital to the environment and the economy of many island and coastal nations. They are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems on Earth, rivaling the tropical rainforests on land. The hard structure of the reef is built up over thousands of years by the secretions of the tiny living coral animals. So, a coral reef is truly a living structure. And, as a living structure, thousands--perhaps millions--of individual coral animals are dying and others are taking their place on the reef at any one time. The problem is that now human activities have shifted that balance and coral reefs are dying off at an alarming rate worldwide. Corals are very sensitive to water pollution, sedimentation, damage from boat groundings, and even simple physical contact by divers. These largely inadvertent injuries are a significant cause of the well-documented decline of coral reefs worldwide. Coral reefs are, in a sense, the canary in the coal mine of the oceans. A great deal of injury is being inflicted on coral reefs, mainly in Southeast Asia, through easily preventable, largely illegal fishing techniques. Cyanide, other poisons, and surfactants like dishwashing liquids, are being used to stun and capture fish for the aquarium trade and for the live food fish trade. These chemicals kill nearby coral, and divers scrambling to get fish out of nooks and crannies in the reef often inflict further damage on the reef. Although illegal virtually everywhere, dynamite is still being used on some reefs to stun or kill fish. Afterwards, they float to the surface where they are easily harvested. The effect on the reef is obviously devastating. Most of the aquarium fish captured in this way end up in hobbyists' tanks in the United States. Most of the live food fish end up on plates in the homes and restaurants of Southeast Asia. Although the State Department, NOAA, Department of the Interior, and other agencies are working, through the International Coral Reef Initiative, to identify and reduce threats to coral reefs, they need our help. These kinds of unsustainable fishing practices would not be occurring if powerful market forces were not at work. United States and Asian consumer demand for reef fish is, in part, driving the destruction of coral reefs. Yet how many aquarium hobbyists would purchase a wild-caught reef fish if they truly understood that in doing so, they were aiding the destruction of the reef environment that they sought to reproduce in their tank. Furthermore, if affordable alternatives to wild-caught fish were available, wouldn't the educated consumer choose them? This has worked very well in the exotic bird trade; we could do the same for reef aquarium specimens. Many of the countries where the reefs are being destroyed--Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and others--have laws on the books protecting their reefs. But there is little money for enforcement, and the more lucrative the market, the more people are willing to risk the penalties in any case. So the keys are information and education. Only by identifying these destructive practices and the consumer demands that drive them can we begin to eliminate or modify them. And only through the development of sustainable coral reef fisheries can the reefs be saved. That is what the resolution I am introducing today seeks to do. It is intended to raise the issue of these destructive fishing practices and associate them with the consumer demand that is driving them. It is intended to bring this issue before Congress and before the United Nations, raise the level of awareness of policymakers, and ask us to do more. The scientific and environmental communities have declared 1997 the International Year of the Coral Reef. We cannot stop ships from running aground on reefs and we may not be able to stop global warming. But what better time for us to pay attention to the global plight of coral reefs, and seek practical solutions to those threats that we can address. If we don't do something soon, there may not be any reefs left to save.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

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